 |
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by binTravkin
The word showinism was actually been invented by British (IIRC) and if your brain is not too small, you can easily understand the meaning of the word.
By default it's "overextended patriotism" - |
If you're going to insinuate someone's stupid, then get the word right:
chauvinism, from the French:
chauvinism - 1870, "exaggerated, blind patriotism," from Fr. chauvinisme (1843), from Nicholas Chauvin, soldier, possibly legendary, of Napoleon's Grand Armee, notoriously attached to the Empire long after it was history. Popularized in Fr. 1831 through Cogniard's vaudeville "La Cocarde Tricolore." Meaning extended to "sexism" via male chauvinism (1970). The name is a Fr. form of L. Calvinus and thus Calvinism and chauvinism are, etymologically, twins.
http://www.chauvin.org.uk/history.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:33
|
|
Way to go molly
Oh but seriously folks-- take this to the Off-topic
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
 |
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:33
|
|
So you all want to slam America? You CANNOT judge a society on everything it has done wrong. Part of the reason why America is slammed, not Europe, is because EUROPE SUCKS compared to the US. Is Europe bad? Not at all. I have been there, it is very nice. But the US is better. If you ask me, Europe is just green with envy and Americans (except me, of course) are just nice enough to not pay back the favor.
So you complain about Hollywood and American films. Well guess what, maybe that's because no one else makes as many films as America. Ever thought of that?
You think Europe is so wonderful? I'm sorry, but I didn't see anyone flocking to Europe. No, MILLIONS LEFT Europe and came to the US. Why? Gee, I don't know, maybe it was because they liked riding in a boat and getting sick everyday, and probably die too from eating stale bread with mold.
I don't see Europe out there helping foreign people because it can, no, all Europe does is help itself. The EU helps EUROPEAN countries. America has spent BILLIONS of dollars helping Iraq, attempting to free Vietnam, and has spent BILLIONS helping, of all countries, China and Russia. But no, the ''brave and wonderful Europe'' that claims to have seen more war than America justs sits and sends a couple troops every once in a while to 'help' the US. We proved decisive in WW1 and 2 by helping Europe. We gave money to help Europe. And all Europe does is sit there and and complain about us asking for their help...
Some other facts about the US...
The US has the largest economy in the world, more than twice the amount of it's runner up, Japan (note that Japan is ASIAN), and slightly less than Europe combined, including Russia...
Except China (again, ASIAN, not European), Mexico, and Indonesia, the USA has the largest land force in the world. And that's just manpower. The US Army is the most powerful as far as technology, flexibility, and by US vehicles such as tanks and mech infantry and stuff. The US also has the largest and most powerful air force and navy. AND, America is more militarily technologically advanced, by FAR, than any other country in the world, hands down.
America is 3rd in population, 4th in land size. None of the countries that beat it are European, except Russia, which is the largest country in land area (over half of which isn't even inhabitated).
America is the second largest producer in food, and exports more food to foreign nations than any other country.
America freely gives away more money to nations to HELP them than the rest of the world combined.
America was the first country to form a democracy in the modern world, the first country to form corporations, the stock market, and an organized free market.
America has sent several times more astronauts into space than the rest of the world combined (although that may change slightly within a few years). The space program of the US is larger than any other space program. So NASA may have a few problems. Never saw Europe on the moon first...
America has pioneered technology since the industrialial age. American inventors founded cars, the telephone, aircraft, nuclear power, and steel, as well as skyscrapers and large building engineering, just to name a few. What did Europe make? Oh yeah, I'm sorry, I forget, a huge English military and navy that AMERICA DEFEATED. And don't forget Cinco de mayo, where MEXICO defeated France.
Europe couldn't keep control over it's colonies, even when it used suppresion. And yet America is just fine controlling Iraq, even when it gives Iraqis freedom to do what they want, and doesn't threaten to kill them and steal all their resources...
You see, America is better even when it's not a superpower. GET OVER IT!
As for all you Europeans, next time think twice before you bash America. Half the movies you see are American. If it weren't for America, you might be part of Nazi Germany, with Hitler the 3rd as your leader. If it weren't for America, Europe would still be recovering from WW2, assuming that it had won without America (highly unlikely). Who knows, maybe because of America, the Chinese don't take a pot shot off of Europe...
