News Could Bush Be Arrested in Canada Under War Crimes Act?

[russ_watters]

Yeah, "http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html

and anything else by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and maybe even Michael Moore. A movie just came out called "http://www.thecorporation.tv/" which is really good too.

Well done, Smurf - while I don't know who Zinn is, Chomsky and Moore are the perfect examples of how not to study history.

As you of course know, the greatest potential problem in learning history is bias. Chomsky's anti-capitalist bias is the reason he's famous.

As I'm sure you also know, the greatest way to combat bias is with facts. Moore is the greatest innovator in propaganda we've had in decades and his contribution is his ability to twist facts, making it more difficult (for the gullible and willfully ignorant) to identify the bias. Previous propagandists relied on rhetoric, utterly devoid of facts. Moore is heavy on facts; carefully chosen and precisely worded to decieve his audience without being specifically factually wrong.

Nevertheless, the bias of both is still evident and the way to check for bias is to check the ratio of opinion to facts. While Moore (I know less of Chomsky's work) uses more facts than previous propaganists, his work is nevertheless also heavily opinion-based. In addition, his facts are so qualified and carefully worded, that to a critical observer, they are obvious attempts to mislead: a fact presented as a question is a real red-flag, for example.

The history of capitalism is best learned from an economics textbook. They teach the theory and the factual history and are relatively light on opinion. Learning it from a political source can be more problematic since the economic theory is so closely tied to politics.

US Capitalism has caused more human rights violations than anything else I can think of.

Another wonderful reverse-psychology. This highlights the fact that western democracy, the political theory tied to capitalism, is the only form of government ever enacted that actively protects human rights.

The most blunt facts to support this would have to be 20h century internal kill-rates associated with the various governments in the world. China and the USSR were killers of the highest efficiency in raw numbers, though per capita, I'm sure there are some southeast asian and african countries that did better. North Korea in particular is taking a good shot at the title, having killed roughly 10% of their citizens in the past 10 years. As far as external killing goes, even including war, the US (and most other western countries) end up with negative kill-rates due to their humanitarian aid. Admittedly though, it is difficult to calculate how many people you save by stopping a famine or genocide.

 

[russ_watters]

Since I am admittedly fairly ignorant of Chompsky's work, I picked a page from one of those links to read. http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-2-09.html one. Its propaganda of the traditional sort: light on facts, heavy on rhetoric. One paragraph in particular jumps out at me:

The situation in Africa is even worse. The catastrophe of capitalism was particularly severe in the 1980s, an "unrelenting nightmare" in the domains of the Western powers, in the accurate terms of the head of the Organization of African Unity. Illustrations provided by the World Health Organization estimate that eleven million children die every year in "the developing world," a "silent genocide" that could be brought to a quick end if resources were directed to human needs rather than enrichment of a few.[emphasis added]

This paragraph contains one fact (in bold), devoid of context. The rest of the paragraph is opinions (with one psuedo-fact). And does the fact support the opinions? It appears to, but only if you consider the implications being made in the opinions as facts. If you add the context (the associated real facts), you will clearly see that it does not: As Aquamarine has been parroting lately (because people continue to believe the opposite), it is a fact that global poverty levels are decreasing and it is a fact that the reason for this is the proliferation of capitalism.

The last point in the quote is particularly ironic: it is pseudo-factual, meaning it is trivially true that a lot could be done if more money was channeled to humanitarian aid, but it its implication ("enrichment of a few") is rhetorically false (ie, not specifically a lie, but highly misleading): While it is true that capitalism benefits some more than others, the implication that capitalism happens at the expense of others is factually wrong. But the irony comes from the fact that the money that Chompsky argues should be used to feed the poor would not even exist without capitalism.

Great stuff, in any case. Its fairly weak for convincing a critical mind, but to somene who only wants a confirmation of things they already believe, I'm sure its potent stuff. From the looks of it, Moore has taken a lot from Chompsky and built on his work.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The man's name is Chomsky, not Chompsky.

The statement that "the implication that capitalism happens at the expense of others is factually wrong" is your interpretation, just as the paragraph you quote is Chomsky's interpretation. The free market (absent government intervention) generates a distribution of incomes, and so it CAUSES both the high and the low incomes. We've had the argument before as to whether the assignment of individuals to income slots represents more luck (genes, parents' wealth, circumstances) or virtue; you haven't convinced me it's virtue.

 

[fourier jr]

Have any recommendations of good books about Capitalsim in the US?

"Forces of Production" by David Noble
"Imperial Brain Trust" by Shoup/Minter. http://www.eco.utexas.edu/Homepages/Faculty/Cleaver/357Lsum_s2_ShoupMinter.html 's a synopsis

In September 1939, as the war broke out, Council members felt the need for advanced planning and offered a long range planning project, called The War and Peace Studies Project. This would assure close Council-Department of State collaboration and the formation of several study groups to focus on the long term problems of the war and to plan for peace. Research and discussion would result in recommendations to the department and President Roosevelt, and would not be made public. The Rockefeller Foundation granted the Council $44,500 to finance this project. It was then concluded that, as a minimum, the American “national interest” involved free access to markets and raw materials in the British Empire, the Far East and the entire Western hemisphere.

