×

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!

Globalism Post 9/11

JonKatz posted about 12 years ago | from the a-new-book-takes-on-a-different-world dept.

United States 1021

September 11 is transforming our notions about a raft of subjects, from economics to technology. Thanks to our myopic and narcissistic media and opportunistic, short-sighted politicians, we are only beginning to grasp the ways in which computer networks are changing, even radicalizing much of the world, sometimes in great, sometimes horrific ways. Six months ago, most Americans were stunned to discover how differently others in the world regard us from the way we see ourselves. Globalism is a major reason. Invasive American culture -- from movies, music, fast-food -- have highlighted political and religious differences, from Europe to the Middle East and South Asia. So have networked, hi-tech economies based on information and tech, argues a new book by George Soros.

We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it. Such forces make America not only the world's leading superpower, but probably its most feared and hated nation. As the U.S. evolved rapidly from an industrial to a data-based economy, much of the world hasn't come along, or doesn't want to.

Our technology is running away from the rest of the planet, from genomics to supercomputing to bio-tech research to weaponry. Globalism, arguably the single most significant political issue on the planet even before 9/11, is even more critical now, even though there is little consensus on what it is or how we should feel about it or even define it. Deep-thinking billionaire philanthropist Soros jumps in with a significant new book -- George Soros on Globalization -- in which he advances some exciting and startling ideas about the future.

Anti-globalization protests have become a staple of international summit meetings, Soros points out, a sort of "fragmented potpourri of laments about life in the modern world." A ferocious advocate of open societies, he takes on what's good and bad about globalism, and how we might put it to better use. We'll take up that discussion here.

As Soros points out, 'Globalization' is a much overused term with a wide variety of meanings and contexts. Soros uses it to mean the development of global financial markets and the growth of trans-national corporations, along with their increasing power over national economies. "I believe that most of the problems that people associate with globalism," writes Soros, "including the penetration of market values into areas where they do not traditionally belong, can be attributed to these phenomena."

One could also blame the globalization of information and culture; the spread of television, Internet and other forms of communication; and the increased mobility and commercialization of ideas.

But Soros understandably concentrates on economic issues. Globalization as he defines it, is new. At the end of World War II, most countries strictly controlled international capital transactions. International capital movement accelerated in the early 1980s under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and financial markets became truly global only in the early 1990s, Soros says, after the collapse of the Soviet empire.

That period also happens to coincide with the most explosive growth of the Net and the Web, perfect engines for the new data-driven economies and systems for the rapid movement -- literally -- of capital.

By contrast, as we can see on the evening news most nights, while governments may not be able to restrict the flow of capital, they're still fairly effective at controlling the movement of people. (Although even there, the Net ultimately makes that more difficult, at least in terms of intellectual property and ideas. This kind of content is liquid, no longer confinable within territorial boundaries.

Since capital is the essential ingredient of contemporary production and economies, countries compete to attract it. It's no accident that nations who can't or won't are also incubators for political discontent and terrorism. Globalism has transformed our historic economic and social arrangements. Since capital can move anywhere in seconds, any nation-state's ability to exercise control over an economy has been radically undermined. This was a huge club the British held over the Chinese government during negotiations over the transfer of Hong Kong. The Chinese were forced to be somewhat more democratic when, with the stroke of a key, billions of dollars in capital could have fled Hong Kong in a micro-second, even if its people couldn't.

"The globalization of financial markets," argues Soros," has rendered the welfare state that came into existence after World War II obsolete, because the people who require a social safety net cannot leave the country, but the capital the welfare state used to tax can."

This was no accident, he explains, even if few Americans had any idea it was happening. The Reagan administration (along with Thatcher) was determined to reduce the state's ability to interfere in the economy and, helped enormously by globalization's rise, it succeeded.

So, exuberantly costumed demonstrations aside, globalism is not about to evaporate or even weaken, not any time soon. Quite the opposite: nation-states and their constituents now have to choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism. This leaves us with the central question:


Next: Is Globalism good or evil?

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1021 comments

now ask yourself, (-1)

trollercoaster (250101) | about 12 years ago | (#3270849)

who's tha mack?

What is a mack, if Mack==gay then it's you (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3271077)

Blow me biatch!!!

LOLOLOLOL! I like this chatroom! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3271108)

Hi my name is Kayla and this is not my experience but a friends. This is not a ghost experience but a poession! My friend lets call her Missy( i am changing her name just for her sake) well she was a councler at a camp this past year(2001) and she stayed 6 weeks and 5 different groups of kids came all ages ranging from 10 - 18. well it was about the 2nd week and it was for the 14-16 year olds . Missy had gotten through this week pretty good but she had one camper lets call her Shelly ( for her sake also) well she just had a bad attitude all week and this upsetted missy so the last night Missy saw Shelly sitting with her brother and best friend (that was all the living people) and they were crying.Missy then heard the scariest noise she had ever heard in her life ,Shelly let out the most blood-shrill scream ! Missy said it wasnt human! But Missy said that behind them was shadows but it wasnt human shawdos! Well missy ran to her friend Jane( name changed for her sake also) Well Missy and Jane went over there and asked Shelly what was wrong and Shelly looked Missy in her eyes and Missy said her eyes were so empty so full of evil ! Well then shelly's brother told them that Shelly was possessed! And missy and jane jumped back! Well then they took her to the camp chaple and supposedly they prayed it out of her! Well it turns out that the girl asked the thing into her not long ago ! After they got it out of her she asked it back into her! They asked the "thing" what its name is and it said some thing like in french or german meaning "many spirts" well that is the tale hope yall liked it!

13. (-1)

GafTheHorseInTears (565684) | about 12 years ago | (#3270855)

Let us not under-estimate this fact: that we ourselves, we free spirits, are already a "transvaluation of all values," a visualized declaration of war and victory against all the old concepts of "true" and "not true." The most valuable intuitions are the last to be attained; the most valuable of all are those which determine methods. All the methods, all the principles of the scientific spirit of today, were the targets for thousands of years of the most profound contempt; if a man inclined to them he was excluded from the society of "decent" people--he passed as "an enemy of God," as a scoffer at the truth, as one "possessed." As a man of science, he belonged to the Chandala... We have had the whole pathetic stupidity of mankind against us--their every notion of what the truth ought to be, of what the service of the truth ought to be--their every "thou shalt" was launched against us. . . . Our objectives, our methods, our quiet, cautious, distrustful manner--all appeared to them as absolutely discreditable and contemptible.--Looking back, one may almost ask one's self with reason if it was not actually an aesthetic sense that kept men blind so long: what they demanded of the truth was picturesque effectiveness, and of the learned a strong appeal to their senses. It was our modesty that stood out longest against their taste...How well they guessed that, these turkey-cocks of God!