Am I against Europe? No, but I hate Anti-Americans. Why? You don't like America? Too bad, because no one else has anything better to offer...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
WotanAnubis
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
So you complain about Hollywood and American films. Well guess what, maybe that's because no one else makes as many films as America. Ever thought of that?
|
Actually, this is a blatant lie. India makes the most movies each year. America doesn't even come close.
'Course, I don't know if they're actually good movies, since I've never seen one, but when it comes to sheer quantity it is a fact that Bollywood beats Hollywood hands down.
Just thought you'd like to know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nabvrimn
|
|
The Indian film industry isn't as high profile as the American film industry yet. Just be patient.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
WotanAnubis
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
What is Bollywood? |
The nickname for the Indian movie industry. Kinda like Hollywood, only Indian.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
America has pioneered technology since the industrialial age. American inventors founded cars, the telephone, aircraft, nuclear power, and steel, as well as skyscrapers and large building engineering, just to name a few. What did Europe make? Oh yeah, I'm sorry, I forget, a huge English military and navy that AMERICA DEFEATED. And don't forget Cinco de mayo, where MEXICO defeated France.
|
You know I can't help wondering if this rant was meant to be ironic, given the inaccuracies in it. To pretend, for instance, that Europe doesn't give aid to the developing world is just plain wrong, and offensive:
'Nearly half the money spent to help poor countries comes from the European Union and its member states, making it the world’s biggest aid donor. '
http://europa.eu.int/pol/dev/overview_en.htm
Americans invented cars? Funny, the Germans have this strange idea that they did:
'Karl Benz (Carl Benz)
Karl Benz was the German mechanical engineer who designed and in 1885 built the world's first practical automobile to be powered by an internal-combustion engine.'
http://specials.about.com/zxfcp0.ht...ntors/blcar.htm
Americans invented aeroplanes? Well actually they didn't. The Wright Brothers flew the first steerable powered aeroplane, which is different.
A glider is an aeroplane:
'The Wrights first became interested in flight after they began reading of Lilienthal's gliding flights in Germany. Upon his death they vowed to continue his progress. '
http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynam...l/4294/history/
Americans 'invented' nuclear power? Think again.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Discfiss.html
Americans invented steel?
Jeez Louise, it's been around for centuries- well before America was founded:
modern steel:
'A British inventor called Henry Bessemer is generally credited with the invention of steel in 1856. He founded the Bessemer Steel Company in Sheffield, England, but up to 1859 the company made a loss. By the time the patent ran out in 1870 he had made more than 1 million pounds sterling. Steel is still produced using technology based upon the Bessemer Process of blowing air through molten pig iron to oxidise the material and separate impurities. '
Indian wootz or ukku steel:
'India has been reputed for its iron and steel since ancient times. Literary accounts indicate that steel from southern India was rated as some of the finest in the world and was traded over ancient Europe, China, the Arab world and the Middle East. Studies on wootz indicate that it was an ultra-high carbon steel with 1-2% carbon and was believed to have been used to fashion the Damascus blades with a watered steel pattern. '
http://metalrg.iisc.ernet.in/~wootz/heritage/WOOTZ.htm
An American invented the first skyscraper, but are you seriously claiming that Europe didn't have large buildings before that?
And yes, American forces defeated the British- and who were helping the Americans and who were a lot closer to the British Isles, with more powerful navies and armies?
'Foreign Assistance
The warfare in the Middle Atlantic region settled almost to stagnation, but foreign aid was finally arriving. Agents of the new nation—notably Benjamin Franklin, Arthur Lee, Silas Deane, and later John Adams—were striving to get help, and in 1777 Pierre de Beaumarchais had succeeded in getting arms and supplies sent to the colonials in time to help win the battle of Saratoga. That victory made it easier for France to enter upon an alliance with the United States, for which Franklin and the Comte de Vergennes (the French foreign minister) signed (1778) a treaty.
Spain entered the war against Great Britain in 1779, but Spanish help did little for the United States, while French soldiers and sailors and especially French supplies and money were of crucial importance.'
http://www.americanrevolution.com/
Those damned Europeans again.
