Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 18-04-07

By Jameskeon

Just a perfect day…

  • EU aims to criminalise holocaust denial. If an historical proposition requires legislation in order to silence its critics then perhaps there is something to its falsehood.
  • Chimps lead evolutionary race. Arguably they are descendents of humans.
  • Our earth just doing what it has always done.
  • Manipulated data behind scientific breakthrough.
  • Dreams may reveal traumatic impact of television.
  • Smart dust to explore planets. To boldly go where no speck has gone before.
  • Ancient impact may have bowled the moon over.
  • Libya’s Kebira crater.
  • Hobbit hominids lived the island life.
  • Mysterious huge stone eggs discovered in Hunan province.
  • Peru’s ancient solar observatory.
  • Target for memory enhancing pills identified.
  • Cold fusion back on the menu.
  • The climate engineers.

Quote of the Day:


If an historical proposition requires legislation in order to silence its critics then perhaps there is something to its falsehood.

Jameske

Jameske
Related

47 Comments

  1. Dreams and TV
    I don’t see how they can link dreams to TV trauma. I thought you only remembered your dreams as you wake up? If you’re not sleeping well after an event like 9/11, that could be due to trauma, but the dream you’re experiencing as you wake up is irrelevant, surely.

    1. Dreams and TV
      dreams can be linked to TV trauma quite easily.
      generally your memory of the dream is freshest as you wake up. I have been a programmer analys for 17 years and i know there is a sciencific reason why people have precognitive dreams – its base on our thoughts are a electromagnetic wave – and somehow due to time its actually not linear as we think of it -great book was written by
      J. W. Dunne called An Experiment with Time deals with dreams. anyhow dreams do come true and prior to it actually happening – i realize not simple deja-vu.
      i had a dream around sept 4, 2001 of me watching news and there was one lady mourning over death of her son of hi-jacking and i even remember her name as i awoke. i didnt know where the hijack took place. – i thought this one of those pre-cognitive dreams and thought of going to police – but at that time i felt most police would probably say thats crazy, and i figure it may be just a dream, but needless to say it wasnt – and lady in newscast was same lady in dream,and newscast the same, other parts of newscast i knew exactly what was going to be said before it happen – some parts of dreams are losted even on awaking. needless to say i felt bad afterwards – but there was no one, that knew the when, where, how. things happen for a reason, and i guess i am gratefull that it didnt show me more than that – because it would of truely left me depress if i didnt act.

  2. Holocaust denial
    They might as well create legislation to also make it illegal (and a crime punishable with arrest and possible imprisonment) for people who still believe that Elvis is alive, those who believe in UFOs, those who believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, those who believe the Earth is flat (or hollow), those who believe that stepping on the cracks in the pavement is bad luck and those who believe that Freddie Starr ate my hamster.

    When you put it in a context like this, it kind of brings home the sheer absurdity of making holocaust denial a crime.

    As Mike Rivero put it:
    “Truth needs no laws to support it. Truth is self-evident, and able to withstand examination and inquiry. Throughout history, from Galileo to Zundel to Benson, only lies and liars have resorted to the courts to enforce adherence to dogma.”

    Now Mike is not denying that the holocaust happened, nor that millions of Jews were systematically slaughtered at the hands of the evil Nazi regime, nor that this was an utterly despicable thing to do. All he’s saying is that if all the facts that are put about regarding the Nazi holocaust are true, then they shouldn’t need to rely on silencing critics through the court system in order to establish the truth. The truth should be able to withstand scrutiny and examination.

    Food for thought.

    yer ol’ pal,

    Xibalba
    (This post was brought to you by “Realm of the Dead”)

    1. EU
      I think the problem is slightly different, but in fact much worse than prohibiting holocaust denial.

      It looks to me like the EU is moving towards the lowest common denominator of personal freedom. When doing X is considered bad in country C, the bureaucrats who run the EU want X prohibited in all member countries.

      Then they get on their moral high horse, and want X prohibited in the rest of the world.

      What is happening is that the top level of government, the European Commission, has the old traditional view that private individuals are the property of the state, and hence individuals should be controlled.

      What makes it worse is that many individuals in Europe think this is the way things should be.

