Menchise

quote:I saw it on 60 minutes about a month or two ago, it might have been a re-run. It was post weapons inspectors being kicked out and i'm pretty sure it was post 9/11. I think it was the ambassador, but i'm not sure. You may want to do a search for it, i'm sure someone on here saw it. The person kept babbling about how the US is evil and "has no right", etc etc.I haven't been able to find any reference to it. quote:The "harsh reparations" only had the effect they did because of the GLOBAL ECONOMY at the time. The reparations, in themselves, didn't cause the problem.The German government's attempts to pay the reparations led to a hyperinflation crisis in the mid 1920s that made German currency worthless. It was not due to the world economy, which was booming at the time. quote:I'm sorry if you dont know this, but the country is run by a DICTATOR. That means that if you DONT like Saddam, you get shot. Killed. Dead. His popularity will always be or seem high for that reason.It's not that hard to determine how popular a dictator really is. Saddam is relatively popular because of the bombings and economic sanctions that have brought most of the country to stone age conditions, thus providing Saddam with someone to blame on a silver platter. [ 07-13-2002, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:The sentences referring to all of the people dying cause of sanctions. There's a little thing called the "oil for food program". It allows money from oil sales to go to Iraq to buy aid goods. The fact the people are dying is not OUR PROBLEM, but the fault of the Iraqi leadership for not taking care of the population and getting into the war in the first place. The whole idea that WE are killing people is debatish, leftist, ****.The people are dying despite the program. The aid goods that the Iraqis receive are in proportion to the oil that it exports. Even a country as oil-rich as Iraq cannot feed the population on oil exports alone. The allegation that the Iraqi leadership is using the export revenues to buy items other than aid goods is also false since the trade contracts must be approved in advance by the UN. Blaming the deaths on aggression in the Gulf War is also false, because the economic sanctions have no negative effect on Saddam's dictatorial position, and it was Saddam who ordered the invasion; the sanctions do the most damage to the well-being of Iraqi civilians, who were not responsible in any way for the invasion of Kuwait. I will not deny that this is leftist, but it's not ****, no matter how often you make that assertion. [ 07-13-2002, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Also, wasn't Ritter fired from his job as chief weapons inspector? Or replaced? That can lead to bias.He resigned.

