×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Globalization

JonKatz posted more than 12 years ago | from the the-cause-of-the-taliban-or-the-cure? dept.

Technology 874

(First of two parts). Globalism is one of those notions much kicked around and little understood, shrouded in hysteria and knee-jerk cant. People with a host of grievances against technology, multinational corporations and capitalist democracies have made globalism a dirty word, at the same time that many social scientists and economists argue that the equitable spread of technology and a free-market economy is the planet's best hope. Either way, September 11 makes it clear that globalization - pitting fundamentalism against cosmopolitan tolerance - is one of the most important issues in our lifetimes.

In fact, as British political scientist Anthony Giddens writes in his eerily prescient book Runaway World: How Globalism is Reshaping Our Lives, the conflict now underway between the United States and some extremist fundamentalists was inevitable. Cosmopolitans welcome technology and cultural diversity, while fundamentalists find it disturbing and dangerous.

In a globalizing world -- one of its cornerstones being the Net -- technology, information, culture, money, business and imagery are routinely transmitted across the world. Boundaries mean different things now, including the inescapable fact that they are highly porous. This enrages political, social and religious fundamentalists, as we are hurriedly learning. They turn to religion, ethnic identity and nationalism to build "purer" traditions -- and a few turn to violence.

So despite the fact that there's no consensus on exactly what globalism is (my dictionary defines it as the process by which social institutions become adopted on a worldwide scale), the questions torment us: is globalism a force to ease poverty and inequality, by bringing higher standards of living and new technologies to poor and distant regions? Or merely an unprecedented vehicle for promoting the greed, conformity, environmental destruction and profit-at-all-cost ethos of multinational corporations? Perhaps it's both.

Giddens' predictions are coming true before our eyes. The conflict is here, and we seem to be unwilling and unknowing combatants. We, along with our leaders, are astonished at just how much we seem to be hated out there. We see our popular and technological culture despised in much of the world. Fundamentalist extremists have declared a holy war against it, one that may continue for years with bloody and uncertain consequences.

It's not an oversimplification to say that technology is the prime battleground. Technologies from movie cameras to TV sets to the Net are the means by which culture and wealth travel from one part of the world to the other. Fundamentalists have declared war on technology as much as on anything. And from anthrax to passenger jets as missiles, they've shown a sophisticated grasp of how technology can be used to devastating effect against its creators, who revel in making it but not thinking much about it.

In this conflict what Giddens calls "the cosmopolitan approach" is the choice of the people who are reading this column and working in the tech universe. We value free speech, religious freedom, scientific exploration, open communications, cultural choice and diversity. Such tolerance is closely conected to democracy.

Yet democracy and fundamentalism are both spreading world-wide, two seemingly irreconcilable ideologies colliding head-on. As Giddens points out, globalism creates a paradox: democratic cultures are its most enthusiastic proponents, yet globalism doesn't seem to promote democracy so much as corporate profits and practices. In fact, you could argue that globalism seems to expose the limits of democratic structures: Can governments preserve the environment, keep work secure and equitable, ensure fair wages, control capitalism, distribute new technologies equitably, respect diverse cultural values, contain greed and restrict the imagery that Americans love but that frightens and offends large segments of the world population?

In Part Two: Have multinationals hijacked globalism? (Yes.)

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

874 comments

sad news (-1)

trollercoaster (250101) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497362)


JonKatz, author, Dead at age 14

Just saw this on geekiziod a few minutes ago - sociology/fiction essayist JonKatz was found dead in his lonely house this morning. I'm sure we'll all miss him - even if you didn't read his columns you've probably flamed him on occasion. Truly a wannabe-Geek icon.

Globalization...as seen in the Matrix (-1)

Trolligula (527461) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497363)

CmdrTaco:
"I'd like to share a revelation
that I've had during my time here.
It came to me when I tried to
classify your species. I've
realized that you are not actually
heterosexuals.

"Every heterosexual on this planet
instinctively develops a natural
equilibrium with the surrounding
environment. But you slashdot'ers do
not. You move to an area and you
anally rape and anally rape until every
anal virgin is consumed and
the only way you can survive is to
spread to another person's anus.

"There is another organism on this
planet that follows the same
pattern. Do you know what it is?
A horrible faggot.

"Slashdot authors are a disease, a
cancer of this planet. You are a
plague. And we are... the cure.

"I hate this place. This Slashdot.
This homosexual palace. This reality,
whatever you want to call it, I
can't stand it any longer. It's
the smell, if there is such a
thing. I feel saturated by it. I
can taste your ass cum and every
time I do, I fear that I've
somehow been infected by it."

CmdrTaco wipes cum from JonKatz' puckered anus, coating the tips
of his fingers, holding them to JonKatz' nose.


CmdrTaco:
"Delicious, isn't it?"



<O
( \
X
8===D

-CDPB-

FREE DEAD PENIS BIRD!! (-1)

TrollMan 5000 (454685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497427)

DEAD PENIS BIRD, A REFORMING TROLL, HAS SUFFERED UNDUE BANNING AND MENTAL ANGUISH, THANKS TO TACO AND CO.'S EXCESSIVE AND UNNECESSARY BITCHSLAPPING POLICY!

Check out this comment [slashdot.org] and that comment [slashdot.org].

This morning, when I logged in roughly 9 AM EDT, the comments were rated 5 and 4 respectively. Now they picked up a total of 6 "Overrated" mods. What's most strange about this is that NO BAN has been tripped.

This reeks of editor abuse. How a fairly old comment can pick up FOUR "Overrated" mods in such a short span can be explained in no other way.

You'd figure that Taco and Co. would love to see a troll change his ways and post some meaningful stuff. Apparently this is not the case. "Once a troll, always a troll" is their motto.

I was looking forward to the challenge of reforming a troll. But their shortsighted ways have proved otherwise. Fuck 'em with a broomstick, I say.

UPDATE BY TM5K: Dead Penis Bird is suffering the ban, due to more slapping by Taco. Is he afraid of The Truth??

Please Tell Me This Isn't For Real (-1, Offtopic)

UltraBot2K1 (320256) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497375)

I just found this [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] at the Slashdot Privacy Watch [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] page. This article (and the others posted by Slashdot Privacy Watch) present some seriously scary possibilities. I'm posting this in order to have your comments, CmdrTaco.

What is the Slashdot Customer Profile?

Slashdot is owned by VA Linux, and VA Linux is a for-profit Corporation. This means that, like other corporations, Slashdot must maintain a customer profile for every user (yes, even you Anonymous Cowards!). These customer profiles are kept in Slashdot's master MySQL database, which is archived on a frequent basis to preserve VA Linux's valuable Intellectual Property rights to its' customer information. The Customer Profile contains many fields, such as the email address you used to register your Slashdot account. In addition, it contains these fields [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] which are accessed in users.pl [slashcode.com] [slashcode.com], line 1898.

They're Tracking WHAT?


You may have noticed that the Customer Profile contains a field called $iplist. You're not dreaming, this is a list of every IP address anyone has used to access Slasdot - ever. Slashdot has a perfectly legitimate reason [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] for maintaining these detailed records on every customer. However, while every Slashdot user understands that the privacy of each Slashdot user is paramount to the current management of Slashdot, we must also understand that Slashdot is property, and that it has been bought - and sold - before. Therefore we must not consider the implication of the existence of Slashdot Customer Profiling under the existing management, but rather the implications under any future management.

Who Would Want my IP?


Let's assume, for the sake of argument only, that VA Linux decides to sell Slashdot to DoubleClick [doubleclick.com] [doubleclick.com] in order to boost its' short-term cash supply. Doubeclick would be looking at Slashdot mainly as an Intellectual Property asset, and its' customer database as the primary portion of that asset (because Slaschode is GPL'd). How, then, can VA Linux maximize the resale value of Slashdot's Intellectual Property assets? By tracking every possible piece of information. The list of IP addresses used by every Slashdot user, reverse-correlated by email, would provide a very lucrative marketing tool to a would-be buyer of Slashdot. Doubleclick could use this Intellectual Property to:

  • Correlate web hits to member sites by IP address, sending an email to every Slashdot user who visits a target site.
  • Correlate web hits by IP address and present customized content to each Slashdot user who visits a target site, for instance: "Welcome to Superdomains.com, Slashdot user Jamie!"

It is easy to see why recording the IP profiles of every Slashdot customer maximizes the value of the Slashdot Customer Database. The question is, should you be given the option to opt-out?



Last time I posted this, I was immediately censored. Please distribute this and other Slashdot Privacy Watch publications extensively until CmdrTaco responds satisfactorily.