      —-
      Failure is not an option — it comes bundled with Windows

      1. I agree with both of you.
        I agree with both of you. Things like this are the logical conclusion of Political Correctness. And I don’t mind pointing out that PC is a tool (or a bludgeoning weapon) of the Left. Fascism is alive and well. It’s just not where most people have been conditioned to look for it.

        1. Not Just the EU
          It’s not just the EU as such. New Labour passes laws based on the lowest common denominator. A few people do something wrong and we all have to suffer another restriction.
          Once, various authorities would do their job properly to protect without draconian law, but now we see a politicisation of the police, health authorities become moralisers on behaviour.
          Debate itself is disappearing because we’re being conditioned to believe a counter view is an insult. We’re told everyone has the right to do what they want as long as they don’t upset anyone. But the outcome would be that no one can do anything at all, cos everything upsets someone.
          Somewhere along the way we’ve lost commonsense. I’m just trying to decide whether it is accidental or more sinister. I think we need to remember a warning: nothing destroys freedom more than the feeling you’ve got it.

          1. Control of the Masses.
            Information is the most important tool that we have.( long live the internet!) To set in stone this zionist dogma is another step in the control of the masses. Four major corporations control most info in the US, and yes they are headed be men and women who are jewish. The Israel lobby controls the US house and senate. And it does not seem that this new PC movement is for the betterment of the whole but for the ultra-rich. I myself am sick and tired of tippy toeing around subjects because someone may be offended. It offends me and my soul not to speak the truth. Silence is consent. And bullshit still smells like bullshit, no matter how you dress it up. Go ahead make another law! As long as Israel treats its neighbours like subhumans I have no love for it. They are as evil as anything that has injured them in the past. An eye for an eye indeed!
            The government and the police are not here to protect you anymore but their corporate sponsers. Public schools rarely teach how to think anymore, but what to think. This is abuse, as bad as any religious indoctrination. The Tv tells us what to wear, think , and hope for. There is no culture anymore. Just the spin of the day. We live in a time where fear is the prime mover. Not freedom. And if history is any indicator these things don’t end well. And yes the elite do think they own us.

            Qui Tacet Consentit!

          2. more importantly, I think
            While I disagree with bladerunner’s justgement on Israel, and the Zionists, and some other things, I have to say that this disagreement is a minor point. At least in my view.

            The most important points, for me, are free speech, and access to information. And the free speech is not reserved for the news media, nor is it for artists. Free speech has to be the right of every individual, not just people who write for nespapers, or talk on radio, or talk on television.

            I have written this on other occasions, forgive me for the repetition.

            We owe practially everything we have achieved, in terms of freedom, technical advances, longer life expentency, social security, equal rights, and many other things, to one thing:

            People speaking freely. Whether it wss allowed or not. Without that, we would probably be back in the stone age. If that.

            The other major point for me is access to information. Suppose there are people who disagree with my points of view, and they are silenced. How would I get any verification for my beliefs? This happens in personal life,
            for example when a husband or wife always says “yes dear, you are right”. It is a sure way to accumulate distrust and hate.

            Suppose there are people who actively threaten my well-being, or even my life, and they are silenced as well.
            If I don’t hear those people, how can I persuade them that I am not their enemy? Failing that, how can I defend myself against enemies if I don’t know they exist?

            —-
            Failure is not an option — it comes bundled with Windows

  3. “If an historical
    “If an historical proposition requires legislation in order to silence its critics then perhaps there is something to its falsehood.”

    —

    “If a philosophical proposition such as the right to live requires legislation in order to silence its critics (offendingly calling them “murderers”) then perhaps there is something to its falsehood.”

  4. Free speech
    I fully support free speech. I oppose any attempt to legislate against it including this one.
    In exercise of my free speech, any suggestion that The Holocaust did not happen or is a falsehood should be loudly condemned for the lie it is. The horror and pain caused by this incredibly evil episode in human history demands, in my opinion, such a reply.

    1. I agree
      The people who spread lies and hate, under the cover of free speech, have to be called on this. This is necessary.

      My point was that silencing the liars and haters is much more dangerous than letting them speak, and then having to denounce them. Freedom and progress are a lot of work.