 

[Zlex]

The man's name is Chomsky, not Chompsky.

The statement that "the implication that capitalism happens at the expense of others is factually wrong" is your interpretation, just as the paragraph you quote is Chomsky's interpretation. The free market (absent government intervention) generates a distribution of incomes, and so it CAUSES both the high and the low incomes. We've had the argument before as to whether the assignment of individuals to income slots represents more luck (genes, parents' wealth, circumstances) or virtue; you haven't convinced me it's virtue.

No its certainly not his interpretation. Its factual.

Attention kids:

There is only One Pie in the One Pie World. Can't see it?

Money is only poker chips; it is not really a flow of value for value. So, whenever someone gets paid 10,000,000 dolllars, that means that there are 10,000,000 less poker chips to pay anybody else. If you add up all the wages/salaries of everybody in America, it must equal M1. Assets=Revenue, that's all I really can figure out, the difference between a static account and a flow just boggles my mind, so, if somebody gets paid a gazillion bucks a year, it must be coming out of my Fair Share.

Those of us who have no clue should limit the earnings of those that do, because there are more of us.

Amorphous society has not seen fit at its secret meetings to award Me-Me-Me with untold millions, so sumpin must be wrong with the world.


I am not paid what I deserve, but I stay at my job anyway because nobody will pay me more to do what I want to do, live where I want to live, and live how I want to live, the heartless bastards.


Why can't they pay pro athletes less, and just give the rest to me? AFter all, we all have a gun to our heads when it comes to supporting the NFL and NBA. I may suck at basketball, but I'm not 100 million times worse then Matumbo. I mean, he's taller then me, but he's not 100 million times taller then me. Besides, he's a gawk. Life's not fair. But, I still watch the games...


Life really should be just like the endless Thirteenth Grade. Show up, slouch behind the desk, and wait for that big promotion. I mean, public education is free. That means it's effortless, and we should all get the same grades and the same outcomes from the adults running this thing.


They don;t need to pay CEOs 100 million dollars. Hell, I'll do it for 10 million dollars, and the rest can support the Thirteenth Grade. After all, we have no choice but to drink Coca Cola and work for huge corporations. I mean, we just got to do that.


Ditto the Space Shuttle. No need to spend all those millions. I'll deliver cargo into low Earth orbit for half the price. How hard can it be?


It's like witnessing the Stupidization of America.


AWI is 30,000/yr. Who in the world is twice as 'good' as anybody else or 'deserves' to be paid twice as much as the 'average' American? 'twice' is so insulting. Better cap salaries/wages at 60,000/yr. Then, stand back and see how much 'extra' cash just flows into the economy.

Better yet, let's fix the whole world while we are at it. AWI in Bangladesh is $1000/yr. Let's cap worldwide wages/salary at $2,000/yr. I mean, why should the 'average American' be making THIRTY times what the 'average' Bangladeshi is 'earning.' Surely, the average American is not THIRTY times more deserving then the average Bangadeshi? How judgmental.

That way, there will be more paper dollar bills to burn in our little Hibachis.


Freedom; it's not just being eaten at breakfast anymore.


This is not, never was, and will never be, a One Pie World.

The fact that some are successful has no impact on others ability to be successful as well.

Get over it.

 

[russ_watters]

The statement that "the implication that capitalism happens at the expense of others is factually wrong" is your interpretation, just as the paragraph you quote is Chomsky's interpretation.

No, it isn't - factually wrong is factually wrong. Here's why:

The free market (absent government intervention) generates a distribution of incomes, and so it CAUSES both the high and the low incomes.

That is true but it does not address the issue at all because it makes no claim nor provides any data about what the income of that bottom 5th could be without capitalism, nor does it provide any data that the income of that bottom 5th is decreasing. That's why it is misleading and that is why the implication garnered from it is still factually wrong.

The actual data we have says several things:

-The income/living conditions of the bottom 5th of the population in the US is increasing (I don't have data for other western countries, but I think you would agree that their poor live quite a bit better than the average sub-Saharan African).
-The global poverty rate is decreasing (rapidly).
-The vast majority of wealth generated in this world comes from capitalistic countries.

The conclusion that comes from these facts is self-evident: capitalism is good for virtually everyone.

We've had the argument before as to whether the assignment of individuals to income slots represents more luck (genes, parents' wealth, circumstances) or virtue; you haven't convinced me it's virtue.

Yes, we have and though we disagree on that discussion, that discussion is utterly irrelevant here. Regardless of what slot someone falls into [in the US], the average income in every slot is increasing. In addition, my being born in an upper-middle class American family did not cause another child to be born in sub-Saharan Africa.

Capitalism has, of course, had its failures: Argentina comes to mind (though some would argue that it wasn't implimented correctly). But compare that to the economic failures in non-capitalistic countries: North Korea comes to mind. You do know how many people have starved to death in the past 10 years, right?

 

[russ_watters]

For the benefit of those who didn't read the whole thing...

No its certainly not his interpretation. Its factual.

Attention kids:

There is only One Pie in the One Pie World. Can't see it?...

[much, much later]

This is not, never was, and will never be, a One Pie World. [emphasis added]

The fact that some are successful has no impact on others ability to be successful as well.

Get over it.