Really it does you little good to make such a post so full of easily spotted inaccuracies and exaggerations.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
livid imp
|
 |
Gimme a quarter or I'll touch you
Mar 2004
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
Isn't it about time that this thread get banned? |
Yes, that would be nice. But....For those of you that are belly-ache'n that yet another SE post was hijacked into a political post, get used to it. Social Engineering is politics. Unless the posters are particularly disciplined, the post will inevitably wander into politics. Unless, of course, you take some active steps to brow-beat the offending poster back into line with the original subject. Even that will have limited success.
quote:
Originally posted by binTravkin
Well you should ban your history knowledge as well -> see molly bloom's post, otherwise I'm starting to think you're just another product of US propaganda which claims US has done anything before and better than anyone else.. |
binTravkin, first off understand that I am basically on your side. America has become entirely too self-centered. I can only hope that a change in administration will nudge things in the other direction. But....your arguments to have gone the way of the zealot. While the US has its problems, to deny that they are the defining force of the 20th and 21st centuries would be ludicrous. Much like in sport, there will always be winners and losers. The best, and the rest. Most of the criticisms of the US outside of her borders boils down to one word....jealousy. Anyone with Americas power would end up in the same position (not saying it is right thing to do). Latvia is no more noble than the US. They would do everything in their power to keep themselves on top the same as the US does. What can the US criticize Latvia about if they have no means to affect the world at a large scale? It is easy to flaunt vows of poverty when you have nothing to begin with. The truly noble are those that give what they have, not just what they can spare. While American foreign policy has been atrocious in recent years, we are also a very easy and convenient target.
Think about SMAC for example. If you are 3rd in the power graph, you naturally ally with number 2 to take out number 1. Once you have defeated the number 1 guy, you rank 2nd and your ally is now in 1st. It is only natural that you will now compete to be 1st, and forsaken you former ally in the process. We always gun for the top dog, until we are number one. Once there, you have to fight to stay on top. Some reinvest in the domestic agenda, some go looking for a war to generate income. Hopefully, America will return to being a builder, and away from the momentum mind set.
Anyway my point is, good or bad, the US is the greatest nation since the British Empire. Like us or not, our accomplishments are reality. Do we have some things that we need to fix? Absolutely. Could we be a better nation? Absolutely. Any American that would say otherwise is truly the unpatriotic one, for they have no ambition for improvement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
binTravkin
|
 |
Lord of Progress of the Council of Lords of Gaia
Jan 2004
time: 07:33
|
|
quote:
binTravkin, first off understand that I am basically on your side. America has become entirely too self-centered. I can only hope that a change in administration will nudge things in the other direction. But....your arguments to have gone the way of the zealot. While the US has its problems, to deny that they are the defining force of the 20th and 21st centuries would be ludicrous. Much like in sport, there will always be winners and losers. The best, and the rest. Most of the criticisms of the US outside of her borders boils down to one word....jealousy. Anyone with Americas power would end up in the same position (not saying it is right thing to do). Latvia is no more noble than the US. They would do everything in their power to keep themselves on top the same as the US does. What can the US criticize Latvia about if they have no means to affect the world at a large scale? It is easy to flaunt vows of poverty when you have nothing to begin with. The truly noble are those that give what they have, not just what they can spare. While American foreign policy has been atrocious in recent years, we are also a very easy and convenient target.
Think about SMAC for example. If you are 3rd in the power graph, you naturally ally with number 2 to take out number 1. Once you have defeated the number 1 guy, you rank 2nd and your ally is now in 1st. It is only natural that you will now compete to be 1st, and forsaken you former ally in the process. We always gun for the top dog, until we are number one. Once there, you have to fight to stay on top. Some reinvest in the domestic agenda, some go looking for a war to generate income. Hopefully, America will return to being a builder, and away from the momentum mind set.
Anyway my point is, good or bad, the US is the greatest nation since the British Empire. Like us or not, our accomplishments are reality. Do we have some things that we need to fix? Absolutely. Could we be a better nation? Absolutely. Any American that would say otherwise is truly the unpatriotic one, for they have no ambition for improvement. |
My aim was not to offend you, nor to say that US isn't the most powerful country in the world, my aim was to pinpoint at some US' citizen's belief in US' propaganda, that they're doing everything better, has done everything better and will do everything better than all the other people - please read Commy's post and see how he pretends that even steel (!!!) has been invented by American scientists..
Maybe we start thinking that every good thing on earth has been made by americans...?
Well, I must say that at least one good thing on the earth (in pro-US viewpoint) has been made by Europe - it's US!!!
If there weren't some people who didn't want to sit at home and die from boredom back in 15th century, than we could never know US as it is now..