      —-
      Failure is not an option — it comes bundled with Windows

      1. Free Speech
        I think there should be three ‘manners’ to free speech – no libel, do not incite violence, and I see no reason for foul language. Other than this I couldn’t agree more, Earthling, except on one point. Never apologise for repetition in demanding free speech. Say it often, say it loud – SHOUT IT!!!
        I, too, disagree with Bladerunner on Zionist plots. If Jews just happen to be better and more committed at what they do, tough. That’s life. Though I’ve noticed one thing. Gentile appreciation of Jews is tied irrevocably with the popularity, or not, of the US President. I think this is the root of modern popular anti-semitism in the west.

        1. Israel / Judaism / Zionism
          It’s been said here before, but is worth repeating.

          Zionism is not another word for the Jewish people, or for Judaism (the Jewish religion). It is not, per se, another word for the state of Israel.

          A Zionist is anyone who supports the furtherance of the state of Israel (though, this in itself should not be regarded as being derogatory). This can include non-Jewish people and non-Israeli people.

          Therefore, criticism of Zionism isn’t necessarily criticism of the state of Israel, but the wider context including the groups I mention above.

          Of course, every nation wants to further itself: to grow, develop, mature etc. Israel should not be singled out for wanting to do this. However, it is in the methods and tactics that are employed to achieve that furtherance which I believe BladeRunner was alluding to.

          Speaking out about some of the inhumane tactics employed by the state of Israel against the peoples of it’s neighbouring states should not be interpreted as anti-semitism (which the Zionists often like to call it). This has the effect of making people think twice before criticising the actions of the state of Israel. Bad behaviour, by anyone, should be criticised and condemned universally, whether it is perpetrated by Israel, Iraq, Iran, the UK or the USA.

          yer ol’ pal,

          Xibalba
          (This post was brought to you by “Realm of the Dead”)

          1. Thank You Xibalba
            For pointing out what most people don’t understand. Some of my best friends are jewish but not zionist. I’m always educating the christains around me about jewish holiday’s.

            Israel’s actions I condemn. But the actions of the US I condemn even more, because I don’t like to be the problem. And the US makes more messes each day.
            Go Kucinich Impeach Cheney!

          2. Setting the Record Straight
            I’m new to TDG and just finding my feet. I think it is a great site and hope to find friends here. As yet I do not know you, and don’t know the bounds. Had I known Bladerunner better I would maybe not have made the comments I made because I would know what he really meant.
            That said, and not knowing him, I was responding to the following:
            ‘Four major corporations control most info in the US, and yes they are headed by men and women who are Jewish.’
            Not Zionist, but Jewish.
            Bladerunner, I offer the hand of friendship and let’s start again.

          3. Jewish media control
            I see your point.

            However, it is a statement of fact – those corporations are indeed headed by Jewish people. That doesn’t necessarily make them Zionists, any more than a Christian heading up a news organisation might be a Zionist.

            However, it implies that their stance on all things related to the Israeli state might be biased in that direction. I’m sure you can agree that if four of the major news organisations are guilty of ‘spinning’ the news to make things sound more pro-Israeli, then that cannot be a good thing as it compromises the impartiality of The Press, and is tantamount to state propaganda.

            Now, I’m not saying for a fact that this is what is occurring, but one must always bear in mind the backgrounds of those reporting ‘the news’ (whatever it is they’re reporting) to try to see through any bias.

            It is for this reason that I like to gather my news from a host of different organisations from across the globe. It’s interesting to see sometimes how much a story can change given from a different viewpoint and perspective.

            By the way – welcome aboard the TDG site. I think you’ve already found that things are never dull around here! I hope you enjoy the site, and get to know some of the regular personalities here. I always find it amazing how you can form a picture of someone based solely on their written words without ever meeting them face-to-face, or talking to them in person. Long live the internet! 🙂

            yer ol’ pal,

            Xibalba
            (This post was brought to you by “Realm of the Dead”)

          4. Behind the News
            Thanks for the welcome. Yes, who is behind the news is usually more important than the news itself. In the UK I’m beginning to think that no papers represent the real mood, ideals or people of the country. Rather, there is a bland acceptance of globalisation by the media – and the main political parties – which is unhealthy for democracy.
            I’m not so sure this is a conspiracy – I’m sceptical on such issues – but more a state of the people being lulled politically by an economy that doesn’t require them to struggle. In such a climate no one complains and the corporate view predominates the media.
            A single view can never be right, whether left, right, or Alpha Centaurian.