Here is an article written by Scott Ritter on 23 January 2002 about Iraq. quote: Iraq: The Phantom Threat At this very moment, US intelligence personnel are poring over documents, uncovering the depth of the anti-American plotting of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network. Al Qaeda prisoners are being interrogated in an effort to unlock past secrets and interdict future threats to the United States and the world. As this investigation proceeds, the web of terrorist networks forged by Mr. bin Laden in his struggle against the West is becoming clear. Some of the exposed links are not surprising - including Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Notably absent is Iraq. Given the spate of post-Sept. 11 media reports linking Iraq with bin Laden, one would expect a flood of evidence coming from Afghanistan confirming such a relationship. Even the alleged meetings between Mohammed Atta - a suspected leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers - and an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague are inconclusive. The Czech government has sent conflicting reports concerning this meeting and, even if the meeting took place, the supposed topic of discussion - an attack on a Radio Free Europe radio transmitter used to broadcast anti-Hussein programming - is a far cry from the 9/11 attacks. The lack of documentation of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection in this intelligence trove should lead to the questioning of the original source of such speculation, as well as the motivations of those who continue to peddle the "Iraqi connection" theory. Foremost among them are opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress and his American sponsors, in particular Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former CIA Director James Woolsey, and former Undersecretary of State Richard Perle. During my service as a UN weapons inspector, I had responsibility for liaison with Mr. Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress to gather "intelligence information" derived from Chalabi's erstwhile network of defectors and in-country sources. This information turned out to be more flash than substance. For example, there was the "engineer" who allegedly worked on Saddam Hussein's palaces who spoke of a network of underground tunnels where crates of documents were allegedly hidden during inspections. Inspectors did find a drainage tunnel. However, despite the fact that no documents were discovered, Chalabi took the tunnel's existence as confirmation that documents also existed, and spoke as if they were an established fact. In the same manner, when Mr. Wolfowitz and company needed a link between Iraq and the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, Chalabi dutifully trotted out a series of heretofore "undiscovered" defectors who have "information" about the training of "Arab" hijackers by Iraqi intelligence at a facility near the Iraqi town of Salman Pak. The site is reported to be fully equipped with, among other things, a commercial airliner upon which the trainees can practice their trade, conveniently enough, in "groups of five" and "armed only with knives and their bare hands." The facility at Salman Pak does exist; its use as an Al Qaeda training camp is unsubstantiated. More recently, following President Bush's demand that Iraq permit the return of UN weapons inspectors or else "suffer the consequences," Chalabi conveniently produced another "defector" who allegedly had access to Saddam's secret plans to hide underground biological and chemical weapons facilities from international detection. I spent more than six years investigating the organizations the defector claimed to work for, and although elements of his story ring true, the details used to embellish his tale on weapons of mass destruction are impossible to pin down or, in some cases, just plain wrong. The UN stopped using Chalabi's information as a basis for conducting inspections once the tenuous nature of his sources and his dubious motivations became clear. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the mainstream US media, which give prominent coverage to sources of information that, had they not been related to Hussein's Iraq, would normally be immediately dismissed. This media coverage serves policy figures gunning for a wider war. It generates a frenzy of speculation concerning Iraq in the public arena, which accepts at face value this information despite the fact that almost none of what Chalabi has purveyed to the media about Iraq has turned out to be accurate. There is a substantial lack of clarity and credible sources on the actual nature of the Iraqi threat to the US. A wider debate on US policy toward Iraq is imperative, especially in light of the increasing war talk out of Washington. Rather than relying on information from dubious sources, let's put all the facts on the table. The conclusions drawn from such a debate could pull us back from the brink of an unnecessary and costly war. *Scott Ritter is former chief of the Concealment Investigations Unit for the UN Special Commission on Iraq. [ 07-13-2002, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:50 people just points out how unsupported it is.At most it would indicate low activity in Boston, not a lack of support in Boston. It's not like these rallies are advertised on billboards: people have to look for the relevant info. quote:The fact he's a weapons inspector, etc (it did cite he was a Republican too), doesn't mean it's not leftist ****.Doesn't mean it is either. quote:The high school debate junk that I refer to is similar BS, but to a different extent. "WE must disarm all nuclear weapons for world peace", "Saddam is a nice guy", etc.Show me one single sentence in that article that remotely implies such things. quote:My source is an actual 60 minutes interview with the chief diplomat or negotiator from Iraq. The reason why I *KNOW* it's true is because he's the one talking....on screen....directly answering questions....and specifically saying what I am. As much as the media screws with stuff, you can't screw up direct answers to direct questions on film.When was the interview? What was the person's name? What was the person's title? Did this person explain why? quote:(Never thought you'd hear that huh Menchise?).Heh. quote:I do believe though that Iraq has an obligation to honor weapons inspectors and to not directly interefere with US interests by artificially screwing up oil prices.Saudi Arabia screws with oil prices, and they're one of America's biggest allies in the region. Try again. quote:I also believe that Iraq has an obligation to follow all sanctions imposed by the victorious countries as a result of the Gulf War. THAT is a typical idea of soverign nations. If you lose a war, you do what the winner(s) say according to the agreements.It is because of the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq that at least 200,000 civilians have died from starvation and preventable diseases. Anyone who has studied the inter-war period of the 1920s and 1930s would know what an effect this has on the politics of a country. It was the harsh reparations imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles that directly contributed to the conditions in which Nazism thrived. The economic sanctions on Iraq only strengthen Saddam's popularity. If these facts still don't convince you of that, just think back to how popular Bush became on 9/11. He had the population eating out of his hand before he mentioned any plans for retaliation. [ 07-13-2002, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Also, REGARDLESS of all of the stuff i've just said, the article still doesn't point out why we should not attack Iraq. It gives the United States power over oil in the region. THANK YOU!Read to yourself! Any war between the USA and Iraq would kill tens of thousands of people (if not more), and create millions more refugees, for what? Oil profits! quote:That's enough reason for me, at least when it's combined with the 5%-10% of WMDs that may be left AND the hostility Iraq holds toward the United States, AND the possibility it can hurt neighbors.Read the article again, especially the parts where Ritter says that there is no evidence that Iraq is a threat to the USA despite the minimal WMDs remaining. It also cannot harm any neighbours even if it wanted to: Israel would tear the Iraqis to pieces if they were attacked, and Saddam won't dare attack Kuwait again because that would guarantee war with the USA. quote:As you said, your article "says it all". Well, yeah, it does. Not to mention as i've said, the constitution protects US civilians, not Iraq's.The Taliban didn't guarantee protection of US civilians either. Try again. quote:And as for the comment about getting "bogged down in Iraq", we've almost taken Baghdad before. We can do it again and actually take it this time. If your article is true and they have more military power, it'll be even EASIER than last time. If i'm right, it'll almost be as hard as last time. Either way, we get Saddam out, get rid of all of the WMDs, get rid of future attacks by Saddam with or without WMDs, and get the oil. Cost-benefit analysis=invade.In case you didn't notice, Kabul was taken eight months ago, and the troops are still bogged down in Afghanistan.