Next: Is Globalism good or evil ? (2, Funny)

cOdEgUru (181536) | about 12 years ago | (#3270856)

The real question is :

Is Jon Katz good or evil ? Or just plain irritating ?

I'll vote for "DORK," thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3270891)

Never in the history of journalism have so many words been agglomerated to so little net effect.

Re:Next: Is Globalism good or evil ? (-1, Offtopic)

cOdEgUru (181536) | about 12 years ago | (#3270965)

Troll ???

I didnt know there were people here who cared about Katz !!!

You gotta be kidding me..

Globalism, Schmobilism @# +1 ; Liberating #@ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3271091)

My complaint about Dick Cheney:

May I be cynical for a bit? I hope you don't mind,
but with Cheney's latest barrage of
malodorous notions, I can't resist the urge to make a
few cynical comments. To get right
down to it, some of the facts I'm about
to present may seem shocking. This
they certainly are. However, it's time that a few
facts had a chance to slip through the fusillade of hype.
What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it
in the form of a question: Where are the people
who are willing to stand up and acknowledge
that Cheney, in his infinite wisdom, has decided
to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests?
On the surface, it would seem to have something to do
with the way that his whole approach is repugnant.
But upon further investigation, one will find that
by allowing Cheney to put mephitic thoughts in our
children's minds, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
As for the lies and exaggerations, Cheney's
epigrams are rife with contradictions
and difficulties; they're entirely maladroit,
meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited
for a supposedly educated population.
And as if that weren't enough, if Cheney is going to
obstruct important things, then he should at least have
the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, a
true enemy is better than a false friend. And
second, many people respond to his debauched vituperations
in much the same way that they respond to television
dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but
they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything
about them. That's why I insist we pronounce the truth
and renounce the lies.

Even people who consider themselves scornful
foolhardy-types generally agree that Cheney's slurs
symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion
-- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us
lose more than a little freedom. One might conclude
that Cheney is incapable of writing a letter without using
such phrases as "crapulous pop psychologists", "loquacious
exhibitionists", "oppressive personae non gratae", or
some combination thereof. Alternatively, one might conclude
that Cheney has a different view of reality from the rest of us.
In either case, if you're not part of the solution,
then you're part of the problem. His historical record of
fickle pleas is clearer than the muddled pronouncements
of his apple-polishers for a variety of reasons. For
instance, the worst sorts of inconsiderate Neanderthals there
are must be treated with political justice, not with
civil justice, as they are sincerely not real citizens. Let me
rephrase that: I wonder if he really believes the
things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he?
A complete answer to that question would
take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give
you a simplified answer. For starters, if
we let him cause riots in the streets, then greed,
corruption, and tribalism will characterize the government.
Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens.
And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the
media and educational institutions.

Even Cheney's bedfellows couldn't deal with the full impact of
Cheney's refrains. That's why they created "Cheney-ism," which is
just a garrulous excuse to force square
pegs into round holes. He plans to drag everything
that is truly great into the gutter. He has instructed
his votaries not to discuss this or even admit to his
plan's existence. Obviously, Cheney knows he has
something to hide. Most of you reading this letter
have your hearts in the right place. Now
follow your hearts with actions. I have traveled the length and
breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can
therefore assure you that Cheney's artifices cannot stand on
their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate
artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that Cheney's
warnings can give us deeper insights into the nature of
reality. We can and we must protect ourselves by any means
necessary against the unrestrained bestiality
of stupid, quasi-macabre paper-pushers. And that's the honest truth.

First post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3270858)

So you can be an asshole in multiple sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3271106)

Congratulations you inbred son of a bitch!

Your sister/mother must be very proud!!

Mirror (-1, Troll)

Alan_Thicke (553655) | about 12 years ago | (#3270860)

Old? (0, Redundant)

bleckywelcky (518520) | about 12 years ago | (#3270935)


Anyone else think that the same guy has overplayed and overplayed this joke way too much. When it pops up in every single article, it is too predictable and quite dumb. Besides the fact that the article contains no links, which was about the only source of humour that I found in the mirror this time. And get a new mirror too, that one keeps going down and is showing signs of aging from too much use.

Singing about Katz (-1, Troll)

The Turd Report (527733) | about 12 years ago | (#3270872)

Sung to I'M Popeye the Sailor Man

I'm Jon Katz the cock loving man
I love it hard in the can
I ain't no genius
But, I sure do love penis
I'm Jon Katz the cock loving man.

I'm Jon Katz the cock loving man
I like boys: young and tan
If I can suck his
I'll swallow his jizz
I'm Jon Katz the cock loving man.

I'm Jon Katz the cock loving man
faggotry is my plan
I don't go for women
I am crazy for semen
I'm Jon Katz the cock loving man!

Fire Jon Katz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3270878)

I think we need to start a "fire Jon Katz" petition [petitiononline.com]

As long as Alex Chiu .... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3270880)


...ships his eternal rings worldwide, I'm content. Globalism can bring me eternal life:

http://www.alexchiu.com/affiliates/clickthru.cgi ?I D=chiuofborg

Re:As long as Alex Chiu .... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3270944)

TIMECUBE [timecube.com] makes more sense than that gibbering Katz!

bah (0, Funny)

rash (83406) | about 12 years ago | (#3270882)

can someone give me a recap of what he said.
It was so damn boring and pointless that i didnt manage to read it before i got bored.

First Post Baby (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3270884)

That's what I'm sayin', boyeee

a little nonsense, but hey - it's near April Fools (4, Insightful)

mesocyclone (80188) | about 12 years ago | (#3270890)

It's no accident that nations who can't or won't [attract capital] are also incubators for political discontent and terrorism

Oh - you're right. Poor Saudi Arabia.