(a.k.a. C.Columbus and his ilk)
And by the way - looking at today's US policy in all the world I must say that it's very suspicious - it looks like this great nation is on it's decline as well as Europe is - they focus on quantity instead of quality, they try to claim new markets, new lands and that means that their own market doesn't give them what they need..
I dont think it's a sign of flowering, I tend to think it's a sign of "searching for the last rope out of abyss" or whatever it spells in English..
Between all this strife a new power emerges, slowly building up it's self-sufficient economy - China, India, Japan and all those small countries in Asia who make great profit out of US markets
Brink of a new era, huh?
US claimed the "vital" oil wells..
Well, maybe they'll be "vital" after some more years when they start to empty quickly, but by that time people will invent something new to counter it, in fact they've invented already, just need to make it more reliable, efficent - people always find a way out of hardness and those hardnesses make them think much more quickly..
America after all is one of the most conservative countries in energy resource research, most of the Europe are already spending lots of money in alternative energy source research - see NewsScientist, but US even refuses to sign Kioto potocol
Why should they?
They can live well without it!
I'll say why they should - the countries which have done it have made themselves an artifical hardness - costly energy, therefore they are searching a way out of it and when they find it, it'll be a HUGE advantage!
They're just more flexible!
US is a modern day dinosaur - it lives too good to see the need for a change in future and now this change is coming for them both in economical and political way (terrorists)
Instead of changing themselves, adjusting to the new situation, to ever-changing world, US tries to change the world around..
Remember the Roman empire?
They tried it too...
That's their worst mistake and that's the reason why I think that the days of US as superpower are countdowning towards zero.
And to all who oppose me I can say:
1.Everyone has a right for opinion!
2.Expansion outwards is the best way how to avoid inner strife and need for inner changes and I didn't invent this statement in my historian armchair, every wise leader of the past knew it..
Sorry for terrible english!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
WotanAnubis
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by binTravkin
Well, I must say that at least one good thing on the earth (in pro-US viewpoint) has been made by Europe - it's US!!!
If there weren't some people who didn't want to sit at home and die from boredom back in 15th century, than we could never know US as it is now..
(a.k.a. C.Columbus and his ilk) |
Actually, they didn't want to die of religious prosecution. Which is why they fled to the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands!!!
OK, and to the America's.
But I think most Europeans went over there in search of gold and, possibly a new start in life. Certainly not boredom.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
Hollywood films suck.
Bollywood films rule. Go Shahrukh Khan!
Largest economy, the US? Also national debt....Gives aid to other countries...but with an ulterior motive! Motives than aren't top virtues either....
What about, let me see....the time the CIA funded the sabotage of the Chilean economy because the conservatives over there couldn't bear to actually see a Marxist economy be successful? And not only that funding the violent coup d'etat in 1973 that would later cause thousands of deaths and grave crimes against humanity?
Nice "aid" eh...lets continue "aiding" our military friends in countries. Not the civilians! The civilians are evil marxists! Lets also, "aid" our freedom fighters, the Nicaraguan contra-terroris....erm, Northern Alliance.
Canada seems better than the US. Heck, Singapore seems better, even with their authoritarian elements. Better than plutocrats and corporations (ie. Philip Morris) dominating the US "elections" with their decadence. At least Singapore has 30 to 100% subsidies in healthcare , and better value of life...ie. comparison of cost of living to living standard, which in this case, low cost, relatively high standard.
quote:
The word showinism was actually been invented by British (IIRC) and if your brain is not too small, you can easily understand the meaning of the word.
By default it's "overextended patriotism" - |
It reminds me of a joke.
An athlete was competing for an event. As he was going in to the stadium, a journalist stopped him. "Are you a pole vaulter?"
"No, I'm German. But how did you know my name was Walter?"