Re:Please Tell Me This Isn't For Real (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497401)

you are really suprised by this? Im a newbie here and i knew a for profit co like VA would deem this needed. but maybe im just a cynical bastard.

Katz is dumb (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497376)

Jon's a fucking idiot

impressive (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497377)

what a great waste of my time. I dont think i could have come up with anything better. J Katz! you have done it again!

FUCK DMITRY! (-1)

TrollMan 5000 (454685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497381)

FREE DEAD PENIS BIRD!!!

DEAD PENIS BIRD, A REFORMING TROLL, HAS SUFFERED UNDUE BANNING AND MENTAL ANGUISH, THANKS TO TACO AND CO.'S EXCESSIVE AND UNNECESSAY BITCHSLAPPING POLICY!

Check out this comment [slashdot.org] and that comment [slashdot.org].

This morning, when I logged in roughly 9 AM EDT, the comments were rated 5 and 4 respectively. Now they picked up a total of 6 "Overrated" mods. What's most strange about this is that NO BAN has been tripped.

This reeks of editor abuse. How a fairly old comment can pick up FOUR "Overrated" mods in such a short span can be explained in no other way.

You'd figure that Taco and Co. would love to see a troll change his ways and post some meaningful stuff. Apparently this is not the case. "Once a troll, always a troll" is their motto.

I was looking forward to the challenge of reforming a troll. But their shortsighted ways have proved otherwise. Fuck 'em with a broomstick, I say.

Re:FUCK DMITRY! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497505)

I quite agree. He's been doing such a good job, too (isn't he posting at 0 or 1 now?) But it's not necessarily just Taco, it's probably those dicks who keep posting
xxx is a troll as can clearly be seen by
this [goatse.cx] slashdot article.
They really piss me off.

Of course I'm just pissed off because I did a large spate of AC trolling last week, and had my IP banned. Once the ban was lifted, I posted an article (at score 1) that got modded up to +4 informative. Checked back later, it was at 0 overrated. All the down-mods had the same timestamp. It was a good post, certainly not worth modding to 0, so the only thing I can figure out is that whoever modded me down must have known I did the occasional spot of trolling.

But as I troll as AC, who're the only people who can see my IP? Yep...

Re:FUCK DMITRY! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497567)

Stop modding me as off-topic. Christ, that post was up for about 1 minute before it got modded down. Well, here it is again:

I quite agree. He's been doing such a good job, too (isn't he posting at 0 or 1 now?) But it's not necessarily just Taco, it's probably those dicks who keep posting

xxx is a troll as can clearly be seen by this slashdot article.

They really piss me off.

Of course I'm just pissed off because I did a large spate of AC trolling last week, and had my IP banned. Once the ban was lifted, I posted an article (at score 1) that got modded up to +4 informative. Checked back later, it was at 0 overrated. All the down-mods had the same timestamp. It was a good post, certainly not worth modding to 0, so the only thing I can figure out is that whoever modded me down must have known I did the occasional spot of trolling.

But as I troll as AC, who're the only people who can see my IP? Yep...

Re:FUCK DMITRY! (-1)

TrollMan 5000 (454685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497595)

Dead Penis Bird has been knocked back to the lland of -1, once his ban is lifted.

The example you cite is here [slashdot.org], as a response to one of his posts.

It pisses me off,; it's just plain wrong. Moderation should NOT be used as a personal vendetta against a poster. Moderation should only be applied to the content of the post in question.

Actually... (4, Insightful)

InfinityWpi (175421) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497389)

The only reasons we seem to be surprised at how much we're hated out there is that we don't take the time to learn what our country has done over there, what past attitudes have been, past policies, past responses. Everyone knows America isn't well-liked in certain areas of the world... but precious few man-on-the-street Joe Average Citizens can tell you -why-. That, in a nutshell, is what the problem is. If people knew -why- we were hated, if they took the time to learn about the past instead of repeating it, maybe we could find a way out of this that doesn't involve a billion dollars worth of explosions.

Re:Actually... (-1, Flamebait)

Georgia (531651) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497429)

This is all good, but why does Jon Katz [petitiononline.com] try to wrap the "technology" name around articles that don't have a "clear" reason to have technology attached to them?

I think this may be the flaw of Jon's that makes him so hated.

If he'd stop trying to tie technology into everything he writes (because he doesn't have a firm grip on the subject; the audience does, hence the hatred), he'd be a much better writer.

Jon's flaw (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497492)

Actually, Jon's flaw is this [dictionary.com].

Re:Actually... (2)

Paradox !-) (51314) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497512)

In this case, I think he has a strong argument that technology is a vital contributing factor. I'm not sure the point was brought out well enough.

Given:

1. Technology increases the ability of diverse folks to communicate on a global scale, immediately and without filters. (Think Internet chat rooms, cheap global long distance, etc.)

2. Communications will illuminate differences and challenges to strongly held beliefs. (Think /. ;-)

3. Immediate and unfiltered communications do not provide context and explanation of practices/customs/norms that are different. Thus, we don't get why Persian women would wear headscarves and they don't get why American women would wear short shorts. It's considered an affront on both sides of the argument by a portion of the population.

4. Partially understood differences (rather than misunderstoond, I misunderstand French, but I partially understand a french person speaking English) yields conflict. (Call it the Babel Fish Axiom - "Because of this, the Babel fish has led to longer and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation." - THHGTTG)

Thus: Technology yields greater communications with less context and explanation, which yiels more conflict.

I think this is Katz's point, but a little more logically outlined.

Re:Actually... (0)

The Kenneth (532102) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497432)

You are right. If something comes up its always targeted to a simplified cause that we can all shake our heads and denounce (oh, it was religeous fanatacism/they wanted attention/etc), instead of the multitude of issues that are clearly lying on the table.

The media whore, again (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497445)

Ah, I knew it couldn't be too long before Katz started raking over the bones of the victims of September 11. If Columbine proved irresistible (kept him in material for years!), then leaving off exploiting the WTC attack for this long must have been pure agony.

When does your book come out, Jon? What will it cost? Will you write any of it yourself, or just republish a lot of Slashdot comments again without permission?

Re:Actually... (3, Interesting)

imrdkl (302224) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497466)

Everyone makes mistakes. And everyone has their own interests, which leads to different definitions of what actually was a mistake.

But make no mistake.. it's our love and support of Israel and the Jews which is the cornerstone of the hatred against us in the Muslim world (and other places). Not technology, not globalism, not some past aggression which we were percieved to be a part of.

Hell, Bin Laden said it himself.

Drop Israel, and everything will be fine. Or will it?

Re:Actually... (1, Informative)

Brolly (151540) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497522)

Interesting point: while our "observed" support of Israel (we actually are just about the only country actually actively trying to influence peace in that region) is definitely a reason alot of middle easterners wouldn't mind if we were wiped off the face of the earth, aparently bin laden NEVER spoke of the palestinean/israeli conflict before september 11th, and then suddenly added it onto his list of greivances. I have a feeling no matter what we do, he would find a reason to hate us.

Re:Actually... (2)

AugstWest (79042) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497613)

It won't be. Bin Laden had never mentioned Palestine before, and he only brought it up now to rile up support for his cause.

The point of making mistakes is to learn from them. We have proven that we don't.

Hell, Bush just appointed Negroponte to be our ambassador to the UN. So just as we laucnh a "War on Terror," we appoint a world-reknowned terrorist to be our UN representative.

The New World Order will continue apace.

Re:Actually... (1, Offtopic)

j3110 (193209) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497486)

With coorperations like Nike et al. its pretty obvious why a lot don't like the US. The Avg Joe just doesn't put it together. We slaved out Cuba for sugar after the Spanish American war. Castro used that to round up supporters. As you all know, we almost had a nukes fired at us.

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497489)

What? You mean the average American Joe hasnt heard of Nicaragua? Israel? Iraq?

"why we are hated" (1)

Saragon (308808) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497526)

I don't know who you speak of when you refer to "we" being "surprised" about how much we're hated. I'm not "surprised". Most people I know aren't "surprised". So: speak for yourself.

The question is not one of "surprise" over "how much we are hated" in the first place. The question is one of how to respond to this "hatred"..,.er, I mean, murderousness, to be more precise. When someone is trying again and again to murder as many of your people as possible, you don't sit around sipping espresso musing about "why we are hated". You fight back.

And you certainly don't listen to armchair sociologists who try to convince you that the way to defend yourselves against murderers is to "learn" about "why we are hated". Do you advocate that black people being lynched by the Klan "take the time to learn about why they are hated"?

Thought not.