Re:a little nonsense, but hey - it's near April Fo (4, Insightful)

Stonehand (71085) | about 12 years ago | (#3271030)

For all their oil, neither their GDP ('bout US $9000 per capita as of 1998) nor massive budget deficit (expenditures $44B, revenue $32.3B => exceeds revenue by ~36.2%) is impressive.

But then, that's not surprising in an economy so full of patronage that 40% of the labor force is in government.

Re:a little nonsense, but hey - it's near April Fo (1)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | about 12 years ago | (#3271104)

For all their oil, neither their GDP ('bout US $9000 per capita as of 1998) nor massive budget deficit (expenditures $44B, revenue $32.3B => exceeds revenue by ~36.2%) is impressive.

In short, an Argentina/Enron wanna-be.

Re:a little nonsense, but hey - it's near April Fo (0)

epodrevol (219315) | about 12 years ago | (#3271041)

Saudi arabia does not attract capital, they produce it in the form of a plentiful natural resource - oil.
And most of that is controlled by a very few number of people, and given that there is not much else there but sand to generate capital. I think you can all see the problems inherent in systems where power is held by the very few.

-BUT-

I think that also more than money figures into this, ie Religion, factors into the situation and may have much more impact in terroristic or politically motivated actions.

Osama, the Taliban, Hambali, Hamas, and many others fight for thier god and thier religion and THAT is thier cause for discontent.

-AND-

Can you guys and girls go one post by JonKatz without telling the rest of the world how much you hate him. Jesus, there is more Katz bashing (not saying wether i like him or not) than actual thoughtful responses to stories here. Be constructive of once.

Re:a little nonsense, but hey - it's near April Fo (1)

JanneM (7445) | about 12 years ago | (#3271068)

BUY GOOGLE ADS! - They have refused ads for firearms!

The point? Just as with things like arms control, there are some undisputable facts regarding the effects of globalization - both good and bad - but whether the effects are seen as good or as bad, or whether the good outweighs the bad, will become a difference of opinion.

For some people, discontent and upheaval is seen as a good thing - and not just by extremists either. It can be seen as a chance of getting rid of the old and bringing in the new. That's essentially what liberal and conservative economics alike propagated for with their 'chock therapy' method of fixing the east european economies.

The middle east has a huge problem with their oil reserves. If you think the west has an oil dependency problem, that is nothing compared to these big oil producers. The oil industry is the only large industry there is, and these countries stand and fall with the oil price. There are efforts to attract other kinds of business there, but there just is no intellectual or technological infrastructure there to really support it. Will they need fairly radical changes in their political and economic structures eventually? Yes, they do. If those changes come in the form of armed unrest or even revolutions, is there a big risk that they will regress and shut themselves off from the world like Iran did? Yes.

/Janne

Having Deja vu?? (2, Insightful)

FortKnox (169099) | about 12 years ago | (#3270895)

Having Deja vu??

Nope, just do a simple search [slashdot.org] (for the afraid, this is Jon's EIGHTH Globalism story).

Rehashing old stories?

You bet!!!

The Globalism horse is DEAD.
Please please please please please come up with a better buzzword/topic to use in your stories, and lets move on.

Wow (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3270899)

Katz's posts always feels like April Fools never ended.

Here it is... Just in case it gets Slashdotted (-1, Redundant)

JohnSalis (566690) | about 12 years ago | (#3270900)

September 11 is transforming our notions about a raft of subjects, from economics to technology. Thanks to our myopic and narcissistic media and opportunistic, short-sighted politicians, we are only beginning to grasp the ways in which computer networks are changing, even radicalizing much of the world, sometimes in great, sometimes horrific ways. Six months ago, most Americans were stunned to discover how differently others in the world regard us from the way we see ourselves. Globalism is a major reason. Invasive American culture -- from movies, music, fast-food -- have highlighted political and religious differences, from Europe to the Middle East and South Asia. So have networked, hi-tech economies based on information and tech, argues a new book by George Soros.

We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it. Such forces make America not only the world's leading superpower, but probably its most feared and hated nation. As the U.S. evolved rapidly from an industrial to a data-based economy, much of the world hasn't come along, or doesn't want to.

Our technology is running away from the rest of the planet, from genomics to supercomputing to bio-tech research to weaponry. Globalism, arguably the single most significant political issue on the planet even before 9/11, is even more critical now, even though there is little consensus on what it is or how we should feel about it or even define it. Deep-thinking billionaire philanthropist Soros jumps in with a significant new book -- George Soros on Globalization -- in which he advances some exciting and startling ideas about the future.

Anti-globalization protests have become a staple of international summit meetings, Soros points out, a sort of "fragmented potpourri of laments about life in the modern world." A ferocious advocate of open societies, he takes on what's good and bad about globalism, and how we might put it to better use. We'll take up that discussion here.

As Soros points out, 'Globalization' is a much overused term with a wide variety of meanings and contexts. Soros uses it to mean the development of global financial markets and the growth of trans-national corporations, along with their increasing power over national economies. "I believe that most of the problems that people associate with globalism," writes Soros, "including the penetration of market values into areas where they do not traditionally belong, can be attributed to these phenomena."

One could also blame the globalization of information and culture; the spread of television, Internet and other forms of communication; and the increased mobility and commercialization of ideas.

But Soros understandably concentrates on economic issues. Globalization as he defines it, is new. At the end of World War II, most countries strictly controlled international capital transactions. International capital movement accelerated in the early 1980s under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and financial markets became truly global only in the early 1990s, Soros says, after the collapse of the Soviet empire.

That period also happens to coincide with the most explosive growth of the Net and the Web, perfect engines for the new data-driven economies and systems for the rapid movement -- literally -- of capital.

By contrast, as we can see on the evening news most nights, while governments may not be able to restrict the flow of capital, they're still fairly effective at controlling the movement of people. (Although even there, the Net ultimately makes that more difficult, at least in terms of intellectual property and ideas. This kind of content is liquid, no longer confinable within territorial boundaries.