And how did BinTravkin's "W" become a V? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
binTravkin
|
|
Lord of Progress of the Council of Lords of Gaia
Jan 2004
time: 07:33
|
|
For all the pro-americans here, read this excerpt:
quote:
The Fate of an Honest Intellectual
Noam Chomsky
Excerpted from Understanding Power, New York, 2002, pp. 244-248
I'll tell you another, last case—and there are many others like this. Here's a story which is really tragic. How many of you know about Joan Peters, the book by Joan Peters? There was this best-seller a few years ago [in 1984], it went through about ten printings, by a woman named Joan Peters—or at least, signed by Joan Peters—called From Time Immemorial. It was a big scholarly-looking book with lots of footnotes, which purported to show that the Palestinians were all recent immigrants [i.e. to the Jewish-settled areas of the former Palestine, during the British mandate years of 1920 to 1948]. And it was very popular—it got literally hundreds of rave reviews, and no negative reviews: the Washington Post, the New York Times, everybody was just raving about it. Here was this book which proved that there were really no Palestinians! Of course, the implicit message was, if Israel kicks them all out there's no moral issue, because they're just recent immigrants who came in because the Jews had built up the country. And there was all kinds of demographic analysis in it, and a big professor of demography at the University of Chicago [Philip M. Hauser] authenticated it. That was the big intellectual hit for that year: Saul Bellow, Barbara Tuchman, everybody was talking about it as the greatest thing since chocolate cake.Well, one graduate student at Princeton, a guy named Norman Finkelstein, started reading through the book. He was interested in the history of Zionism, and as he read the book he was kind of surprised by some of the things it said. He's a very careful student, and he started checking the references—and it turned out that the whole thing was a hoax, it was completely faked: probably it had been put together by some intelligence agency or something like that. Well, Finkelstein wrote up a short paper of just preliminary findings, it was about twenty-five pages or so, and he sent it around to I think thirty people who were interested in the topic, scholars in the field and so on, saying: "Here's what I've found in this book, do you think it's worth pursuing?"
Well, he got back one answer, from me. I told him, yeah, I think it's an interesting topic, but I warned him, if you follow this, you're going to get in trouble—because you're going to expose the American intellectual community as a gang of frauds, and they are not going to like it, and they're going to destroy you. So I said: if you want to do it, go ahead, but be aware of what you're getting into. It's an important issue, it makes a big difference whether you eliminate the moral basis for driving out a population—it's preparing the basis for some real horrors—so a lot of people's lives could be at stake. But your life is at stake too, I told him, because if you pursue this, your career is going to be ruined.
Well, he didn't believe me. We became very close friends after this, I didn't know him before. He went ahead and wrote up an article, and he started submitting it to journals. Nothing: they didn't even bother responding. I finally managed to place a piece of it in In These Times, a tiny left-wing journal published in Illinois, where some of you may have seen it. Otherwise nothing, no response. Meanwhile his professors—this is Princeton University, supposed to be a serious place—stopped talking to him: they wouldn't make appointments with him, they wouldn't read his papers, he basically had to quit the program.
By this time, he was getting kind of desperate, and he asked me what to do. I gave him what I thought was good advice, but what turned out to be bad advice: I suggested that he shift over to a different department, where I knew some people and figured he'd at least be treated decently. That turned out to be wrong. He switched over, and when he got to the point of writing his thesis he literally could not get the faculty to read it, he couldn't get them to come to his thesis defense. Finally, out of embarrassment, they granted him a Ph.D.—he's very smart, incidentally—but they will not even write a letter for him saying that he was a student at Princeton University. I mean, sometimes you have students for whom it's hard to write good letters of recommendation, because you really didn't think they were very good—but you can write something, there are ways of doing these things. This guy was good, but he literally cannot get a letter.
He's now living in a little apartment somewhere in New York City, and he's a part-time social worker working with teenage drop-outs. Very promising scholar—if he'd done what he was told, he would have gone on and right now he'd be a professor somewhere at some big university. Instead he's working part-time with disturbed teenaged kids for a couple thousand dollars a year. That's a lot better than a death squad, it's true—it's a whole lot better than a death squad. But those are the techniques of control that are around.
But let me just go on with the Joan Peters story. Finkelstein's very persistent: he took a summer off and sat in the New York Public Library, where he went through every single reference in the book—and he found a record of fraud that you cannot believe. Well, the New York intellectual community is a pretty small place, and pretty soon everybody knew about this, everybody knew the book was a fraud and it was going to be exposed sooner or later. The one journal that was smart enough to react intelligently was the New York Review of Books—they knew that the thing was a sham, but the editor didn't want to offend his friends, so he just didn't run a review at all. That was the one journal that didn't run a review.