quote:Nah, that doesn't say it all. First of all, the vigil was about 50 people.It did say that. quote:Secondly, i've seen similar "evidence" judging high school debate, it's accepted there but is recognized clearly as unwarranted. That entire article was leftist ****, even if one person cited was a Republican.First, he's not just a Republican; he's the former chief weapons inspector in Iraq and a Major in the US Marine Corps. Secondly, you did not mention any of the evidence that you associate with high school debates. quote:If you watch LIVE INTERVIEWS in Iraq, you can note a number of the things that article points to are false.Ahh. So you think the Ritter interview was rubbish because it wasn't a three minute live interview from Iraq? He was there for FOUR YEARS in the middle of it!!! Once again, you didn't mention any of the things that you claim are false. quote:Much of Iraq, especially in Baghdad is already recovering. The population is educated (even though it is all propoganda dictated by Saddam), the quality of life has already improved to at least 2nd-world, and the military is recovering.Says who? quote:Iraq's own officials state that they removed the weapons inspectors and don't want them there.Correction: News room anchors state that Iraqi officials stated such things. They never use direct quotes (I wonder why). Unlike those talking heads, Ritter was actually there, and his statements contradict what the mainstream media is saying. Compare the testimony of a military officer and weapons inspector who was in Iraq for four years to the sound bytes of overpaid news anchors who have never set foot in Iraq and you'll understand why I have more faith in Indymedia. [ 07-12-2002, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