Since capital is the essential ingredient of contemporary production and economies, countries compete to attract it. It's no accident that nations who can't or won't are also incubators for political discontent and terrorism. Globalism has transformed our historic economic and social arrangements. Since capital can move anywhere in seconds, any nation-state's ability to exercise control over an economy has been radically undermined. This was a huge club the British held over the Chinese government during negotiations over the transfer of Hong Kong. The Chinese were forced to be somewhat more democratic when, with the stroke of a key, billions of dollars in capital could have fled Hong Kong in a micro-second, even if its people couldn't.

"The globalization of financial markets," argues Soros," has rendered the welfare state that came into existence after World War II obsolete, because the people who require a social safety net cannot leave the country, but the capital the welfare state used to tax can."

This was no accident, he explains, even if few Americans had any idea it was happening. The Reagan administration (along with Thatcher) was determined to reduce the state's ability to interfere in the economy and, helped enormously by globalization's rise, it succeeded.

So, exuberantly costumed demonstrations aside, globalism is not about to evaporate or even weaken, not any time soon. Quite the opposite: nation-states and their constituents now have to choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism. This leaves us with the central question:

Next: Is Globalism good or evil?

Re:Here it is... Just in case it gets Slashdotted (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3270951)

This is truly the funniest thing I've ever seen. :D

What Do Christians Have to Say Post 9/11? (-1, Offtopic)

YoPt (172577) | about 12 years ago | (#3270907)

http://pewforum.org/events/1213/

Thursday, December 13, 2001
11 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
Council for Christian Colleges and Universities
329 Eighth Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C.

Like other communities, the Christian community has struggled to address a host of challenging questions after 9/11. What position should Christians take on the use of military force? How should these attacks be understood within the Christian community? How does Christian engagement in public life on a broad range of issues prepare Christians to respond to events like 9/11 and its aftermath? The Saints and Citizens Project, directed by the Center for Public Justice and the Center for Christian Studies at Gordon College, along with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, will hold a discussion on how Christians respond to 9/11 and what Christian organizations have done--and can do--to promote civic education.

At the event, the Saints and Citizens Project will release a report entitled "At a Political Crossroads: Christian Civic Education and the Future of the American Polity." The result of a two-year study of eighteen different Christian organizations, this report reveals a remarkable diversity of patterns in the way Christians engage, and prepare to engage, in political life.

Participants:

* Jim Skillen, Center for Public Justice
* Harold Heie, Center for Christian Studies, Gordon College
* Kathy Pomroy, Bread for the World
* Joan Rosenhauer, U. S. Catholic Conference
* John Schroeder, Acton Institute
* Ken Johnson, Ella J. Baker House/Azusa Christian Community
* Nathan Wilson, Call to Renewal

Moderator:

* Melissa Rogers, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

Please RSVP to Kirsten Hunter at (202) 955-5075, acceptances only.

self view (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3270911)

"most Americans were stunned to discover how differently others in the world regard us from the way we see ourselves"

You mean I'm not a handsome, rich, funny, well-educated man with the body of a herculean god?

FSTFUKP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3270915)

First STFU, Katz post!


(score : -1e6, redundant)
Yehaw!

Wow, Katz... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3270917)

I'm sure you had some really fucking deep shit to spout, but I didn't read past the first bit. You know, that bit where you're loud, opinionated and uninformed. Yeah.

Fuck off, shitfuck. Christ you're an idiot.

-1 troll (2)

rde (17364) | about 12 years ago | (#3270922)

nation-states and their constituents now have to choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism

Come off it. The main reason that many people (me included) have problems with globalisation is because of its attendant misery. If globalisation were truly beneficial to all parties, few (okay, fewer) would object.

And as for the alternative being 'religious fanaticism': jesus. I can't even begin to outline an objection to that one.

Another opinion from your humble servant: McDonald's, Paramount, et al are, I suspect, victims in all this. If globalisation were truly fair, only dieticians would object to McDonald's. And only the french would complain about Hollywood. The rest of the world chooses on an individual basis whether they want to watch a particular film.

Re:-1 troll (2)

Kintanon (65528) | about 12 years ago | (#3271017)

Come off it. The main reason that many people (me included) have problems with globalisation is because of its attendant misery. If globalisation were truly beneficial to all parties, few (okay, fewer) would object.


Ummm, run that by me again? I've never had anyone who was sufficiently able to convince me that the Globalisation of the marketplace was bad for anyone... I mean, more job opportunities, more labor, more businesses, free trade with everyone. Really the only possible problem is getting decent labor laws passed worldwide. Once that happens everyone should be benefitted. So I don't see why there should be an objection to globalism/globalisation in and of itself. I can see an objection to poorly implemented or badly corrupted globalism though...

Kintanon

Re:-1 troll (2)

Stonehand (71085) | about 12 years ago | (#3271047)

It's bad for the inefficient, such as US steel producers or protectionism/subsidy-dependent folks everywhere. Unions and other labour groups forth tend to operate on the basis of trying to protect everyone, not just the competent...

Re:-1 troll (3, Interesting)

rde (17364) | about 12 years ago | (#3271105)

Sorry; I wasn't clear. You're right: it's not globalisation that's the problem, it's the implementation thereof. 'Merely' getting decent laws passed is a significant part of the problem, and the world would be a happier place if this sort of thing took place before opening markets, rather than after.
Example link, rather than have me rehash old arguments: alternet [alternet.org].

Re:-1 troll (2)

Mr.Intel (165870) | about 12 years ago | (#3271043)

The rest of the world chooses on an individual basis whether they want to watch a particular film.

In a world where individual choice was as championed as it is here on /. this would be true. However, most nations don't have more than a couple of choices available to them. They don't have video stores, independant films to download off the net or the resources to make their own films free from censorship. So Hollywood becomes the defacto choice for a lot of people especially when the government of said country is subsidized by the big studios for distribution rights. Even in a truly fair globalized world, individual choice would barely be available.

Globalization relieves misery. (1)

glrotate (300695) | about 12 years ago | (#3271063)

Countries like Bangladesh have large amounts of misery. They had a alot more before there weer opprotunities to work in some of the factories. Are they sweat shops? Absolutly, but when the choice is globalization/eating and no-globalization/begging the really isn't much of a choice. The poor countries need to learn they can't breed like rabbits.