Meanwhile, Finkelstein was being called in by big professors in the field who were telling him, "Look, call off your crusade; you drop this and we'll take care of you, we'll make sure you get a job," all this kind of stuff. But he kept doing it—he kept on and on. Every time there was a favorable review, he'd write a letter to the editor which wouldn't get printed; he was doing whatever he could do. We approached the publishers and asked them if they were going to respond to any of this, and they said no—and they were right. Why should they respond? They had the whole system buttoned up, there was never going to be a critical word about this in the United States. But then they made a technical error: they allowed the book to appear in England, where you can't control the intellectual community quite as easily.
Well, as soon as I heard that the book was going to come out in England, I immediately sent copies of Finkelstein's work to a number of British scholars and journalists who are interested in the Middle East—and they were ready. As soon as the book appeared, it was just demolished, it was blown out of the water. Every major journal, the Times Literary Supplement, the London Review, the Observer, everybody had a review saying, this doesn't even reach the level of nonsense, of idiocy. A lot of the criticism used Finkelstein's work without any acknowledgment, I should say—but about the kindest word anybody said about the book was "ludicrous," or "preposterous."
Well, people here read British reviews—if you're in the American intellectual community, you read the Times Literary Supplement and the London Review, so it began to get a little embarrassing. You started getting back-tracking: people started saying, "Well, look, I didn't really say the book was good, I just said it's an interesting topic," things like that. At that point, the New York Review swung into action, and they did what they always do in these circumstances. See, there's like a routine that you go through—if a book gets blown out of the water in England in places people here will see, or if a book gets praised in England, you have to react. And if it's a book on Israel, there's a standard way of doing it: you get an Israeli scholar to review it. That's called covering your ass—because whatever an Israeli scholar says, you're pretty safe: no one can accuse the journal of anti-Semitism, none of the usual stuff works.
So after the Peters book got blown out of the water in England, the New York Review assigned it to a good person actually, in fact Israel's leading specialist on Palestinian nationalism [Yehoshua Porath], someone who knows a lot about the subject. And he wrote a review, which they then didn't publish—it went on for almost a year without the thing being published; nobody knows exactly what was going on, but you can guess that there must have been a lot of pressure not to publish it. Eventually it was even written up in the New York Times that this review wasn't getting published, so finally some version of it did appear. It was critical, it said the book is nonsense and so on, but it cut corners, the guy didn't say what he knew.
Actually, the Israeli reviews in general were extremely critical: the reaction of the Israeli press was that they hoped the book would not be widely read, because ultimately it would be harmful to the Jews—sooner or later it would get exposed, and then it would just look like a fraud and a hoax, and it would reflect badly on Israel. They underestimated the American intellectual community, I should say.
Anyhow, by that point the American intellectual community realized that the Peters book was an embarrassment, and it sort of disappeared—nobody talks about it anymore. I mean, you still find it at newsstands in the airport and so on, but the best and the brightest know that they are not supposed to talk about it anymore: because it was exposed and they were exposed.
Well, the point is, what happened to Finkelstein is the kind of thing that can happen when you're an honest critic—and we could go on and on with other cases like that. [Editors' Note: Finkelstein has since published several books with independent presses.]
Still, in the universities or in any other institution, you can often find some dissidents hanging around in the woodwork—and they can survive in one fashion or another, particularly if they get community support. But if they become too disruptive or too obstreperous—or you know, too effective—they're likely to be kicked out. The standard thing, though, is that they won't make it within the institutions in the first place, particularly if they were that way when they were young—they'll simply be weeded out somewhere along the line. So in most cases, the people who make it through the institutions and are able to remain in them have already internalized the right kinds of beliefs: it's not a problem for them to be obedient, they already are obedient, that's how they got there. And that's pretty much how the ideological control system perpetuates itself in the schools—that's the basic story of how it operates, I think.
|
From the link Zeiter gave us!
This exact exerpt is from http://www.chomsky.info/books/power01.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nabvrimn
|
|
binTravkin, here's a hint. If you want respect the last thing you should be doing is quoting Chompsky.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AnimateDream
|
|
Democratic even though I'm tired of the rampant political ignorance here in the US.
Since machines came to be common place there is always enough food and yet there is always hunger. Automation replaces the need for manpower. That results in unemployment. The unemployed then can no longer buy into the goods. Thus there is even less demand. So more cuts are made in business. Unemployment becomes higher still. So on until economic collapse. Free market economies will have no place in a future where machines are continually taking the place of labor. Every society needs careful management. Socialism can ruin a good economy true, but I think it is inevitable. So I'll say planned. Whose to say planned and green are mutually exclusive anyways.