On the issue of Iraq, here is an article from Boston Indymedia (21 May 2002): quote: Vigil for Iraq; Former Weapons Inspector Argues War is Unnecessary by Matthew Williams From 5:30 to 6:30 today in Copley Square, about fifty people held a vigil in solidarity with the people of Iraq, opposing the sanctions on and on-going bombing of Iraq and the possibility of a wider war against the country. People held signs such as "Another war will spare Saddam but not the people" and "500,000 children dead from sanctions". After the vigil, Scott Ritter, a major in the US Marines and former chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the UN, spoke; he argued that war with Iraq was unnecessary as there is no evidence that Hussein's regime has weapons of mass destruction any more and that Iraq poses no threat to the US's national security. Members of United for Justice with Peace (UJP), the main Boston-area peace coalition, have been holding vigils on Tuesday evenings in Copley since September in opposition to the Bush administration's so-called "war on terror". They chose to hold a vigil focusing on solidarity with the people of Iraq because of the high probability that there will soon be a second full-scale war with Iraq. People at the vigil emphasized that they did not support Saddam Hussein's regime. Instead, they pointed to the way US policy hurts ordinary Iraqi civilians. John McLeod of the Community Church of Boston and the Committee for Peace and Human Rights said, "I think our government's policies are immoral simply because of the immense civilian consequences of the sanctions that have been going on for 11 years and have resulted in the deaths of so many hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians." Although it is impossible to calculate exact figures, responsible estimates for the number of civilian dead run from 200,000 to one million. McLeod, who traveled to Iraq a year ago with Conscience International, continued, "The main impression I had was that the sanctions have been devastating to the society. It isn't just a matter of the number of people killed. It's an entire generation deskilled. The social fabric has been very badly hit by these sanctions. And now we're going to launch a bloody war." In his talk after the vigil, Ritter (a self-described "card-carrying Republican") argued that there was no evidence that Hussein's regime posed any sort of threat to the United States and that therefore was no reason to go to war. He was chief weapons inspector in Iraq for seven years as part of UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Commission. Based on his experiences, he said, "Iraq *had* weapons of mass destruction. We destroyed them, the factories that produced them, and the means of production. I won't say we destroyed 100% of them, but we destroyed 90-95% of them. From 1994 to 1998, we monitored Iraq's infrastructure. We never detected any evidence that Iraq was attempting to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction program." He argued that this filled the UN Security Council's requirements for Iraq. "We could make a case that we had qualitatively disarmed Iraq. Not 100%, but we had fulfilled the intention of the Security Council." Ritter also took care to refute the myth that Iraq kicked the weapons inspectors out in December 1998. "The weapons inspectors were ordered out by the US deputy ambassador to the Security Council. This was not done with the Security Council's authorization." By the time the Security Council found out the next day, the US government was already bombing Iraq. Ritter, an expert in military intelligence, said that based on the evidence gathered by satellites and military planes flying over Iraq, "It is highly unlikely Iraq has rebuilt its weapons of mass destruction capability. This is not something you can do in a laboratory or underground. There is no evidence that Iraq has rebuilt factories capable of producing weapons of mass destruction." People at the vigil argued that a war would not help the people of Iraq any more than the current sanctions do. Elizabeth Leonard of the UJP and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom said, "We've been bombing Iraq every single day for years now, but we're talking about a full-scale invasion. That country, like Afghanistan, is already in a state of stone-age inhabitation and we would be killing mostly civilians. [ . . . ] They say that their smart bombs are so well guided, but they really aren't. It's impossible when bombing a city not to kill civilians." The daily US and UK flights in the "no-fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq drop bombs regularly; although they are supposed to be responding to military threats, they frequently hit civilian targets. Ritter, who fought in the Gulf War, said that while he believes that there is such a thing as a "just war", there is no such thing as a "good war": "In modern warfare, the civilian dies more often than the soldier." Asked why the US government would attack Iraq if not because of weapons of mass destruction, Leonard said, "The number one reason the US government has so much interest in going into Iraq is that they have so much oil. That was the reason we started this war in the first place. And I think we just want the power over all the Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries. We're going into every country that has any access to oil at all." As a result of the war in Afghanistan, the US government has been able to set up military bases in the oil-rich former Soviet republic of Uzbekistan in Central Asia. The interim president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is a former consultant to Unocal, a US oil company that has long sought to build a pipeline from Central Asia through Afghanistan. McLeod said, "Iraq is actually a third-rate, rinky-dink military power. I think this [threat of weapons of mass destruction] is fabrication to enable the United States to put together a client regime in Iraq." Any invasion of Iraq would be an undertaking of massive proportions. Ritter noted that while only 7,000 US troops were deployed in Afghanistan, invading Iraq would require 70,000-250,000 troops. Leonard predicted the US would simply get hopelessly bogged down in Iraq: "We went into Afghanistan and we still haven't gotten Osama bin Laden. We're still in fighting there, trying to get the terrorists out of there. The same thing is going to happen in Iraq." I think that says it all.

quote:SimsVille is coming..SimsVille was cancelled last year.