          5. facts
            There are facts, and then there are facts.

            What are those 4 corporations? And what qualifies as “heading” such an organization?

            I give you 2 examples of very large publishing organizations.

            There is News Corporation, headed (or is it?) by Rupert Murdoch. a very popular whipping boy. Is he Jewish? Is he Australian? Or both, or neither?

            Then there is Bertelsmann, a German company owned by some number of shareholders. Bertelsmann in turns owns a variety of publishing and entertainment companies. I don’t know who “heads” Bertelsmann. The shareholders? The executive managers? How many of them are Jewish?

            I know I said 2. But here is another influential media outfit: Sony. Sure they are mostly in entertainment, so this technically doesn’t count. But a frightening number of people get their news from entertainment – movies, music, comedy shows.

            So, after these illustrative examples, let me give a two part answer to Xibalba’s preceding post.

            First, I question the alledged fact about 4 companies headed by Jews being in quasi-monopolist control of news and information. Not because I think Xibalba is dishonest, or even misinformend. But rather because the answer, the 4 companies and who heads them, is not very specific. Neither does the answer correspond to a well-defined question.

            Second, I whole-heatedly agree that one should get their news and information from a variety of sources. The wider the better. There does not need to be a conspiracy to misinform by any media outlet (although this cerrtainly does exist). Just natural focus on local or cultural preferences of any particular media outlet is enough to distort the picture. I really should learn more languages.
            —-
            Failure is not an option — it comes bundled with Windows

          6. Whoah!
            Easy there, earthling dude.

            If you want to find out who the ‘4 big news outlets’ were, I suggest we direct that question to BladeRunner who made the initial statement.

            I merely picked up on his statement, in clarifying the intended meaning, and ran with it.

            BladeRunner – vee hav vays ov making you tork! Giv uz zee names ov zee 4 major news organizationz whom you refer to!

            yer ol’ pal,

            Xibalba
            (This post was brought to you by “Realm of the Dead”)

          7. indeed
            Indeed let’s find out what the fabulous 4 are.

            Re-reading my post, perhaps it sounds harsh. Didn’t mean it that way.

            —-
            Failure is not an option — it comes bundled with Windows

          8. The Big Four
            I don’t want to scare anyone, but Greg’s Jewish. So am I. Kat isn’t, but plans to convert. Jameske is a rare Irish Jew.*

            *Just joking, please don’t flood Greg’s inbox. 😉

          9. wow
            Wow, such a concentration of potentially evil folk at the top of the world’s most influential news organization, TDG ! Just when we thought the world was safe 🙂

            For the Chinese censors reading this: no I am not serious.

            —-
            Failure is not an option — it comes bundled with Windows

          10. Alas, it’s only three.
            Alas, it’s only three. Jameske has a thick Irish brogue, and I misheard; he said he enjoys a nice Irish stew, and I heard Irish Jew.*

            *Jameske said no such thing, I made it all up.

          11. Hey I’m cool with you.
            Nothing wrong with a good debate. That’s why I like this site. Too many sites just start throwing, name calling, profanity and YELLING at each other. Here we can have a discussion and agree to disagree. I do like to base what I write on facts and if I’m wrong I’m wrong. If I’m right I’m right. Facts can change with new information. I do have a web site listed with Jewish media leaders on anouther posting in this thread. It just can’t be good for a balanced, view of the world thats what it comes down to for me, that and the huge mergers since the Reagan Admin. Kinda like Europe when the Catholic Church ruled. The Internet has been very eye opening for me. I’m tired with the propaganda and lies. I want what is best for all the people of the world not just corporations and the elite.

            Qui Tacet Consentit.

          13. influential people
            Sure there are quite a few influential people who are Jewish. But you wrote

            Four major corporations control most info in the US, and yes they are headed be men and women who are jewish

            Perhaps you just said that from memory, and don’t have the source any more, so you can’t identify the fab 4 right now. This can happen.