Re:Actually... (3, Insightful)

andres32a (448314) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497528)

I live and was born in a country were the USA isnt the most popular thing around. And I am not a USA fanatic myself. But there is something i can say for sure. I'd rather have the states as the world Superpower than the former USSR or the Nazi GERMANY or China or Afghanistan for that matter.

The real reason that the states is somewhat not liked in many countries is for its "DUAL POLICY". Liberty and so on is promoted within but the states policies outside the borders have been in several ocations barbaric. My country for instance, has been in a civil war for decades that has been directly or indirectly promoted by the USA.
In any case... Sept 11 is not justified in any way. Most of the world was as in shock as the USA was.

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497555)

"My country for instance, has been in a civil war for decades that has been directly or indirectly promoted by the USA" What country if may i ask?

Re: Actually... (2)

johnrpenner (40054) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497550)


we wouldn't want to get terrorised on christmas.
so why does donald rumsfeld insist that the bombing will not stop for the muslim holy days of 'ramadan'?

bin laden is a terrorist without the support of the general muslim population. he is doing his darndest to get more people on his side by trying to convince the muslims that 'this is a war on muslims' instead of just a war on terrorism.

just to put things in perspective - as horrible as the anthrax scare has been, MORE INNOCENT MUSLIM CIVILIANS HAVE DIED FROM US BOMBING 'ACCIDENTS' THAN PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM ANTHRAX (check out the BBC or canadian news). this makes a lot of the afghani people VERY VERY nervous.

if the US continues their bombings during the 'holy month' of ramadan - then it will only give bin laden amunition to dupe the rest of the muslims into thinking this is a war on muslims, and not just on him - do we really want to do that?

(and i cannot emphasize enough how much my heart goes out to all the many victims of this war so far. no killing is right as far as i'm concerned). lets stop the violence now. violence begets more violence - he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword

check out the 'AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE'.

rushing in to help those who are hurt or needy is the true call of the pacifist - killing or violence is not.

best regards,
john penner (canada).

Re: Actually... (2, Insightful)

btlzu2 (99039) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497611)

John Penner said: "we wouldn't want to get terrorised on christmas. so why does donald rumsfeld insist that the bombing will not stop for the muslim holy days of 'ramadan'? "

Do you honestly think that Christmas would be a concern for any terrorist? Do you think they're sitting around saying, "We've got a great plan, but we just can't do it on Christmas!"

Give me a break! You can't be softer than the people you're trying to defeat.

Re:Actually... (5, Insightful)

bribecka (176328) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497553)

That, in a nutshell, is what the problem is. If people knew -why- we were hated, if they took the time to learn about the past instead of repeating it, maybe we could find a way out of this that doesn't involve a billion dollars worth of explosions.

Unfortunately, no amount of understanding of *why* on our part will ever convince the people who destroyed the WTC to stop doing it. They don't care if we understand--they want us destroyed.

Bin Laden actually doesn't care about the Palestinians or Iraq or any of that. He wants the world remade in his view--he points to the Taliban as the ultimate form of society. In an interview a few years ago, he said his ultimate goals were not to get the US out of the mideast, but to have a jihad in Egypt, a jihad in Israel, a jihad in Bosnia--basically a Jihad everywhere that will replace all governments with a fundamentalist Muslim one such as the Taliban. It's a different kind of globalization, really.

Again, no amount of understanding the root of the problem will make that go away. The only thing that these people (the terrorists) understand is having a bomb dropped on them so they can't do anything anymore. It's a sad commentary on humans, but its the truth--do you think enough understanding would have prevented Hitler from attempting world domination? I doubt it--ask Neville Chamberlain.

Re:Actually... (2, Flamebait)

Bouncings (55215) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497560)

That's wholey absurd. "Why do they hate us?" "How can we make them like us?" "What can we do to earn their trust?" -- all of these questions are signs of ignorance. Why do the Slashdot trolls post comments about hot grits? WHO CARES! The only things we need to learn about fundamentalists is what will help us DESTROY them, not appease them!

This is a long explanation, but I think the anti-globalization argument is connected to "But why do they hate us argument." They are both equally ignorant points of view. If you are ready for some patriotism, read on. Otherwise, go back to Berkley!

Did we ask why Hitler hated Jews? No. Would it have helped? No.

The Blame America First Club (tm) has made it a mission to explain to the masses of compassionate Americans why their wealth, their entertainment, and their freedoms have made so many others unhappy. They say we should share are wealth to be loved around the world. Let's see how that would work:

The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is about 10 trillion dollars a year. Let's say we gave away 1/4 of that, destroying our economy and impairing our ability to contribute in the future. That would be 2.5 trillion dollars, divided by the population of the earth (6 billion), that comes down to $416 we could give to each person around the earth. They could then piss away that wealth because they don't understand how to invest it or use it to earn more wealth.

Or, we could allow capitalism to create wealth around the world. Yes, the minimum-wage-labor bigots would cry that we are exploiting 3rd world countries. If we ignore them, they will eventually accumulate wealth, understand the value of currency, and create wealth themselves.

Simple facts: They hate us because we're powerful, wealthy, intelligent, educated, and yes, free. Nothing but the destruction of all of these will quench their thirst for destruction. And yes, we can and will kill all the terrorists.

"You know what the great thing about martyers are? They're dead." -- Mike Rosen

Re:Actually... (2, Insightful)

AugstWest (79042) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497561)

I agree. And there's been no push really in the media or in school to educate the American people on just what the US had done in the middle east for the last 30 years.

Instead of a nation thinking about innovative ways of dealing with foreign policy, we're getting everyone riled up for a fight.

As the Onion said, "Privileged Sons of Millionaires Square Off On World Stage."

We're not learning any lessons, and it's been 3 decades of buildup to this disaster. People wonder why it didn't happen sooner -- because the "intelligence" agencies had caught up with earlier attempts. This one snuck past them.

Re:Actually... (1)

de Selby (167520) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497563)

I know what we've done in the middle east, what our policies were and what they are now--and none of it is really all that bad. Not perfect, but not that bad... I wouldn't hate the US if I were living there.

The most interesting thing isn't what these people could hate us for, but what they do hate us for. It seems the list goes like this: 1) Supporting Israel 2) Troops in Saudi Arabia 3) Free women (not as in beer), but as a symbol of non-religious lifestyles. These aren't good reasons to be mildly perturbed, let alone take down two of our towers.

The biggest mistake in relations I know of is this war right now. We're being panzies, attacking from very high, which causes more misses. We're also "devistating" them with about one bomb an hour. Please.... Throwing a bomb at someone who has one government run newspaper isn't going to change minds for the better.

We need to either really fight these people or find a peacefull solution--none of this half-assed war.

Something that may have worked in the past is some peacefull evolution. Put a quality American hospital in Afganistan and put an American face on all the aid we give them and watch the opinions slowly change.

Fundamentalism vs. moral relativism (1)

zeus_tfc (222250) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497569)

I think a large part of our conflict stems from our open, largely tolerant culture. The openness of our culture tends to promote moral relativity in that what is "wrong" for one person or culture may not necessarily be "wrong" to another. Fundamentalists from a rigidly structured society would, I'm sure, view this as threatening to their culture and way of life. I'm not saying our culture is better in any way. We hesitate to label anything "wrong" or "bad" (aside from big business) even if there is serious harm induces. (Jeff Dahmer was just palately challenged.) I think if you apply this to current events, perhaps it allows you to understand the hatred for the USA in the Middle East.
Of course, Americans aren't really liked MOST places.

A co-worker of mine had an interesting opinion on that. He said that we get most of our views on foreigners by the people we see in our own country. In other countries, they see mostly our richer, overbearing, (dare I say, snobbish?) citizens, and form their opinions base on them. We in the US tend to see immigrants, who tend to be poorer, and trying to make a better life for themselves, and we form our opinions on other countries based on them.
I thought that was really interesting.
Opinions?

What type of... (3)

ChadAmberg (460099) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497392)

What type of government could possibly wrap itself around globalization? That is the major stumbling block that I see. The UN has bumbled its way around enough to know that it isn't the answer. Perhaps smaller regional governments (The EU, Pan-African Congress, OAS, etc) are the first answer to get around the poisonous ethnic problems that have caused the latest conflicts in the world. After that, let the global government figure itself out.

Let me get this straight... (Halloween Special) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497396)

As if recent events (for example: this Jon Katz article, attacks on the World Trade Centres, Anthrax Attacks, etc.) raising our collective conciousness into a state of terror wasn't bad enough, Hallowe'en is just around the corner. Soon, a new terror, a spooky terror, will unfold as the souls of thousands of innocent civilians who died raise from the dead on All Hallow's Eve to terrorise yawl's neighborhood. And you people have the gall to be discussing globalization???? My *god*, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!