These inflated prices are nothing new. I remember when Wing Commander 3 was selling like pancakes: it cost up to AUS$120. [ 07-11-2002, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

It might be good. I just hope it doesn't start a trend. I can just imagine the list of the top five big-budget movies for 2005: 1. Star Wars Episode 3: Al Gore vs C-3PO 2. Wing Commander 2: Confederation vs Federation 3. Grumpy Old Men 3: Starsky vs Hutch 4. The Matrix for Windows: Rambo vs Neo 5. Miss Piggy vs Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles [ 07-11-2002, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Part of what is at the root of Political Correctness is this country's obsession with what divides us instead of what unites us.I think that is exactly what PC is working against: the false perception that cultural differences contribute to national division. quote:People should equally focus on the things that we have in common. It is what we have in common that unites us in Humankind.That is not the only thing that unites us, and humankind would suck big time if that was the case, because then it would just be a celebration of sameness. quote:Political Correctness, to me, is an attempt to force commonality where none exists by altering the meaning of words to make people fit into groups to serve an agenda.I don't know of any case, apart from legal battles (hence my dislike of PC law enforcement), where Political Correctness changes the meaning of words. As far as I know, the social movement merely suggests alternative phrases, many of which are just common sense. You mentioned that its agenda is to force commonality where none exists. I disagree. I think PC supporters recognize that people are different, and they're not trying to make everyone the same; in fact they're against making everyone the same. All they're doing is suggesting alternative phrases and mannerisms that avoid unintentional offense. None of the suggestions that I know of would make any fundamental or even major changes to language or mannerisms, and it certainly doesn't suggest any thought control as some people claim. It's just about being more culturally aware in social relations. By the way, I think you should examine the agendas of some of the more vocal opponents of PC in the political arena, because I think they're trying to maintain and/or expand division where none is intrinsic. [ 07-08-2002, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Businesses will make more profit if they give the people what they want, so people do have the choice. One person produces what they want, another doesn't. They buy what they want, the other guy will go out of business or produce what he wants. I fail to see the distinction, except your advocating a system where it's inefficient mob rule.Actually, it's more efficient than capitalism, because consumers directly input their wants to the workers in advance of production, thus making competition redundant. This minimizes overproduction, which in turn minimizes overwork and waste. Therefore, more demand is satisfied with less effort and fewer resources. quote:P.S. You are still failing to respond to my last post which points out that your system requires everyone to buy into it, otherwise abuses of power will happen to a very high extent.I'll get to yours in time. I'm still looking at other posts earlier in the thread. [ 07-06-2002, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

The difference is who decides. In capitalism the options are determined by owners and managers in the interests of maximizing profit, while in parecon the options are determined by the people who are going to produce and use the stuff: workers and consumers. It's the same as arguing between parecon and feudalism. Even if the options determined by the monarchy and aristocracy match what people want, the fact remains that the people have no control over it, and the wealth benefits of production go to the monarchs and lords instead of the people who worked to create the product. Even if the choices in feudalism or capitalism match those of parecon, the freedom is still missing. Freedom of choice is not just about the freedom to pick whatever option is available: it's also about the freedom to create one's own choices, both on the consumer side and the worker side. In terms of clothing, the only production avenues in capitalism that remotely match this relation are the sole trading tailors, because they are both owner and worker. But, like you said, it's impossible to have all clothing production in the hands of sole trading tailors, because the costs are too high.

quote:Menchise, I would suggest that you have best described the problems (inherent problems) of being politically correct and that what you term as a good use of political correctness is really a call for people to return to being polite and having good manners.I partially disagree with that. I'm not referring to mere politeness in terms of traditional social graces because some of those graces can also contribute to prejudice. I regard the social movement of PC as an important vehicle for encouraging mutual respect intercommunally by raising awareness of cultural taboos and such and suggesting equivalent alternative communication that avoids needless or reckless offense.

quote:Do you have any idea how much it would cost to custom build cars rather then mass produce them?Items don't need to be custom-built in Parecon. I used that example to keep with the analogy and because we were debating about free choice. It is completely acceptable if, for the sake of reasonable costs, the consumer and worker councils reach arrangements for the development of mass items, especially if there is a large number of consumers who are not willing to pay for the cost of custom items or if there are a large number of workers who are not willing to put in the labour to produce custom items. The point is that the decisions are made in proportion by the people who are effected by them: the consumers and the workers.