            Another uncertainty here is what is meant by “they are headed by”. In the sense of, what amount of control do these people have? I think the concept that the world is controlled by a large jewish conspiracy is just plain silly. Sorry if some people disagree with that, I don’t really care.

            Nevertheless, it is interesting to find out who is invovled in the media. How much control over information does Bertelsmann have, and who are these people? How about Sony?

            I think the best recipe is to support free speech, and access to information. And also to practice both. Get your information from different sources, and speak freely.

            If enough people do that, we will be ok. Free speech brought down British rule in what is now the USA, it brought down the Deutsche Democratische Republik (even the name was a lie), it brought down the monopoly of the Catholic Church.

            And I predict, free speech will bring down radical Islam as well. Probably this will be painful. But it will happen.

            —-
            Failure is not an option — it comes bundled with Windows

          14. Conspiracy or Not?
            I don’t swallow the idea of conspiracy or control of media in a democractic society. At least, not intentional – not the idea of powerful people saying we’re going to think this or that. But I think something does happen by stealth.
            Media, today, is full of sign and symbol, and through repetition we slowly get a familiarity with them. Before long, they become the norm, and our behaviour, thoughts, etc, move in that direction.
            When we have a single message like we do today – principally that globalisation and super-capitalism is good – counter arguments disappear from the main media and they are marginalised or watered-down.
            If there is a conspiracy, this is, I’m sure, where it lies – in our complacency. We should keep questioning the message.

          15. The problem is …
            … not enough people bother to think. If they “saw it on the telly” then it has to be true.

            Many years ago whilst cruising Barrier Reef waters we had only the short-wave radio for entertainment. Each night we’d listen to the news from the BBC, Radio Moscow and Voice of America. It was amazing how the same story could sound like three completely different ones depending on who was telling it!

            Regards, Kathrinn.

          16. today
            Today this is even easier. There are many newspapers on the net, from many countries. In english. So it isn’t very difficult to get a few different points of view, people don’t even need to understand a foreign language.

            For those who don’t want to read, there is english language TV from different countries on the internet.

            But as Kathrinn says, people have to bother to look, and most people can’t be bothered. Because it would require thinking.

            There seems to be a conspiracy on the part of the news-consumers. Most people tune in to the channels that reinforce what they already believe. It makes live so much simpler.

            —-
            Failure is not an option — it comes bundled with Windows

          17. Maybe you are not familier with US media
            But just in the first 10-12 people listed you have. CBS, Time-Warner, NBC, ABC, Viacom, and Disney. The New York Times Wall St. Journal,and Conte Nas news organisation(100’s of daily newpapers) are Headed by jewish families, CEO’s and presidents. This is where people in the US get their info unless they have the internet. And then there is Google. Google has been hand and hand with the Chinese goverment to suppres freedom of speech on the internet in China. If you control the information you control the masses. Why do you think the Catholic Church burned and tortured those who translated the bible into other langages? When it was in Latin They could interpreted it for you! They had control, everyone else was wrong. Is this starting to make seance to you?

          18. Media Filter System
            To a certain extent, media bosses do not have total control over their output. Much revenue comes from advertising, and if a view appeared counter to what advertisers wanted, they’d stop using that outlet.
            This natural media system is obviously geared to consumerism, or what’s the point of advertising? In this sense, as multi-nationals grow, even media in other countries is slowly changing to reflect, maybe not the same political content, but a similarly sanitised version of the news.

          19. cultural bias
            The US media reports with a cultural bias of what they think their audience is interested in. That’s the same in all reasonable free markets. It is not a conspiracy.

            Also, the CEO doesn’t decide what is in the news everyday, nor how it is commented. Further, the US media critisize the US government quite heavily.

            Sure the New York Times is biased (as just one example). This paper basically represents the views of the left (“liberal” in terms of US politics) wing of the Democratic party, and the view of people who believe New York City is all that matters to the US. They believe that Buffalo is in Canada, and Chicago is in the far west.

            German news is predominantly anti-american, although not completely. The current socialist candidate for president of France is running against George W Bush.