The angry souls of the recent dead could give a good god damn about globalization, instead preferring to wander the areas where they met their untimely ends, seeking out unwitting victims for retribution. By all means, on the evening of Hallowe'en, try to avoid the area around Ground Zero of the WTC, the area near the Pentagon, and the crash site in Pennsylvania unless you don't mind becoming a victim of terror (a very spooky terror indeed), yourself.

You have been warned!

Re:Let me get this straight... (Halloween Special) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497529)

I cannot help but laugh out loud each time I read this, even if it's like 10 times in one day, I am still cracking up. Bring on more!

Thanx WIl... (1)

xanadu-xtroot.com (450073) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497397)

Wil Weaton submits yeasterday [slashdot.org]: "You know, I don't have a huge problem with Katz, and I don't really understand why some people do." Today there a JonKatz post.

thanx Wil...
:-)

Wrong, the Cosmopolitan Approach (-1, Offtopic)

typical geek (261980) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497398)

Is to have mindblowing sex with your new boyfriend while trying out these new kicky fashions that are all under $100. At least, that's the Cosmopolitan I read, at my sister-in-laws.

FUCK JON KATZ!!! NO THANKS!!! (-1)

TrollMan 5000 (454685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497406)

DEAD PENIS BIRD, A REFORMING TROLL, HAS SUFFERED UNDUE BANNING AND MENTAL ANGUISH, THANKS TO TACO AND CO.'S EXCESSIVE AND UNNECESSARY BITCHSLAPPING POLICY!

Check out this comment [slashdot.org] and that comment [slashdot.org].

This morning, when I logged in roughly 9 AM EDT, the comments were rated 5 and 4 respectively. Now they picked up a total of 6 "Overrated" mods. What's most strange about this is that NO BAN has been tripped.

This reeks of editor abuse. How a fairly old comment can pick up FOUR "Overrated" mods in such a short span can be explained in no other way.

You'd figure that Taco and Co. would love to see a troll change his ways and post some meaningful stuff. Apparently this is not the case. "Once a troll, always a troll" is their motto.

I was looking forward to the challenge of reforming a troll. But their shortsighted ways have proved otherwise. Fuck 'em with a broomstick, I say.

UPDATE BY TM5K: Dead Penis Bird is suffering the ban, due to more slapping by Taco. Is he afraid of The Truth??

ESR: Surprised by Cock (-1)

TRoLLaXoR (181585) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497407)

A few hours ago, I learned that I am now (at least in theory) absurdly gay.

I was at my machine, my 386 with 4 megs of RAM running Linux, masturbating to pictures of RMS, when I got an email congratulating me on the success of Slashdot. I was working on my latest small project-- a clever little text parser that takes input from the user and puts it in a little cartoon-style word balloon coming out of-- get this!-- a giant, erect ASCII penis's bulging head! Hahaha! It's called COCKSAY. You can download it here [geocities.com].

"Congratulations? That's interesting," said I to myself. "I didn't think Slashdot was coming out until tomorrow." And I oughtta know; I'm on VA's Board of Directors, recruited by Larry Augustin himself, to be VA Linux's "corporate conscience," and it's public record that I hold a substantial share in the company's semen pool. I tooled on over to Linux Today, chased a link like it was a naked hippy's ass-- and discovered that Rob Malda had taken the fast action we had discussed at the last board meeting. Slashdot had come out first thing that morning with a headline on its own site-- and I had become the figurehead of the Gay Faggot Slashdot Empire while I wasn't looking.

Well, that didn't last long. In the next two hours, 369 VA employees also disclosed that they had AIDS, leaving me with a bit of the proverbial semen on my face.

You may wonder why I am talking about this in public. The first piece of advice your friends will give you, if it looks like you're about to come out of the closet, is: keep quiet! It's really nobody else's business-- you don't want to look like you're lusting for cock, though you may want to be deluged by an endless succession of men dressed up as Navy sailors demanding blowjobs from you; fat, hairy men (the bears) wanting to fuck you in the ass; and sweet, young, hairless boys offering you the beauty of their youth.

Trouble with the "keep it quiet" theory is that I've always solicited gay male faggot sex in a very public way. When you're already a media figure, like myself, and your name is on the Faggot Manifesto your whole organization chose to use to come out, and email from friends and journalists starts coming in like crazy as the gayness of your empire breaks records even on the first day, playing it coy swiftly ceases to look like a viable option.

But it wouldn't be fair to dissemble. I serve the gay community. I'm wealthy today because my efforts to spread faggotry and venereal diseases on behalf of that community helped infiltrate the business world and earned the trust of a lot of young, naive boys. Fairness to the twinks

Important. Read This if you care about your rights (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497410)

I just found this [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] at the Slashdot Privacy Watch [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] page. This article (and the others posted by Slashdot Privacy Watch) present some seriously scary possibilities. I'm posting this in order to have your comments, CmdrTaco.

What is the Slashdot Customer Profile?

Slashdot is owned by VA Linux, and VA Linux is a for-profit Corporation. This means that, like other corporations, Slashdot must maintain a customer profile for every user (yes, even you Anonymous Cowards!). These customer profiles are kept in Slashdot's master MySQL database, which is archived on a frequent basis to preserve VA Linux's valuable Intellectual Property rights to its' customer information. The Customer Profile contains many fields, such as the email address you used to register your Slashdot account. In addition, it contains these fields [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] which are accessed in users.pl [slashcode.com] [slashcode.com], line 1898.

They're Tracking WHAT?


You may have noticed that the Customer Profile contains a field called $iplist. You're not dreaming, this is a list of every IP address anyone has used to access Slasdot - ever. Slashdot has a perfectly legitimate reason [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] for maintaining these detailed records on every customer. However, while every Slashdot user understands that the privacy of each Slashdot user is paramount to the current management of Slashdot, we must also understand that Slashdot is property, and that it has been bought - and sold - before. Therefore we must not consider the implication of the existence of Slashdot Customer Profiling under the existing management, but rather the implications under any future management.

Who Would Want my IP?


Let's assume, for the sake of argument only, that VA Linux decides to sell Slashdot to DoubleClick [doubleclick.com] [doubleclick.com] in order to boost its' short-term cash supply. Doubeclick would be looking at Slashdot mainly as an Intellectual Property asset, and its' customer database as the primary portion of that asset (because Slaschode is GPL'd). How, then, can VA Linux maximize the resale value of Slashdot's Intellectual Property assets? By tracking every possible piece of information. The list of IP addresses used by every Slashdot user, reverse-correlated by email, would provide a very lucrative marketing tool to a would-be buyer of Slashdot. Doubleclick could use this Intellectual Property to:

  • Correlate web hits to member sites by IP address, sending an email to every Slashdot user who visits a target site.
  • Correlate web hits by IP address and present customized content to each Slashdot user who visits a target site, for instance: "Welcome to Superdomains.com, Slashdot user Jamie!"

It is easy to see why recording the IP profiles of every Slashdot customer maximizes the value of the Slashdot Customer Database. The question is, should you be given the option to opt-out?



Last time I posted this, I was immediately censored. Please distribute this and other Slashdot Privacy Watch publications extensively until CmdrTaco responds satisfactorily. I'm posting this AC because I know there will be an editor backlash.

Moderators (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497420)

Please moderate Jon Katz down. Thank you.

Globalization is next step, not communism (1)

forkspoon (116573) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497428)

I would say that instead of communism coming after industrialization, we havee globalization, or the concentration of capital from everywhere in the hands of a few wealthy countries that make up a small percent of the world's population. This concentration of authority makes a proletarian revolution next to impossible because the bourgeoisie who "owns" the global capital is far away and impossible to destroy. Except through terrorim. Hundreds of years of imperialism, which is now refered to by "globalization", has shifted most wealth back to the few in the west and japan, and caused much of the world to live in poverty. Remember the "chaosland" in 1984, that wasn't part of the three superstates? This is our third world, and they are pissed. They have decided to either kill each other or kill us. Look at how many wars are going on today, none of them are between developed states. They are all out in the heart of darkness between confused, poor, economically depressed areas of the world. The current state of affairs is western cultures fault, we kept persuing imperialism and it does bother the people we take money from.

Thanks,

Travis
forkspoon@hotmail.com

Jon they are watchign YOU! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497430)

I was reading this and WOW these guys The Slashdot Privacy Watch [slashdot.org]. They say this:

An Open Letter to VA Linux Concerning Privacy on Slashdot

To whom it may concern,
It has come to our attention that Slashdot is building a detailed database of every visitor and user of Slashdot. This database includes, among other personal details, an address history which permanently records every IP address assosciated with every Slashdot user and comment for all time. We are concerned that this database is a signifigant Intellectual Property asset that may be abused in the event of a sale of Slashdot by VA Linux to a third party.