Knowledge. Its my own personal priority.
Eudamonic. No contest. Good is the latin prefix there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
WotanAnubis
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AnimateDream
Democratic even though I'm tired of the rampant political ignorance here in the US.
Every society needs careful management. Socialism can ruin a good economy true, but I think it is inevitable. So I'll say planned. Whose to say planned and green are mutually exclusive anyways.
Knowledge. Its my own personal priority.
Eudamonic. No contest. Good is the latin prefix there. |
Woo! An on-topic post! Thank you, thank you.
Anyway, yeah, good choices. I agree with all of them (well, obviously). Even though I don't think Free Market is *quite* as self-destructive as you described, but let's not go there again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AnimateDream
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by binTravkin
My aim was not to offend you, nor to say that US isn't the most powerful country in the world, my aim was to pinpoint at some US' citizen's belief in US' propaganda, that they're doing everything better, has done everything better and will do everything better than all the other people - please read Commy's post and see how he pretends that even steel (!!!) has been invented by American scientists..
|
Not even the American propaganda is doing that. Bush plays off of events to create these stupid patriotism fads which an ignorant few have taken to the point of severe nationalism.
quote:
If there weren't some people who didn't want to sit at home and die from boredom back in 15th century, than we could never know US as it is now..
(a.k.a. C.Columbus and his ilk)
|
Damnit. You know we celebrate Columbus day here. He was an idiot. Everyone knew how big the world was, but columbus insisted upon using an ancient less accurate measure of Earth's circumference. In his attempt to find India he struck America and then to his dying day continued to believe it was india despite all of the evidence to the contrary. He was a madman or a fool at best.
quote:
And by the way - looking at today's US policy in all the world I must say that it's very suspicious - it looks like this great nation is on it's decline as well as Europe is - they focus on quantity instead of quality, they try to claim new markets, new lands and that means that their own market doesn't give them what they need..
I dont think it's a sign of flowering, I tend to think it's a sign of "searching for the last rope out of abyss" or whatever it spells in English..
Between all this strife a new power emerges, slowly building up it's self-sufficient economy - China, India, Japan and all those small countries in Asia who make great profit out of US markets
|
Japanese products have always threatened the US economy with superior goods. They totally shook up business in the US. People here were slow to catch on too. Eventually we did however learn from their approaches and recover. My father studies economics finance and business intensely. So he has books on the matter.
quote:
US claimed the "vital" oil wells..
Well, maybe they'll be "vital" after some more years when they start to empty quickly, but by that time people will invent something new to counter it, in fact they've invented already, just need to make it more reliable, efficent - people always find a way out of hardness and those hardnesses make them think much more quickly..
America after all is one of the most conservative countries in energy resource research, most of the Europe are already spending lots of money in alternative energy source research - see NewsScientist, but US even refuses to sign Kioto potocol
Why should they?
They can live well without it!
|
HEY! Firstly I would like to say Clinton was largely resposible for Kioto. Bush then backed out of it. He has the worst enviromental record of any US president ever though so it was to be expected.
quote:
I'll say why they should - the countries which have done it have made themselves an artifical hardness - costly energy, therefore they are searching a way out of it and when they find it, it'll be a HUGE advantage!
They're just more flexible!
US is a modern day dinosaur - it lives too good to see the need for a change in future and now this change is coming for them both in economical and political way (terrorists)
Instead of changing themselves, adjusting to the new situation, to ever-changing world, US tries to change the world around..
Remember the Roman empire?
They tried it too...
That's their worst mistake and that's the reason why I think that the days of US as superpower are countdowning towards zero.
|
Hmmm. Americans couldn't even switch over to metrics and are constantly avoiding foreign language. So yes we are reluctant to change, but you have to remember how isolated the US really is. Very few people here ever leave the country. There is no reason to here and possible destinations are generally less reachable.
American industry has a stake in this oil fall out. Make no mistake. However its looking for ways to minimize transitional costs. America generally pioneering the very close alternatives like ethanol and synthetic fossil fuels made from either natural gas or with new technology from almost anything organic. In Europe where fuel has always been pricier they've already made the jump to using electric vehicles. Once fuel costs escalate here the American industry will jump on the bandwagon but not until then.
edit: sorry for going offtopic too. As long as things are kept rational I suppose...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-08-2004 20:16
|