Clueless Americans (-1)

OsamaBinLager (532628) | about 12 years ago | (#3271088)

American Media keeps you ignorant, because I have a feeling you wouldn't be able to live with yourself if you knew the truth.

Us in other countries don't give two shits about you attempting to import American "culture" (HAHAHA), McDonalds for example is merely a symbol of the problem.

You see, you export profits.

You kill people that object to you exporting profits.

You prop up horrible, murderous, torturing, puppet leaderships, so that you can continue to export profits.

EXPORT EXPORT EXPORT

Keep working, there's no where to go, WORK FOR US OR WE'LL SLIT YOUR THROAT, FUCKER

No after versus before here (5, Insightful)

Logic Bomb (122875) | about 12 years ago | (#3270924)

I fail to see how anything in this article differs substantially from anything said about globalization pre-9/11... especially by Jon Katz. I guess next week we'll be treated to a similarly-rehashed version of the (already useless) discussion of whether globalization is a good thing.

Hey editors, if you're hurting for money (see also: subscriptions), maybe you should tell Katz that either he comes up with original material or you're taking him off the payroll.

MEGO! (2)

elefantstn (195873) | about 12 years ago | (#3270931)

My eyes glaze over.

Seriously, I can't get halfway through a Katz paragraph without halving my attention span.

Slashdot (2)

MisterBlister (539957) | about 12 years ago | (#3270937)

Pro-Star Trek

Anti-Globalism

Pro-Libertarian

Anti-Microsoft

You forgot one thing... (-1)

ringbarer (545020) | about 12 years ago | (#3271097)

Pro-Terrorism

Judging by the way the Slashdot Janitors bounced around with joy and glee and anti-American rhetoric last September, you'd think they'd have pulled a Jihad Johnny and signed up to the Taliban.

But of course not, they like their DVDs and Windows-only games too much.

Evolution (2, Insightful)

moofdaddy (570503) | about 12 years ago | (#3270940)

Could it be argued this is the next stage of human evolution? Perhapse evolution isn't the right word for this. But if we're changing over our society, from the primitive economic structure utilized by the rest of the world towards a more advanced, digital society in general...isn't that the next step? If what we do truely proves to be superior in the next few years, won't natural selection then come into play with other parts of the world who are resistent to the changes come about? If they don't evolve they are at risk of dying out and being overcome.

welcome to reality... (2, Funny)

i7dude (473077) | about 12 years ago | (#3270950)

"Six months ago, most Americans were stunned to discover how differently others in the world regard us from the way we see ourselves."

wow, so you just recently removed your head from your ass...its about time you joined the rest of us...

...now move on.

dude.

running away from the world (5, Insightful)

wiredog (43288) | about 12 years ago | (#3270953)

We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it.

Much of the world hated us when we weren't running away from it.

For example [nationalreview.com]


Syrian Radio blared before the 1967 war, "The Arab seas and the fish in them will feed on the Americans' rotting imperialist bodies." Thirty-five years before Mr. Atta's work on 9/11, Radio Cairo trumped Syrian calumny with the macabre but now prescient warning, "Millions of Arabs are preparing to blow up all of America's interests, all of America's installations, and your entire existence, America." The same big lies that we see today on al Jazeera were the everyday stuff of the latter 1960s -- when official government radio stations blared out daily untruths that Americans had bombed Arab countries during the Six Day War and so prevented a "sure" Muslim victory.

Running Away? (5, Insightful)

e1en0r (529063) | about 12 years ago | (#3270959)

We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it.

Funny, I thought they hated us for sticking our noses in their business.

Hmm I wonder?! (1)

jyoull (512280) | about 12 years ago | (#3270962)

I swore about a week ago that I would not read any more documents that begin with the phrase "September 11" (or variants like "Sept. 11" or "9/11") and then carry on about something or other about how the world is "forever changed" and all that.

It's not that I disagree with the sentiment, just that it's be said and re-said. It matters not so much where we were, as where we are headed, in any case.

So in the event that this was useful prose, "WELL SAID" and if it wasn't, then "Bullshit!

Put me down for BULLSHIT. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3270986)

Katz is such a fucking slutcuntfuck nigger bastard fuckjew.

Check... (5, Funny)

DickPhallus (472621) | about 12 years ago | (#3270963)

Buzzword check:

Post-9/11, check
Globalism, check
Trans-national Corporations, check
Explosive growth of the net, check

I'm a bit disappointed, where's the post-columbine tie-in?

The missing Columbine tie-in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3271119)

I'm a bit disappointed, where's the post-columbine tie-in?

Obvious: September 11th would have been Dylan's 20th birthday. And, for the record, Eric's birthday is in exactly one week from now. And, what's more, it's the ninth day after Easter, just as April 20th was...

JohnCunts is my hero (0, Troll)

Hubbas (570665) | about 12 years ago | (#3270964)

is it just me, or did i jusy get a lot stupidet after reading John Katz article?

BREAKING NEWS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3270968)

Jon Katz was caught molesting a little boy this morning. The Catholic Church has said they plan to ordaim Jon Katz next week.

Better question... (1)

justanetgod (554210) | about 12 years ago | (#3270977)

How big is the cut for Jon Katz? Despite the occasional rare GOOD point made, most of his reviews start out great and then become book and author-contric, causing me to ask myself, what % of the book revenue does Katz see, because it will be BOOK HYPE CITY...

Civ CTP-6: Reality (1)

Gainax (127325) | about 12 years ago | (#3270979)

Ok ok ok, so we at what... the Corporate Republic now? I want my Virtual Democracy already! Where'd those damn Alien Life projects go again??

much of the world hates us? (0, Flamebait)

WildBeast (189336) | about 12 years ago | (#3270991)

The thing is that when Clinton was here, he did wonders to improve the opinion of other countries about the U.S. . When Bush came out, he wasn't very popular at all and he did nothing to improve his image. He single handedly destroyed the U.S. image.

Re:much of the world hates us? (1)

DavidTC (10147) | about 12 years ago | (#3271035)

I thought it was Reagan that single handedly destroyed the U.S. image.