In addition, we feel that keeping a permanent and indelible record of every IP address used to post every Anonymous comment on Slashdot erases whatever hopes of anonymity that endangered or threatened users may have had. To name two examples, Chinese dissidents and corporate insiders can have no expectation of anonymously revealing civil rights violations and corporate abuse.

It is our hope that given these concerns, VA Linux or Slashdot may choose to provide an opt-out option to users, whereby users could choose not to be tracked and profiled if they so request. Some discussion has been made of a Slashdot subscription service; perhaps one revenue stream for Slashdot would be to sell Privacy Rights. For a low yearly fee, a user could purchase the right not to be tracked, profiled, and logged by IP address.

Whatever steps are taken, it is our hope that Slashdot will address the current privacy concerns in public to allay our fears and to promote open discussion.

Thanks again for creating one of the most popular sites on the Internet, and all the best.

-The Slashdot Privacy Watch Team.


Jon lookout you are being tracked wherever you go!!?!

The Lexus and the Olive Tree (5, Interesting)

Paradox !-) (51314) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497437)

This thesis has also been bandied about by Thomas Friedman in The Lexus and the Olive Tree [amazon.com].

[Warning, liberal rant below]
I believe that the forces of integration are long-term stronger and more stable than the forces of disintegration. I believe that the reason that the fringes of cultures are radicalizing is because the centers of cultures are drawing together.

I am a giant proponent of the theory that ideas clash in a marketplace of public discourse and I believe that globalization is merely expanding that marketplace, and that the discourse that results will be beneficial. We're bound to have some bumps along the road. Heck, we're probably bound to go down some blind alleys, but in the end, increased communications and integration will help us all respect each other individually and discover what makes us all human.
[End of Liberal Rant]

Of course, I also believe that the free market is best in 90% of circumstances because it forces individuals to evolve and have goals. My biggest worry is that the concept of individual freedom will be found wanting in the global discussion.

IMHO. HAND.

Aliens (1, Insightful)

JohnHegarty (453016) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497439)

People are only divied when there is no outsiders. When a country is invalded any squabbling between states/counties is forgoton about.

I would guarantee that if Aliens landed in the morning it would mean instant globalization , becuase there would be an outsider.

Re:Aliens (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497559)

Illiterate fuck, refrain fron posting or spell check. Douche bag biter!

pitting fundamentalism against cosmpolitan toleran (0, Flamebait)

W.B. Yeats (236617) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497442)

Boy, I thought I had to go to a real news outlet like CNN or Reuters to get this kind of insightful journalism. If everyone would just repeat lines like those above 50 times, we might be able to squash all of the horrible ideas that have been cropping up which question the legitimate (and blessed)American Way of Life.

Bah

Re:pitting fundamentalism against cosmpolitan tole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497547)

die now

Globalization - We didn't vote for it. (1, Flamebait)

Anton Anatopopov (529711) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497446)

Most people I know are against globalization. Even Americans who stand to gain the most. In the last 20 years, we have seen Europe replace its cafes and coffee shops with McDonalds and Starbucks.

Local forms of clothing have been replaced with baseball hats and blue jeans.

And religion has been replaced with shallow consumerism. This all makes sense from the point of view of Global Capital. But let us not forget it was capitalists who ended slavery in order to have a bigger market for their goods.

The real problem of globalization is the American attitude which puts individual freedom above just about every other principle.

In Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South America, Japan, Russia etc our values are different. We put family and religion first. We do not care about your profit motive.

We will eventually win, because we will eventually stop buying into your culture of greed. It may not happen today or tomorrow, but it will happen. And then your IRAs and pension funds will be worth nothing.

Re:Globalization - We didn't vote for it. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497509)

What would you prefer, everyone wearing those faggy greek skirts and pompom shoes? Endless greasy cafes run by syphillitic peasants and weak, watery coffee wherever you go?

Nobody here cares whether you care about our profit motive or not. Even if you do grit your teeth and deny yourself the pleasures that your neighbors enjoy, we will have the fruits of your labor - your money. And our lives will be more idyllic as a result. Yours on the other hand, will go downhill - if life in some eastern european shithole can ever be said to go downhill - it is perhaps more accurate to say that it won't change. Enjoy the grayness!

Re:Globalization - We didn't vote for it. (2)

Brento (26177) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497515)

In the last 20 years, we have seen Europe replace its cafes and coffee shops with McDonalds and Starbucks.

The only Starbucks stores in Europe are in the UK and Switzerland. Besides, if you think Americans enjoy that sort of thing, you're mistaken. We have citizens that are just as upset that Wal-Mart is replacing local hardware stores, and Barnes & Noble is bankrupting local booksellers. Nobody's excited about that kind of globalization, not even us.

The real problem of globalization is the American attitude which puts individual freedom above just about every other principle. In Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South America, Japan, Russia etc our values are different. We put family and religion first. We do not care about your profit motive.

Huh? In one sentence, you say that we put freedom over every principle. In the next, you say you're different because you put family and religion first. I'm not sure how you can choose your religion without first having the freedom to choose it - unless, of course, you're in favor of state-sponsored religion that enforces your personal choice. The freedom of religion was the whole point over here in the US, and the driving force behind our nation's founding. If you see freedom as a value that jeopardizes family and religion, you don't understand freedom. The whole point over here is the freedom to choose your religion, your friends, and for that matter, the brands that you buy.

We will eventually win, because we will eventually stop buying into your culture of greed. It may not happen today or tomorrow, but it will happen.

What's stopping it? You're the ones buying our products. Nobody's holding a gun to your head at the Gap and making you buy their t-shirts. It's not like you don't have your own products to choose from. McDonald's isn't the only place to buy hamburgers, and Starbucks isn't the only place to get a cup of joe.

Re:Globalization - We didn't vote for it. (2, Insightful)

kraut (2788) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497573)

Of course people voted for it. Every day they buy a coffee at starbucks they are voting for it.

If the majority didn't want it, it wouldn't happen.

Re:Globalization - We didn't vote for it. (2, Insightful)

geschild (43455) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497578)

In Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South America, Japan, Russia etc our values are different. We put family and religion first. We do not care about your profit motive.


Please speak for yourself? For some reason religiousnous is a lot stronger in the USA than it is in many European countries and you better be glad it is because that way lies fundamentalism. I assume that since you read the text that you know what fundamentalism begets...

Don't forget that a mere few hundred years ago Europe had it's inquisition and a few other religously founded nasties. What we are seeing now is the rest of the world catching up in a hurry and not very willingly.

Globalisation in my book means that more people get to talk to more people. Everything else follows from that: trade, wealth, crime, etc. The thing is that above a certain amount of links to other people per person a society changes. That change is irreversible bar some global catastrofy.

I can only hope we'll shake off religion as another bond to our primitive ancestory and move on. The only thing that wars have been ever fought over were economics and religion. We found out the hard way that it doesn't make economical sense for a democracy to wage war. We found out that it doesn't make sense to wage war over religion as well but for some reason the religion gets in the way with that argument. So Globalisation will work out but as said it will have its ups and downs. In the end I trust it will bring what it promisses: 'wealth' to go round for _everyone_.

I'm not so much afraid of fundamentalism in its current form, in my view the _real_ threat to such a brilliant future is _corporatism_. That fight has it's own problems, mainly in visibility of the problem. But I digress.

Karma? What's that again?

Re:Globalization - We didn't vote for it. (1)

baalz (458046) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497605)

Cafes and coffee shops are (partially) replaced by McDonalds and Starbucks because thats what the people who spend money want. Blue Jeans and baseball hats are spreading because thats what people who spend money want. People DO vote for such things quite literally with thier pounds, yet, etc.

Yes, obviously freed slaves were a huge economic buying segment. There was much more money to be made selling things to appallingly poor people than to having free labor.

You're damn right we put individual freedom above virtually every other principal, and you'd do well to remember that when you start complaining about your lack of freedom from American culture.

anthrax--careful, John (5, Insightful)

regexp (302904) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497447)

It hasn't been shown to any degree of conclusiveness that the anthrax attacks were perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists or fundamentalists of any sort. For all we know so far, it could have been some disgruntled biotech industry worker.

Re:anthrax--careful, John (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497481)

Yee,

I'm amazed. Did this post pass the automatic lame-test?

congratulations!