            All these things are examples of what providing people what they supposedly want to hear. That is a sufficient explantion for media bias in various places around the world. You don’t need a big conspiracy for that.

            Google and China – this is not a conspiracy by some Jewish people to control the Chinese population. Google is in the business of delivering advertising. It is not a news organization. To operate in China, they accept limiting the information provided to their advertising targets, the Chinese people with a little money.

            Like all CEOs, the founders of Google are interested in making money, for the company and for themselves. If there is a conflict between their political or morcal convictions on one side, and money on the other side, they go for the money.

            —-
            Failure is not an option — it comes bundled with Windows

          20. Media is more than politics
            The modern western media doesn’t care who is in power politically. No party is going to go against the money men. They all tow the line. Real politics is suspended.
            Hence, politics is just part of the news. One major area of sanitised news is celebrity. This fits the natural media filter system in that it breeds commerce – we aim for the perfection of the lifestyle of celebrity.
            If celebrity upholds the western consumer system, green issues are its nemesis. But no problem. Big business says the right things – does the odd green ‘thing’ – and we believe that mere ‘cosmetics’ is valid action.
            As I said previously, this is not conspiracy. It’s the natural way that modern western super-capitalism works.
            We need to understand this. Our complacency allows it to happen.

          21. yes
            I largely agree with this theory. Business interests are becoming more important than the politics of nation states.

            Of course there are groups who struggling for control. The EU, China, India, the USA, Russia. Also religious groups, like the Catholic church, various Islamic groups. I would include hard-core environmentalist organizations with these religious groups. And there are many more, anyone can add to the list.

            Historically, I think we are looking at the decline of the nation states as the dominant force. Whether that is good or bad remains to be seen. What will come after the era of the nation states, who knows. I don’t think it is necessarily scary: one example is how powerful nation states have restricted the movement and independence of individuals in the last 100 years or so. Another example is the number of really big wars fought by the nation states.

            Perhaps we are on the way back to conditions similar to the middle 1700s or so, only with much improved prosperity for most of the world. But then again, I think that is too simplistic.

            Sorry that this was too wordy again. My only conclusion is that we must protect free speech, which is where this thread started. And if some of us find ourselves in a situation where free speech is prohibited – we should seriously consider speaking anyway. Easier said than done, I know.

            —-
            Failure is not an option — it comes bundled with Windows

          22. Globalisation
            I’m not so sure the nation state is the main villain regarding major wars since late 18th century. Most of those wars revolved around philosophically influenced politics. This isn’t an attack on philosophy, by the way, simply posing the possibility that philosophers got some things very wrong at this time.
            The growth of globalisation may well be a good thing, but there ARE problems. For instance, as world organisations grow, can you have adequate political representation? The EU already seems dictatorial.
            Another problem is diversity. Globalisation dilutes local cultures, with people seeing an easier option and dreams of wealth. It causes a degree of ‘sameness.’ I think radical Islam is fighting against this, but it also happens on a more peaceful scale. Do you have identity without your local culture?
            This isn’t right wing rambling. Consider, nature and evolution were only successful because of absolute diversity. They follow every option. If globalisation is watering down diversity it is going against nature and evolution. We seem to be marking time in a trivia based society. Is this a sign that social evolution is slowing down because of lack of diversity?
            I’m not saying globalisation is wrong – I can even see a role for a new Planetary Congress – but we haven’t got the formula right.

          23. Globalization
            You sound like the kind of person who might enjoy reading Joseph E. Stiglitz’s latest book, Making Globalization Work (Amazon US & UK).

            Amazon’s editorial reviews…
            “Stiglitz’s seminal Globalization and Its Discontents (2002) argued that globalization has not benefited as many people as it could, a failure attributable to structural flaws in international financial institutions as well as limited information and imperfect competition. With this selection, the Nobel Prize-winning economist suggests a host of solutions by which globalization can be “saved from its advocates” and made safe and worthwhile for the poor and rich alike. Each chapter examines, in some depth, an obstacle to equitable globalization (the burden of massive national debt, for example) and provides a set of possible solutions (a return to countercyclical lending and development of international bankruptcy laws, for example). Many of Stiglitz’s proposals echo the familiar litanies of developing nations in the Doha round of international trade talks, but several, such as those drawing upon East Asia’s experiments in contained progress, are innovative enough to warrant books of their own.”