Re:much of the world hates us? (2)

Stonehand (71085) | about 12 years ago | (#3271121)

What US image was there to destroy? When the US tries to act nice (Wilson at Versailles, say), it gets treated as a chump (the European nations opted for the traditionalist "vengeance" approach to treaty negotiations); when it acts mean (T.R. versus Colombia to secure Panama's independence for the canal) it got skewered as well. Intervene? Nam, Somalia, Desert Storm... all of which got criticized. Hell, so did the recent attacks on the Taliban. Don't intervene? Indonesia (East Timor), Rwanda, (post-Soviet collapse) Afghanistan... ditto.

It's been customary throughout all of history for most cultures to look down on everybody else as more barbaric, after all... the concept that others may be civilized and, say, just as deserving of basic human rights still hasn't become quite universal yet, judging from the persistence of warfare based on tribal affiliations and religion.

Part of it is envy, part of it is the usual nationalism, part of it from political or religious hatreds, and so forth...

Re:much of the world hates us? (3, Informative)

Christianfreak (100697) | about 12 years ago | (#3271101)

Ummmm,

93 World Trade Center Bombing
The attack on the Saudi Marine Barracks,
Somolia,
USS Cole bombing,
African Embassy bombings in Kenya/Tanzania

Yeah sounds like ol Osama really liked us while Clinton was in power.

I'm not going to get into politics of Bush/Clinton Dems or Republican, who's better or all that crap but don't make baseless accusations that aren't true.

Who will get the 3271000th post!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3270992)

I will

what's the central question? (2)

amarodeeps (541829) | about 12 years ago | (#3270993)

So, exuberantly costumed demonstrations aside, globalism is not about to evaporate or even weaken, not any time soon. Quite the opposite: nation-states and their constituents now have to choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism. This leaves us with the central question:

Next: Is Globalism good or evil?

I have to disagree; it's a simplistic question and somewhat moot. Obviously globalization has its positive and negative aspects. The central question to me seems more something along the lines of "Is globalization now inevitable and if so, should we be working to shift the focus to people's welfare across the globe or will the prosperity of these new multi-national corporations 'trickle-down' (to go back and reference the Reagan era again) to the people of the world?"

Also Katz; I would request that you learn; to use your semicolons; please (not like this).

Give me back these moments of my life. (4, Interesting)

ejaytee (186527) | about 12 years ago | (#3271002)


This series has become not so much commentary as a diarrhetic stream of self-righteous sewage.

Please, Mr. Katz, save your future tantrums for the walls of the public restroom stall of your choice. Speaking for myself, I have nothing better to do whilst engaged in such places, and I wouldn't feel such a sense of loss if I invested the time to read your writings at times such as those.

Your anti-globalization mantra is poorly constructed. You toss in so many unsupported perjoratives in the process of hating globalization and its perceived dark army of supporters that I begin to dislike you intensely and view you with suspicion.

Your juvenile rantings have a curious boomerang effect, as I begin to feel warmly about globalization. My reasoning is simple: any issue against which a nincompoop such as yourself might rail is worthy of consideration.

grep -v Katz

The Simpsons? (2)

WildBeast (189336) | about 12 years ago | (#3271006)

This reminds me of the last episode of the Simpsons where Homer goes to Brazil wearing a tee-shirt that says : "You can't stop us" with a picture of the United States devouring the planet :)

running away? um (1, Insightful)

n3r0.m4dski11z (447312) | about 12 years ago | (#3271007)

We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it.

sorry running away? you have a culture that by its nature invades and polutes every other. how are you running away from the rest of the world? in fact i would say its quite the opposite. for years the government of your country has meddled in the affairs of others. that is why Osama is pissed as well as many many other countries. The USA is a bully and the last thing bullies do is run away from a fight.

America is better. (1, Flamebait)

glrotate (300695) | about 12 years ago | (#3271012)

What we are seeing is that fair, open systems with industrious citizens are much more successful that corrupt or backward regimes with lazy citizens. Much of the world resentment is derived from this success. It's obvious that the Muslims see it as invalidating their religeon. The United States exists as a refutation of Islam. Additionaly much of Europe restents us for our work ethic, they refer to it as "ruthless efficiency" on the BBC. Italy is the perfect example of how a generaly "lazy" culture that encourages unemployment and low levels of output is falling futher and further behind the rest of the world. The message to these other ultures is clear, their reaction hasn't been paticularly prudent.

Re:America is better. (2)

JanneM (7445) | about 12 years ago | (#3271092)

So, you felt the need to slap 30% duties on european steel exactly why?

/Janne

A big deal over nothing... (2, Funny)

MarcoJROM (412323) | about 12 years ago | (#3271032)

If globalization is such a problem, then just localize all the variables where they are needed or passed and only use two global functions per file. Geesh, what kind of coffee did you people drink?

The US already knows this (3, Insightful)

Monkeyman334 (205694) | about 12 years ago | (#3271033)

When we went to fight for Saudi Arabia, or our oil interests, whichever you prefer, we were very carful not to offend anyone. Soldiers were told to drink only in their tents, and avoid the girl lovin' yeehaw cowboy attitude of America. But wait a second? They invited us! The politicians didn't care, and the rules still applied so we wouldn't alienate them.
But just because "they" may not like our ways, doesn't mean it's a bad thing, in some places there are no womens rights. The women might not even care because they've had it drilled in to their brains all their lives that they were meant to stay at home and not vote. It's been part of their culture for centuries, what makes the US right all of a sudden? Nothing really, but that doesn't make it easier to sit back and watch the women be oppresed and say "oh, they don't mind." So it's kinda, might makes right, and the US has the might.
There is the myth that church and state are seperated in the US. But none of the constitutional rights go against the ten commandments and we're one nation "under god". Why? Because we had to go by *something*. We couldn't make laws to make everybody happy, so we decided on "Christian" laws. We choose that adultery is bad, but in some parts of africa, it's expected to give your wife to company. Again, what makes the US right? Well, we have the aids problem a little more under control, but the only moral reasoning is that it comes from the bible. Still, in the US it's illegal.
What I'm trying to say is, we can't decide for people what is right or wrong. But if another culture sees our culture and likes it, why stop them from joining? Where does it cross the line from preserving their culture to oppressing them and isolating them from the outside world?