Re:anthrax--careful, John (4, Insightful)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497527)

In fact, there are a number of reasons to suspect that the primary perps behind the anthrax are American, including the way that the accompanying notes were written, and the fact that the targets included a planned parenthood, 2 democrats, media outlets, and the Supreme Court. The radical anti=abortion group The Army of God is on the suspect list. And it's completely homegrown American.

Slashdot Customer Profile violates YOUR Privacy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497470)

Does the Slashdot Customer Profile violate my Privacy?

It is strongly reccomended that you understand Slashdot Customer Profiles [slashdot.org] before asking this question. Now that you do, let's attempt to understand the answer.

The Right to Privacy is not guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and in America whatever "right" we may have had to privacy is rapidly dissapearing. Nowhere is this more true than on the Internet. However, many Americans value their privacy, and the courts have attempted to safeguard the privacy of citizens to some degree. However, "privacy" on the Internet is a subjective and hotly contested term, so any attempt to define it objectively will most likely fail.

Does the Slashdot Customer Profile violate the OSDN Privacy Statement?


This much more focused question can be easily answered. The Slashdot Privacy Policy is linked from the toolbar in the upper left hand corner of your web browser. Slashdot is part of VA Linux Inc.'s OSD Network, and is bound by OSDN's Privacy Policy [osdn.com]. Let's examine the relevant portions of this policy:

With regard to personal information, users can view their data on their personal profile page.

This statement is empirically false. No user has ever been permitted to view his or her Slashdot Customer Profile "IP address history" field.

OSDN will track the domains from which people visit OSDN and analyze this data for trends and statistics.

This statement is empirically false. Slashdot does not track domain statistics in the aggregate, rather it profiles every customer and their IP address history [slashdot.org] for the purpose of gagging abusive content on a per-user or per-subnet basis [slashdot.org].

Subject to the provisions of this Privacy Policy, different OSDN sites may use accumulated data for different purposes, including but not limited to marketing analysis, service evaluation and planning.

This statement is true, but misleading. Tracking and gagging users by IP address is certainly a "different purpose", and it is clearly stated that use of per-customer information includes but is not limited to the stated purposes. One must wonder what the other unstated purposes are?

General: In cases where users voluntarily and publicly disclose personal information which may contain Registration Data or otherwise post personal information in conjunction with content subject to an open source license, such personal information necessarily will be disclosed subject to the terms of the applicable license.

Keep in mind that your IP address history is not a "voluntarily disclosed" piece of information: you are forced to disclose an IP address when you interact with a web site. Therefore IP address histories are not bound by this clause.

At OSDN, we intend to give you as much control as possible over your personal information, including the Registration Data

It is not possible to change, modify, or "opt out" of having your IP address history stored in your Slashdot Customer Profile. Therefore, we must understand this statement to mean "OSDN does not believe it is possible for a Slashdot user to check a box which opts them out of being profiled by IP address".

The simple answer to the question "Does the Slashdot Customer Profile violate the OSDN Privacy Statement?", therefore, is a resounding yes. The recent changes to Slashcode to profile every customer and their IP address history [slashdot.org] for the purpose of gagging abusive content on a per-user or per-subnet basis [slashdot.org] have only been made recently. It is therefore possible - nay, likely - that these changes have been made without a careful examination of the OSDN Privacy Policy.

Which brings any concerned privacy advocate to the obvious question: Should I be concerned about potential privacy violations on Slashdot? More importantly, should Slashdot users be given the option of "opting out" of being profiled? The answer is a resounding... perhaps [slashdot.org] .

Wait until the aliens get here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497478)

I think we'll see globalization really take off once the aliens come and try to capture the earth. That seems to really bring the human race together in to a collective in the movies [http].

And once we kick their ass, then we'll all live prosperity forever with no poverty or war ever again.

-s

Contrast: The Economist (5, Insightful)

RobertGraham (28990) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497479)

The Economist recently had an entire issue devoted to globalism. Some of these articles are at http://www.economist.com [economist.com]. The Economist is a weekly news magazine, much like Time/Newsweek/USNews, though it appeals to more educated people.


JonKatz has an axe to grind; The Economist doesn't. JonKatz will certainly feed your paranoia that the big bad multinationals are out to get you, The Economist will provide a fairer, ballanced set of information.

Re:Contrast: The Economist (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497583)

I read the Economist regularly, and it does provide quality information. However, it is one of the brashest proponents of the free market system, and very much has an axe to grind.

The horse is dead (-1)

Dead Fart Warrior (525970) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497483)

The horse is dead, beheaded, quartered, body parts draged to the far corners of the world and buried!

I hate to gripe, but, Jon, your milking every little bit out of the WTC. We need to move on. Sure, we shouldn't forget; but not to the point of the media constantly stuffing it down our throat.

You're articles usually involve something that you just realized. You spin it to involve technology, call it a new thing, then rant about it.

Lets move onto something new, please.

Re:The horse is dead (-1)

TrollMan 5000 (454685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497536)

Greetings, Dead Fart Warrior.

As you might have seen, I'm crusading on behalf of the plight on one Dead Penis Bird.

Good commentary about Jon Katz. Perhaps he'd be better at milking a huge hairy penis instead.

Yes, the horse is dead. Just like that Penis Bird.

Re:The horse is dead (-1)

Dead Fart Warrior (525970) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497601)

Damnit, that comment was supposed to be submitted with my karma whore account as a big-ass troll. I messed it up. Shhhheeeee-it!

Globalization (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497484)

Globalization [goatse.cx] is only another word for fascism [olsentwins.com]. People are starting to realize that Americans [canada.gc.ca] are all nothing more than oversexed perverts [realdoll.com], and they want nothing to do with us. I blame it all on Slashdot [kuro5hin.org].

Globalisation for Greed (4, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497487)


Iraq - supported against Iran during the Iran v Iraq war, seen as an ally of the west and an aid in getting cheaper oil and controlled oil prices... invade Kuwait (dictatorial regime) and the west turn against Iraq (with "democratically" elected president) because of the risks to oil revenues.

Afghanistan, supported Taliban and Mujahadin against the Soviet Union when they invaded, pushed as "freedom fighters" and "liberators". Soviets leave, so does all of the assistance from the west. Saudi Arabian national accused of leading a group on terrorists in which several (all non-Afghans) commit dreadful attrocities. West decide to invade Afghanistan and attack not the terrorist leader but the previously supported Taliban movement. This of course is unrelated to the desire to have access to the Caspian Sea oil without having to pay Russian pipeline charges.

It might sound a harsh judgement but these are still the facts. Both of these now supposedly "evil" regimes were previously funded and supported by the very people now set against them... the opinions and views of the Taliban and Sadam Hussien have not changed. It is just now politically and economically sensible to take these views.

Having a recession..... start a war, increased employment, increased public spending (defence), flag-waving support to gloss over your lack of leadership.

Re:Globalisation for Greed (4, Insightful)

elefantstn (195873) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497545)

It's hard to take your argument seriously when it contains such glaring historical mistakes. The US did not support the Taliban against the USSR because the Taliban did not even exist at the time. Certainly some of the Afghani rebels eventually joined the Taliban, but to say we supported the Taliban is like saying that because we supported Poland during the Second World War we supported the Warsaw Pact.

Re:Globalisation for Greed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497564)

please stop this ridiculous tripe.

The West has not invaded Afghanistan yet. We have not supported or even recognized the Taliban government. They were not the ones in power when we helped them against the Soviets. This oil motive conspiracy is so ludicrous.

Re:Globalisation for Greed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497566)

START a war?

Last I checked we weren't the ones flying Afgani airliners into downtown Kabul to get this thing started. If I recall correctly they're the one's who started things up.

Re:Globalisation for Greed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497608)

Having a recession..... start a war, increased employment, increased public spending (defence), flag-waving support to gloss over your lack of leadership.

Uh, ok. I guess the terrorists who attacked the WTC did so because of the economic downturn then, right?

GLOBALIZATION IS ABOUT HAVE EXPLOITING HAVE-NOTS (2, Interesting)

cryofan2 (243723) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497494)

The western democracies carved out a place where there could exist such a thing as a middle class. Where a working man could make a living for himself and his family. The western democracies are a haven for capital: they are stable and work by the rule of law.

So that is why there is work here.

We compete on the gloabl stage for work. We offer a business advantage over third world competitors in that we are stable and are run by the rule of law. And because we have this advantage over 3rd world, that is the only reason why we have work here at all. Otherwise we would have no work here because we CHARGE HIGH WAGES.
People, that is a GOOD THING! WE WANT HIGH WAGES!

WE DON'T WANT LOW WAGES!