            “An imaginative and, above all, practical vision for a successful and equitable world, Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz’s Making Globalization Work draws equally from his academic expertise and his time spent on the ground in dozens of countries around the world. In clear language and compelling anecdotes, Stiglitz focuses on policies that truly work, offering fresh new thinking about the questions that shape the globalization debate, including a plan to restructure a global financial system made unstable by America’s debt, ideas for how countries can grow without degrading the environment, a framework for free and fair global trade, and much more. Throughout, Stiglitz reveals that economic globalization continues to outpace both the political structures and the moral sensitivity required to ensure a just and sustainable world. And he makes plain the real work that all nations must undertake to realize that goal.”

            As Amazon’s ‘most helpful’ reader-review says, “This new book by Joseph Stiglitz discusses many of the issues of his earlier work, “Globalization and Its Discontents.” The previously described discontents have become more pressing in the interim. Stiglitz reminds us again that globalization and economic growth are bypassing a large number of people in the developing world; in fact, some of the so-called developing world is not developing at all.

            He facetiously points out that a cow in Europe earns more than half of the people on the planet. The $2 a day subsidy of the European cow is equal to the the cut-off line defining poverty, and half of the earth’s inhabitants live below this level. This example illustrates the ostensible unfairness of the current system. European, American, and Japanese multinationals, and the trade negotiators who represent them, argue for freer trade yet they refuse to relinquish agricultural subsidies. This is very unfortunate for the developing world since about 80 percent of their economies are agricultural. Nothing would help them more than if the rich countries stopped subsidizing their agriculture and opened their markets to imports. Economically this is a good idea, politically the it is a non-starter. The French will not be importing Brie and the Japanese will not be importing rice.
            …
            What Stiglitz is doing is calling for greater democracy in the global trading system. Currently the global trading system is stacked in favor of the rich nations, especially the US. This is not to say that rich nations don’t have their issues – they do. What is important in this book is that the poor countries should be given a better deal. Much has been writtem about bad governance in the developing world, and much of it is true; however, aggravating these problems are unfair trade agreements. Stiglitz is important because he gives a voice to the developing world’s vulnerablity. For example, when poor countries are forced to open up their markets to foreign banks, their local banks are put out of business, and, as a consequence, local lending suffers. More democracy in the global trading system would go a long way in alleviating some of these unjustices. The only question is: Are the rich and powerful nations ready for more democracy and a more equitable trading system.”

            At Amazon US, Making Globalization Work has a 4 1/2 star rating from 16 customer reviews – even though several reviewers posted stinging criticisms of the book, some of which I tend to agree with. To me, it seems Stiglitz is engaged in an unsuccessful battle to expand his mental ring-pass-not, possibly due to believing that free-market economics just needs a little tweaking, possibly due to limiting himself to those solutions he believes have a reasonable chance of being accepted by those with the power to change things. Then again, not being an economist, I knew going in that I wasn’t really equiped to determine the merit of his ideas, so, being rather pragmatic, my goal in reading the book was just to understand how a Nobel Prize-winning economist views the situation.

            Kat

          24. Getting the balance right
            Thanks for this, Kat. I think one of the problems in finding solutions is that we don’t think holistically enough. This isn’t surprising as most who try are specialists in just one field.
            To me, it’s all about balance. How do we balance global economy/culture with local economy/culture. At the moment the global is outstripping the local. I think countries need just a little more empowerment and encouragement to remember, yes, they are in a global system, but they also have themselves and their region to be proud of.
            Multi-nationals also need to find more than simply fuelling a trivia-based economy/culture. I’ve many ideas on that, but I won’t bore you here. They’ll no doubt appear on my blog in future.

            ……

            Sin is what you’ve done once you’ve been caught.

            Anthony North

  5. Well, Jamske, I’ve got to give you credit…
    you’ve managed to post one hell of a thought in such a way that I suspect that no excrement will splash back on you, no matter how much you deserve it.