The effect of September 11. (3, Insightful)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | about 12 years ago | (#3271034)

The primary enduring effect is that we now have a whole bunch of crackpots who keep insisting that some mysterious changes have taken place tranforming the whole world. These changes are a psychological phenomenon that factors only in *some* people's lives. Then there are those who don't perceive any changes, but simply repeat the message that there are changes without thinking critically, like the crowd of people in the well-known story about the Emperor's new clothes. Whenever a sufficient number of people claim to perceive something, there are those who pretend to also perceive it for fear of being seen as strange, stupid or lacking in perception. The net effect is a mass self-bullshitting.

The secondary enduring effect is that some psychotic, paranoid redneck idiots are using September's attacks as an excuse to increase their destructive interference in other people's lives in the name of national security, patriotism or whatever.

Religion != Poverty; Globalism != Prosperity (2)

gotscheme (246456) | about 12 years ago | (#3271037)

Although Katz didn't imply religion equals to poverty, this generalization is prevalent and incorrect. IMHO, religious fanaticism that is anti-technology and anti-equality keeps in place barriers to social/cultural and material wealth.

I think that social/cultural wealth is a must in any nation, but developing nations do not want or cannot accept in a rapid sweep the rise of material wealth.

In the short run, there is a definite argument for globalism to create material wealth, eliminating poverty. The long-run consequences, however, must be considered. What do developing nations do when suddenly they have a great amount of material wealth? The culutural change associated with socioeconomic class restructuring is staggering. It is important, I think, to adopt a respect for slowed growth in less materially developed nations.

As tech enthusiasts, Slashdot readers need to consider the effects of their work, and start guiding their efforts to be more humanistic, while still maintaining a *fair* amount of free markets. Explain, without boasting, the positive effects of improved technology, and explain the pros and cons of democracy/capitalism. The unbalanced explanations to many new adopters of democracy/capitalism/globalism have been unfair. If visionaries explain the future obstacles, countries will be better prepared to face change. Adopt other cultures' points of view if you want them to accept yours, and do not feel superior because your technology is.

Globalism? No, dictatorships (2)

Brian Stretch (5304) | about 12 years ago | (#3271042)

Six months ago, most Americans were stunned to discover how differently others in the world regard us from the way we see ourselves. Globalism is a major reason.

So's state-controlled media in, say, the Middle East perpetually broadcasting anti-American (and anti-Semitic) propaganda to give their captive populations an external "enemy" to blame for the misery caused by their corrupt dictatorships. Maybe pervasive Internet access would end-run this, but it hasn't done the job yet, even in a ridiculously wealthy nation like Saudi Arabian royal dictatorship.

We might do more to suggest to those captive populations that they do what Americans did over two centuries ago: overthrow their dictatorships in favor of a constitutionally limited republic. Yes, there's downside risk, but is it that much worse than the current situation?

Two things (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3271050)

First, I agree with all the other criticisms of Katz, e.g. get a new topic, get your head out of your ass, etc.

Second, the one aspect of globalization that I almsot never see addressed is the notion that no matter how intrusive multinationals are outside the US, they maintain a presence on those other countries because they find economic success. If the people in other countries didn't willingly embrace US culture by buying the products then those companies would fold up shop and go home. IMO the biggest complaint some people outside the US have is not with the "invasion" by US companies, but with the people in their own country who support those invasions with their purchases.

Still here? (1)

bleckywelcky (518520) | about 12 years ago | (#3271053)


Why is Katz still here? Seriously, I can't figure it out. Everytime he posts an article, I don't read it... but I do skip down to the comments to check out what other people have to say. And I tell ya, 99% of the comments are just people flaming him for... well... being Katz and doing whatever he does. Occasionally a comment here or there will venture into discussing the topic, but even then the comment usually wraps up with a "Katz is a fool" cliche-type statement. And then there are the The Few. The Proud. who will push their way through the onslaught to heckle the flamers, telling them to turn off Katz articles, but the flamers... they only do what they are trained to do, and they flame the heckler back.

So I ask you, Katz, flamers, anyone - why do(does) you(Katz) still post articles here? Some desperate attempt to gain a deranged form of Karma? Is it an addiction? Is Katz being subsidized by the government? Why?

I'm so confused.

Katz is a big cuntfuck, obviously. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3271127)

Fuck Katz. Self-important motherfucking shitfop. He should lick his own asshole for eternity.

Idiot.

A common theme.. (1)

sketchy_gomez (566910) | about 12 years ago | (#3271057)

The pending clash between modern international capitalism and religious and ethnically based tribalism has been a familiar rant of pundits for the last decade or so. One of the more comprehensive studies of this phenomenon is the book (and article): Jihad Vs. McWorld [theatlantic.com] by Benjamin Barber. In this treatment, Jihad represents any fanatic religious or ethnic movement (not just those zany Islamic terrorists!) and McWorld is the MTV/McDonalds/etc. imperialistic capitalism of the West. It's a little on the liberal side, but it's a good analysis of the trends that self-proclaimed experts everywhere bitch and moan about.

Palestine attacked by Terrorist oppressors (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3271058)

The Bush administration has giving the green light/blind eye to Sharon to do whatever.

The untold sad reality is that the Bush, Chaney and Ashcroft are not far from fundamentalist Christians.
They secretly wish to fufill some Biblical promise to the "chosen people" about land.
Why would gentiles wish to help this fullfillment? Because the Christians are afraid of prophesy not coming
true, so they think they need to give God some help.

The truth is that Palistine is a territory that is oppressed and terrorized by Isreal.
Israel is backed by the United States, publicly in the name of 2001-09-11 Terrorism,
privately in the name of fullfilling Biblical prophesy.

People say "Remember, the world is a different
place since 9/11". This is only an line to fool the majority into allowing limiting liberties, and advancing hidden political/religious agenda.

You will be assimilated (1)

TwitchCHNO (469542) | about 12 years ago | (#3271067)

"We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it. Such forces make America not only the world's leading superpower, but probably its most feared and hated nation. As the U.S. evolved rapidly from an industrial to a data-based economy, much of the world hasn't come along, or doesn't want to."