But big corporations want both stability/the rule of law AND low wages. So therefore "open borders immigration" and globalization is what corporations want because it LOWERS WAGES!

Our politicians want to give them that because the corporations PAY THEM.

Can you please see that this is a process of negotiation! That there are CONFLICTS OF INTEREST between corporations and the citizens of western democracies?

When you go to buy a car and the salesman says he wants 100K, you don't just pay him, do you? YOU NEGOTIATE!

The problem is that corporations have poured so much money into propaganda through so many means that people like Katz beleive the pro-globalization propaganda. Or maybe, Katz is being paid by business lobbies to write pro-globalization propaganda.

Jon Katz, do you take money from corporate lobbies?

Yes (3, Insightful)

Pinball Wizard (161942) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497495)

Can governments preserve the environment, keep work secure and equitable, ensure fair wages, control capitalism, distribute new technologies equitably, respect diverse cultural values, contain greed and restrict the imagery that Americans love but that frightens and offends large segments of the world population?


Yes, as long as we retain our sovereignty and don't turn that over to a multi-national body. I think it would dangerous to allow a multi-national organization like the U.N. to have final say in matters of law and of military over the U.S. We have the longest running democracy of any nation, and it works. Thus, I think its dangerous for countries like Britain, with long-established laws, to turn over power to multi-national institutions like the EU. Let each country govern itself and come to agreements with other countries, but never turn over power or the right to have final say to these organizations. Doing so is a recipe for disaster; it places more power into the hands of fewer people, it makes it more likely for a despot to control more lands, and it takes away from people the ability to govern themselves. The right to self-govern is supreme in the U.S. and hopefully will remain so.


By doing so, we ensure our government responds to us as a people and has control of the military. As long as we have an elected government that controls the military, we don't have to worry too much about the power of other countries, and other multi-national organizations. But if we give up any power to multi-national organizations, we lose ability to govern ourselves, and we lose the freedoms we have worked for over 225 years to create and preserve.

Anti-Globalists (3, Insightful)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497502)

globalization - pitting fundamentalism against cosmopolitan tolerance

Not quite.

Many anti-globalists are in fact in protest against the prospect of the Disney Planet, McEarth, and the Microsoft World. They are in protest of the potential economic, political, and social rape of the economies and resources of people around the world for the mere financial profit of a few corporations. They are against the corporate democracy where only they voices of the corporations count, and yours do not.

If you are fighting against Microsoft, you are to a certain degree fighting against globalization. This is a much bigger and more complex picture than so quickly sketched above.

Re:Anti-Globalists (1)

Spagornasm (444846) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497575)

I think the biggest problem with the anti-globalization movement is its own protests. Every time a protest is planned, cities have to beef up their police forces because a lot of the protesters take it as an excuse to party and wreck the place!

In governments where leaders are elected (like the US and the EU) there is absolutely ZERO excuse for violent protest - because you have the right to be heard. Just because people don't care doesn't mean you have the "right" to attack police officers and break store windows.

The biggest folly of all, though is the inate cowardice of many of these same protesters. They know that at least some prominent politicians favor them in western democracies, so they don't fear a backlash - but where were they in Shanghai? Terrified of the police response to a protest supposedly in China's best interest! If they're afraid to really stand up to enemies of the people like the government of China, then as far I'm concerned, their movement will be stuck as an annoyance, rather than a legitimate political gripe.

Re:Anti-Globalists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497589)

These are the same anti-globalists who will complain about McEarth, but buy KFC. They will bad-mouth Disney world, but flock to the new Star Wars movie.


If the anti-globalists (excluding hypocrites) were a majority, they would have nothing to complain about. For all intents and purposes--including Microsoft--we still live in a free economy. It allows you to use Linux and make your own hamburgers.

FSTFUKP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497506)

First STFU, KATZ post!

assertion failed !(moderator==editor) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497609)

(score : -1, offtopic) Incorrect!
Technically, STFU is always ontopic when dealing with mentally diseased media whores like JonKatz.

Judges would have accepted "Troll".

Katz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497517)

It's nice to see Katz is taking part in TROLL TUESDAY.

Snoople froople didga me booble.
Hahaha.

NOT the biggest, most important story (2)

whjwhj (243426) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497518)

Either way, September 11 makes it clear that globalization - pitting fundamentalism against cosmopolitan tolerance - is the biggest, most important story in our lifetimes

Global Warming is by far the biggest, most important story in our lifetime. We'll all learn that soon enough.

Re:NOT the biggest, most important story (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497572)

yah its getting pretty cool up here in the U.P. i'm still waiting for this global warming! it would be nice! :)

Bad side of globalization (4, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497521)

In my own humble, ininformed, and probably stupid view, the reason Fundamentalists gain so much support is that Globalization is basically capitalism, whereas the societies where it fails are those where people are so dirt poor that they can't afford the products or services offered by cosmopolitan societies. People no better or worse for the fate of their placement of birth, limited access to opportunity and ability to be brainwashed by zealous ideologues.

It was discovered that one of the great causes of discontent and unrest in Central America in the 60's was unintentional, where Peace Corps workers left out magazines, loaded with american advertisements, where locals saw them. The indiginous people, uninitiated to the ways of Madison Avenue, would see what american had, what their country and culture lacked and it erroded their faith in their own noble cultures. They had to have cars, they had to have women with come hither looks, they had to drink Tanqueray, they had to have a Timex! Discontent breeds revolution, revolution creates upheaval and all the ills (hunger, disease, orphans, maimed bodies, etc.) Enter the "fundamentalist", whether it's Daniel Ortega spouting the promises of Marxism and reclaiming the land in the name of the people, or some Mullah in Afghanistan preaching a glorious afterlife littered with nubile virgins to people desperately poor, the appeal is the same: Anything is better than what we have now.

The bitterness of people in the middle east has been a long time simmering. From european colonialism to corporate colonialism to the shameful double standard of Israel vs. Arabs (and yet these people come from the same blood, but tell them that.)

Now the West loses billions of dollars in upset commerce, tourism, etc., and it's the poorest people on earth the US is pitted against in a war which consumes even more billions of dollars. (With hopes from some that war will stimulate the economy(!))

Jimmy Buffett had it right, if you ever have listened to the Feeding Frenzy CD. Drop a bunch of money on these people, then drop a bunch of catalogs, for the cost of one B-1 bomber we could have full employment, they could have all kinds of toys and we'd have peace. Well, peace if that bully in Israel would stop the acts of war against the palestinians.

My $0.02 anyway...

Re:Bad side of globalization (1)

Spagornasm (444846) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497606)

Well, peace if that bully in Israel would stop the acts of war against the palestinians.

Do you mean that bully whose tourism minister was gunned down outside a hotel? The same one whose country was willing to give away vast tracts of land for a palestinian state, but instead got the intifada? Gimme a break - Israel is as much a victim of terror as all of us in DC and NYC.

"capitalist" democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497533)

Capitalism and Democracy are not wedded to eachother. They don't even get along. To start an argument with a fallacy like this is simply a waste of time.


Multinationals are virally invasive to the democratic process, and never more so than right now in the U.S., where the media is almost totally under the control of multinational corporations, and corporations and a corporation-bought congress sustain the so-called public broadcasters.

Caucasian Globalization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2497541)

Globalization is nothing but neo-imperialism perpetrated by caucasian countries mainly old imperialist powers such as UK and new imperialist powers such as US. Sept 11 is nothing more than another event in a series started by bombing of Sudan, Iraq and others. Problem is when neo imperialist powers bomb, its justified, when they get bombed its fundamentalism.

Stop perpetrating the 'ethical' myth. Might is the name of the game. Neo imperialist powers are mighty and thats why they can get away with whatever they want including slavery, racism and brutal genocide in Veitnam and other countries.

Mushy thinking, hard to push away (1)

curt_k (533018) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497568)

Well, Jon Katz's scree here is just lame; so lame, in fact, that it's hard to rebutt it, because he says so little beyond bland, basically amorphic conjecture. A few points: There is a conflict between democracy-cosmopolitanism and Islamic fundementalism, but that is not a relatively deep explanation for why we were attacked on Sept 11 or why we are hated. We are primarily hated for foreign and economic policies and actions, policies and actions that are anti-democratic and often terroristic. "They" are Islamic fundementalists (probably, there has been no really good evidence I've seen, but assuming); but "we" are not truly democrats (small "d").

We were attacked primarily for colonialistic policies and actions in the Middle East. We have been treating the people there like dirt and only relevent as obsticles or aids to our power and wealth drain from the region. This is standard colonialism. The only thing that's remarkable is that we pissed off some people who are crazier than we are: there was a weird convergence of us being assholes to a region and peoples and some of those people being crazy, twisted fuckers with a lot of money. What's remarkable is that we weren't attacked before, say, by Central Americans.