quote:you show me a guy who says he is just as sensetive and nurturing as a woman and I will show you either a full blown homosexual or someone who wishes they were a woman.Does this mean I have to get a boyfriend now? Seriously Soback, that remark offends me as a straight man. It's bad enough that a lot of women say it, but to hear so many men agree with it is really sad in my opinion. Anyway, while I'm not the most informed person about the issue of this thread, I believe that using the law to enforce PC is just a way of sweeping prejudice under the rug rather than addressing it. Banning the use of overt slurs is not going to prevent the prejudicials from using other words, even PC words, in an offensive manner. A few days ago I saw a fascinating movie called "Gentleman's Agreement" (based on the novel by Laura Hobson), in which a journalist in 1940s New York pretends to be Jewish for eight weeks. One of the important points that is made by the story is how racism not only exists in the people who purposefully and overtly offend others, but also exists in the polite people who offend in a subtle manner (e.g. through the presumption of stereotypes), and even in the good people who don't speak against it when it's expressed right in front of them. I think that law enforcement of PC only makes the prejudice more quiet and polite rather than addressing the prejudice itself. However, I also think that PC as a social movement is important for intercommunal relations, and I support it for that purpose.

LOL! That is so mean. [ 07-04-2002, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:BTW, I wonder if this guy will get flamed here -> I don't think anyone would flame that smiley. It's so cute.

quote:Then, keeping with our analogy, how would socialism be different?I'll describe what would happen in Parecon (the system that I currently support): As a consumer, I develop a proposal for what I want, and because I am the only consumer who will be affected by the decision, I have all of the say, so I don't need to go to any consumer council (Parecon's alternative to private ownership is council democracy). However, the decision also affects the workers who have to produce the clothing, so I take this proposal to the appropriate worker council (there are several layers of worker and consumer councils for issues of different scales). Those workers develop a proposal of how much they're willing to work to produce the clothing (which, inevitably, doesn't match the consumer's proposal), then the two parties negotiate and reach a compromise. Because of the small scale of the issue, hence the small number of people involved in decision-making (the consumer and the team of workers who will produce the item), the entire procedure of councils and such would take a matter of minutes, and the decision is made in proportion by the people who are affected by it. It's called Participatory Planning (a new alternative to central planning and markets). Therefore, when I get out of the shower and decide what to wear, the options available are the results of decisions that I was able to take part in with a substantial say. That is genuine freedom of choice.

quote:If I own a company, and I build a widget, let's say that the raw materials cost me $10, and the Labor to put that product together costs me $20, then the total cost of my product is $30. That $20 includes cost of benefits, hourly pay, vacation pay, sick pay, workers comp insurance, taxes, etc etc ad nauseum, all included in that $20.00 labour cost.Those first ten words prove my point succinctly: "If I own a company, and I build a widget,...". The owner does not build the widget; the workers are the producers. The owner does not add any value to the product whatsoever, and yet it is the owner that benefits the most from its production and the worker that is treated as an expense. It is unjust use for one's own advantage, hence the exploitation. quote:If I lowered those costs to say $15.00 instead, I would have to cut something, if I cut something, I am taking the chance that my workers will move down the street where they would be payed MORE!!! They vote with their feet Menchise. Those workers CHOOSE to work for me, I don't have a gun to their head, I do NOT exploit them as you so easily throw around. If they felt that I was exploiting them, then they would move on to another company and I would have a turnover rate that would cost me a fortune.The problem with that argument is that every owner exploits. It is institutionally inherent: without exploitation the owner is out of business. The worker can only choose among the lesser exploiters. quote:I take my product out to market and the market TELLS me that I can sell a load of this product at $60 a pop, no more then that, because if I try to sell it for more, IT WON'T SELL!! Hey, my shareholders and I just made $30 a piece on this product, but wait, the government gets about 30% of that because of income tax, probably more, so OK, I made $30, then the government takes $10. Hey lookey there, I just made $20, but now let's see, I own 51% of my company, so I get $10, but hey, wait a minute, the government gets another 30% of that, so I actually get $7.00. I made $7 on a $30 profit margin. What happened? What's wrong with this picture?That is the government responding to popular demand for better conditions, also known as 'vote buying'. Since I'm not reformist, I do not regard it as a long term solution, but I can't say that I weep for the owners, because I don't. quote:I as a worker also get the opportunity to become one of those owners and create jobs and make more choices for workers, and add to the compatition for workers which will drive up labor rates and benefits.Competition only increases labour rates and benefits during labour shortages. Once the economy enters its boom period, which is when the labour shortages subside, the growing need to be more competitive forces the owners into a situation where they have to undercut each other to maintain their profit margins. It is during this time that competition decreases the quality of labour conditions. Therefore, competition fails to achieve what you say it does, because the gains disappear as quickly as they appear.