Resistance is futile.
We will add your own biological and technological advantages to our own.

I don't know what subject to give this... (1)

ghislain_leblanc (450723) | about 12 years ago | (#3271070)

While I know for a fact that most countries truly hate de U.S. (as much as most Linuxers hate the M.S.), I think the hatred is mostly directed towards the american way of life. Bush would call it "Freedom haters", probably because he can't admit that his country CAN be wrong on some issues.

Now, about globalism, I think it is a Good Thing . I don't think U.S. hatred should interfere with it because globalism is all about not giving the power to one country. I think people should start to see the bottom line in all this and stop complaining. Maybe I'm an egoist North-American (Canadian), but to my eyes, it can only help, and I don't see why it could hurt third-world countries...maybe I don't know the complete story about this, feel free to corect me.

uhhh right... (1)

FireChipmunk (447917) | about 12 years ago | (#3271073)

So, exuberantly costumed demonstrations aside, globalism is not about to evaporate or even weaken, not any time soon. Quite the opposite: nation-states and their constituents now have to choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism.

And just as you imply the poorer the Muslim countries are a religious fanaticism, I would say the richer Western Countries of Mostly Judo Christian population are equaly Religious fanatics.

Its not about a model of economics, everything in this world is coming back to organized religon, before you know it, like it or dislike it, just look at the middle east, it will be like the Crusades of the Middle ages of a perdominantly Christian Vs. Muslim war.

Globalism hasn't changed the context of our global society, it has just allowed us to come to the same repeating conflicts faster than we otherwise would have.

26 comments below threshold... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3271074)

Out of 52.

So JonKatz causes comments that are 50% "FUCK OFF KATZ!"

Cool.

Believe in an economy, invest in it (2, Insightful)

Slashamatic (553801) | about 12 years ago | (#3271076)

The point here is that if you believe in an economy, you will invest there. If you don't you will put your money elsewhere. If you already have money there, you want to be able to get it out if conditions change. If you can't get your money out, do you really want to invest there?

This is where the Hong-Kong story is wrong, it doesn't matter what the British Government do or say, it is the markets themselves that will judge. A significant factor in the case of Hong Kong would have been the Bank of China that was putting most of its Forex transactions through Hong Kong. They would also have advised retaining the status quo, even though it would cost some face.

The issue though is the trans-national corp. Who regulates it? This is a separate issue to capital flow. Here the corporate HQ gravitates to the best tax/regulatory environment. Is that really correct?

My thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3271080)

I agree with Jon for the most part. Since septemb... sep..zzzz........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....11....zzzz.. yeah baby do it.... zz

European perspective (1)

wren337 (182018) | about 12 years ago | (#3271084)


I lived in London for most of 2001 (Detroit born and raised). People overseas couldn't understand how most Americans could go their entire lives and never have a passport, or never leave the country (except Canada or Mexico). For them, going from the UK to France would be the equivalant of us driving from Detroit to Chicago. And you need a passport at every border.

The fact that we're a 12 hour plane ride from most other countries creates a world mindset entirely different from and unimaginable to most Europeans. They think we're arrogant because we don't know what happened in France today, or in Syria yesteray. Imagine living in Michigan and not knowing what happened in Ohio. It's a perspective bridge.

What? Not a Slashvertisement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3271086)

When i clicked the link, i thought i was going to get whisked away to thinkgeek... oh well.

What's that you say? April Fool's? Oh, well... Too bad.

The sad thing is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3271089)

...that I don't even bother to read what Katzinpoop has to say anymore. I just pop in to see how badly everyone else trashes the moron's rhetoric.

My brain just rebooted (1)

JuanGatosElGaseoso (558364) | about 12 years ago | (#3271095)

Why is it that in Junior High I could write wordy, buzzword-compliant, zero-content book reports and get a C-, but this guy can do the same and get paid?

and I thought... (1)

numbuscus (466708) | about 12 years ago | (#3271100)

...globalism was simply G.W.Bush's recent realization that there are actual people outside of Texas.

Invasive? (2)

mikosullivan (320993) | about 12 years ago | (#3271103)

Invasive American culture -- from movies, music, fast-food

It always gets my hackles up to hear our culture described as "invasive". Nobody's forcing people to go into the Moscow Pizza Hut or buy Coca-Cola in Beijing.

prosperity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3271109)

sorry katz, but where the hell do you get "globalism (and its attendant prosperity)", anyways?
good to know that we can choose between the two opposites you propose, with, of course, no alternatives. "with us, or against us", eh?

your so-called article doesn't even mention that the prosperity american propaganda associates with globalization pertains mostly to those few who are already prosperous. gigantic multinational corporations and the big western governments they use as their handpuppets are the entities which will benefit the most from 'free trade'. this fact is well-known (outside your ignorant lump of a country) and not controversial in any respect. why do you omit it?

Oh yuck. (1)

TheGeneration (228855) | about 12 years ago | (#3271112)

How morbid of you Jon. Picking a national tragedy as an opportunistic center piece for your article. I appluad you in your complete inability to grasp how shameful your writing is.

Why does everyone hate Jon Katz ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3271114)

Honestly, is it just a bandwagon hatred or is there a legitimate reson?

Actually this is important... (1)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | about 12 years ago | (#3271117)

I do not understand why everyone is esponding to the JonKatz post in such a negative way. This attitude is the reason that almost nobody in the world likes the US. Here in the US nobody wants to take a part in the world we live unless we are going to be in advantage of getting more money or power. Instead of doing more enemies, we should try to help other nations that could become our allies. By helping, I don't mean the way in the bad way we are doing. Everytime we "help" some nation, we always get something bigger in return. This is not always the right thing to do. I know we do not have the responsability to give help for free, but unfortunately we give help for such a high price. Still, we believe that we are the best helpers and that no one should mess with us. So, our politicians do not tell us that globalisation will starve to death millions of people. Instead they tell us it's a great thing. That with it, we are all going to do better business and even help other nations. Of course help them if they can pay the price, if not, then just send them all to hell. After all we are the strongest nation, so we should take advantage of it. I can not believe that nobody really cares about other people.. it disgust's me...
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...