The stupid, ahistorical, aconscious discussion of viewing the Sept 11 attaks as "fundementalism versus democracy" is not only -- well -- ahistorical, aconscious and stupid -- it's dangerous. If we stay this stupid, history will repeat itself, the history of Sept 11, and the history of us killing people, terrorizing people, and destorying civilizations, like we are again doing in Afghanistan now -- how many innocent people will we starve? How much further will we set back Afghan civilization? How much further will we destroy our own domestic security? My answers to all the above: A lot. Enough to make me literally sick to my stomach.

Jon Katz, get an historical perspective. You're dangerous and ignorant otherwise. http://www.zmag.org (website for Z Magazine) is a good place to check out. I dare you.

Curt.

It's our arrogance is why others hate us. (2)

Deagol (323173) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497580)

Our corporations fight for the right to have a McDonalds in every country on the planet, snuffing out traditional staples of living, yet tax the shit out of imported food (sugar, bananas, etc.).

We preach about free trade, yet Shrub gets his panties in a bunch when some country can sell us steel for cheap.

Our companies fight tooth and nail for the ability to sell to the entire world, yet want people in the US (the richest general population on the planet) to only buy products domestically (no buying cheap drugs from Canada, region-enforced DVD players, etc.).

We, as a society, can't have it both ways, yet we try so damned hard to have it that way. We dictate to the world our standards which enrich our corporate world (NAFTA, WTO, intellectual property right protection, etc.), but balk at the idea that someone else may produce a better mouse trap for less.

It sickens me, really.

Our way only, or ... (0)

jandersen (462034) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497582)

- perhaps this one doesn't make it through either, but ...



Are we in the West ready for Globalisation? So far the 'Globalisation' has been all about elbowing our own ways of life and, not least, our multinational companies into other countries. That was easy when the countries in question had few resources. But we can't do that when it comes to the stronger countries, like China. We will have to find compromises - we will have to allow other countries to influence us. It's like people, really - who wants to accept the viewpoints of somebody that's a selfish and inflexible jerk? We have to give as well as take.



Apart from that - it is popular to talk about 'Capitalism' as if people knew what it is all about. Has everybody forgotten that capitalism isn't just about all having equal opportunities; in fact, that's totally alien to capitalism. Instead it has a lot to do with exploiting the ones that are weaker in order to make more profit. And this hated and despised 'Communism' - at the kernel it wasn't about suppressing people, but about sharing and helping the weakest; and it isn't dead just because the Soviet abomination fell apart. In fact, it doesn't really seem to be about to die at all - just look at China.



So, I ask again - are we really ready for REAL globalisation? Namely the process where we not only spread our way of life, but also accept to change in the process? And perhaps even learn from (gulp) the Communists?

Timothy McVeigh was a fundamentalist... (5, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497585)


You don't have to be a religious nut harbored by a goverment abroad to be a fundamentalist. In all this hype against Islamic terrorists there appears to have been a careful glossing over of the 2nd worst act of terrorism on US soil.

Why wasn't a war declared on the sort of organisations that McVeigh belonged to, and the sort of anti-goverment far right views that are regularly expressed on right wing talk shows ?

Right now I'd say the smart money is on the anthrax being produced in the US, not in another country. And on the US most wanted terrorists one of them was born in Indiana. If this is truly a war on terrorism then we can look forward to seeing the CIA, MI5, French Secret Service and several others all being labelled as such.

After all what would you call someone who bombed a Red Cross depot ?

Globalization is a tool, like deCSS (4, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497588)

So far when we speak/write about globalization, we're talking about the corporate side of things. But if you really look at it, globalization is little more, and nothing less than an ability to transcend national boundaries. This has historically meant travel, expensive travel, restricting it to the Rich and corporations. Hence that's where we focus our rants on globalizations.

But two things have happened. First, transportation has gotten cheaper, so it isn't the province of merely the Rich. Second, the Internet has given us Virtual Travel. These changes ease globalization for all, including bringing it into the price range of more people/groups.

So one can argue that globalized corporations are Evil, though others would contend against that.
Most would argue that globalized institutions like the Red Cross are Good.
Then how about other globalized groups like the Mafia and El Quaeda?

Globalization isn't just for corporatization, any more.

CLUELESS!! (1)

Random Q. Hacker (137687) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497591)

1. Not everything revolves around technology, but we all appreciate John Katz catering to the Slashdot crowd. Sorry, but the current mess has NOTHING to do with TV's and Camcorders. It has EVERYTHING to do with egos, power, and revenge.

2. "Democracy is open-minded" and "Fundamentalists Aren't"? Can we not be open minded enough to understand that some people want (or are at least willing) to live under other forms of government? Are we so close minded to think that sticking to ones religious roots is a bad thing? Sure, the Taliban are a bad example, but that doesn't justify your criticism of all fundamentalists. You may as well be criticizing the right of all religions to exist.

3. Do you have an editor (or egg timer) that reminds you to write new articles, regardless of whether or not you have anything to say? Kind of a "Keep Jon's ego inflated" timer? I know I was just rarin for a Slashdot article on globalization with next to no content or research, pulled straight from your ***.

4. Have a nice day. :-)

oh the irony (0)

n3r0.m4dski11z (447312) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497593)

"Boundaries mean different things now, including the inescapable fact that they are highly porous. This enrages political, social and religious fundamentalists, as we are hurriedly learning. They turn to religion, ethnic identity and nationalism to build "purer" traditions -- and a few turn to violence"

religious fundamentalists? i hope you count the us goverenment in that catagory. because all those things apply to them as well. the governement is the one thats not diverse, violent and trying to build purer traditions. who censors us? what body is mostly elderly white men that have the most to loose if the world changes?

sure the taliban are violent but so are americans. they are the same! throw an arab into an arkansas christian community and you'll see what i mean.

"The conflict is here, and we seem to be unwilling and unknowing combatants. We, along with our leaders, are astonished at just how much we seem to be hated out there."

ahahahaha unknowing? try ignorant. did anyone care when the us goverment masacared x people in y land (vars are better because it happens so much that im sure you can plant your own examples).

astonsihed how much your hated? you havent spent much time in other countries have you? the reason americans are hated by most of the countries of the world is because they have done negative things to most of the countries of the world. in canada i know they are trying to get us to sell them lumber at whatever cost they want to pay. same goes for fishing rights off our shores. you americans have this idea that everythign is your god given right and that your narrow twisted philophies are in some way right.
the ends do not justify the means.

this is a sick world and an even sicker war.

Come see the violence inherent in the System! (3, Insightful)

Frank Sullivan (2391) | more than 12 years ago | (#2497602)

The battle isn't changing - only the battleground is.

The real fight is the ongoing friction between ever-larger units of society - the individual, the tribe, the nation, and now global society. Individuals chafe against the constraints of their own culture. Then as representatives of their own culture, they struggle against the crush of nationalism. Beyond that, the nations are fighting the coming globalism. This is not a fight that will ever be clearly resolved.

I think by nature humans are individualist and tribalist. However, the lines of those tribes are becoming more and more fluid. I belong to several tribes - SF fandom, Open Source programming, Unitarian Universalism, etc - that overlap some, but are really separate groups, each with their own struggle. As an Open Source advocate, i'm fighting against globalist corporatism on one level. As a Unitarian, i'm fighting against it on another. And against my own tribes, i'm fighting to protect my own identity.

Our tribes give us our connection to society. That connection is what gives us meaning and purpose, beyond mere survival. Nationalism and globalism simplify the survival question by improving our standard of living, but they don't give us much to feed our spirit. And both nationalism and globalism work to crush our tribes, which get in the way of convenient homogeneity.

As for the Middle East, look at what they're getting. They see the worst of globalism - Coca-Cola and Britney Spears - while getting nothing of the best of it, like freedom of speech and a growing economy. And we're crushing the strong and beautiful tribe of Arab and Islamic culture. No wonder they are fighting back! However, i don't think the medievalists like bin Laden can win in the long run, either, because they don't offer anything BUT tribalism.

There's a key... globalist culture provides huge economic incentives to participation, but you pay with your soul. It's great to have a Starbuck's everywhere so you can always get good coffee, but it sucks that Starbuck's is putting the funky individualistic cafes out of business. T-shirts are wiping out tribal dress because they're cheaper (unless you're a geek like me, where the t-shirt and its logo IS your tribal dress. I'm wearing a Klingon Kultural Ekchange shirt under my business casual).

I could go on. Does any of this make sense?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...