quote:For public owners (stock shareholders), the money made in profit does not come out of the laborers pay, it is factored into the costs of the product and is paid by the consumers.No it's not. Shareholders invest capital into production just like private owners do, hence their profit comes from the same source as the profit of private owners: the value that is generated by labour. The factoring of public investment into costs is just a method of diverting some of that profit to the hands of the owners who have a controlling interest in the company. [ 06-29-2002, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Going back to previous analogies about atheists, the person isn't going to stop the guy in the bar from being beaten because he's afraid of God, or because the beater is some sick person. He's either NOT going to do it because he doesn't wanna get hurt, or he's gonna do it because he's afraid of being looking down upon by the girlfriend or wife or group of friends he's with for NOT doing anything.I'm not asking what one would do about it (that depends on more than just morals), I'm asking what one would think or say to oneself in reaction to seeing it happening. I believe that regardless of one's religious beliefs or lack thereof, one would recognize that what's happening is wrong. quote:Just like the holocaust was obviously immoral to everyone NOT in Germany, it was perfectly moral to them since they were living in a society, somewhat delusioned by the information they were getting from their government, that by wiping out Jews it was a GOOD THING. "Morality" as we think of it, did not exist there.It was not moral to the German people either, especially the civilians. When Hitler initially spoke of the extermination of Jews, the people did not seriously believe that he would do it. When they knew what was happening, they couldn't do much about it and expect to stay in one piece, so most of them tried to cope with the issue by simply denying it. Another point worth mentioning is that the Nazis were Christian.

Flash is expensive. I used to write with Netscape Composer too. It's good for novices (more so than Frontpage Express), but little else. Personally, I recommend hand coding HTML. One of the problems with WYSIWYG, as Enigma stated, is its messy coding. Even the high-priced ones (e.g. Dreamweaver) generate code that is not only sloppy, but can confuse the browser to the extent of bad rendering, which is why it now includes the HTML Source window as an optional frame: so that power users can fix the parts that DW screws up. HTML is also easy to learn, even for idiot programmers like me.

quote:If an owner offers too little money to the workers, HE WON'T GET WORKERS!!! HELLO!!!I already said this when I referred to the bargaining power of the worker. What workers are paid is relative to the worker's bargaining power. quote:He gives me excellent benefits, an excellent commission plan, etc etc ad nauseum. He will keep me here a good long time, why? Because I make him a lot of money and he gives me a lot of money, works for both of us. And if at some point he chooses to cut my pay or cut my benefits, hey, I'll walk down the street and get another job that pays more then he does.If you don't mind me asking, what's your job? quote:The owner took the risk to create the company and build it, there is NOTHING wrong with him making more money then I do or profiting from his risk, otherwise no one would take that risk.That's my point! Capitalism makes this class of owners indispensable, hence the resulting labour conditions are inherently exploitative. You're trying to justify the exploitation by saying that no one would take the risk if there was no profit, which only reinforces my point. The problem runs deeper than the motives of the owners themselves; the problem is in the institutional structure of the economic system, which causes such motives to be the driving force of the economy. quote:I'll say it again, and again, and again until it FINALLY sinks through, socialism CANNOT work, will NEVER work, PERIOD. It has been tried, it has failed EVERY time.And I'll say it again, and again: I do not support what you call socialism! Have you even read the proposal that I referred to? quote:Those that want socialism, are those that do not have the drive to succeed in a capitalist society.Define the 'drive to succeed'.