    In referring to the holocaust as “an historical proposition” you’ve managed a feat that Goebbels never acheived; you’ve trivialized the murder of millions as no nazi ever imagined possible.

    If it has escaped you, as it clearly has, many things about our existence require legal protection. I am fortunate enough to live in Canada, where I have certain rights and freedoms, and would you care to guess why those rights and freedoms were set down in the document called, logically enough, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? It’s because if they were not set out clearly, and ensured by law, then some knuckle-dragging moron would try to erase those rights and freedoms, as has happened, to some extent, even in this relatively peaceful realm.

    In my country people have rights and those rights are observed more often than not; no system is perfect. That being said, millions have died for want of those protections and you, and people like you, are much of the reason why. We think highly enough of our rights that we extend them even to those who have entered our country under false pretenses…how foolish of us.

    If someone had extended the same rights to european jews and various others, the death-toll of World War 2 might have been much less and it’s people like you who were cheer-leaders for the extermination trains.

    Do you truly not get it? Rights must not only exist, they must be guaranteed by law or they will be erased. History has proved over and over that the guiding force of human nature is sheer hatefulness more often than not…do we really need more evidence of where hatefulness leads?

    For the love of whatever you conceive as a divine light, get with the program. If it’s alright to try to exterminate one group or another, then it’s alright to exterminate any group…how long do you figure it’ll be before somebody comes for you particular group? There is only one solution: either every group has the right not to be exterminated, and to have their existence protected by the rest, or every group on this miserable ball of rock is just marking time til the executioner comes.

    The optimistic side of me would like to think that you’re just trying to provoke discussion…you’ve succeeded. If you possess a conscience, now would be the time to display it, by showing a little compassion for those who were marched off to their deaths not believing that what was happening to them was real or possible. If I have mistaken you in any way, then show me how…and if not, may some divine light show you the error of your ways.

    good night

    Good News: There’s a guiding force at work in the Universe. Bad News: It’s Irony.

    2. Provoking
      If there is one thing that J can do, it’s provoke discussion.

      I think there’s more to the argument though than labeling him as a “cheer-leader for the extermination trains”, and it’s to do with where the boundaries are. Your argument that “rights must exist” is trampled by your counter-argument that there be laws against questioning things. Sure, it’s nice for a government to put a ban on holocaust denial, but where do you draw the line on that very slippery slope? If there’s one thing I don’t want to see, it’s power being put into the hands of government to ban people questioning. That is a fundamental right.

      And no, I don’t question the holocaust. I have a lot of books on that particular period of history, and I think everyone should be schooled in it. Just not banned from questioning it (or anything else).

      Provoking comments of your own though, thanks – love all this discussion of various topics on TDG over the past week…the place is kicking.

      Kind regards,
      Greg
      ——————————————-
      You monkeys only think you’re running things

      1. “Where do you draw the line”?
        In this context at least the slope is neither as steep nor as slippery as some might think. In a liberal society we have freedom of expression but that freedom is not absolute; as I suggested in another discussion thread, try yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre and then claiming that you were exercising free speech. When the emergency response teams have finished counting the people trampled in the ensuing stampede, you might find the police unsympathetic to the assertion that you were merely expressing yourself.

        Why? Because while you have a right to express yourself, you and others have a right to go on living and the argument can be made that one’s rights to life and to the safety and security of the person must necessarily out-weigh another’s right to express himself. It’s a question of priorities: freedom of expression is great up to the point where it sets in motion a train of events that could lead to the contravention of other and arguably more important rights…to use the Holocaust as an example, a campaign of genocide can begin with relatively innocuous comments.

        It’s not the questioning of things that is at issue here but the intent behind the questioning and the use to which the answers might be put. I cannot speak to the matter of what Jameske’s intent might have been in posting such a thought as he did but I do have a good enough grasp of history to know where such a comment could lead and I see it as irresponsible at best to post such a comment without putting it in some sort of context. If he sought to argue against genocide he’s chosen a peculiar way of going about it which leads me to wonder exactly what he’s trying to say.

        It certainly would be grand if genocide one day came to be unthinkable. It’s difficult to picture that such a day will come anytime soon.

        Peace to us all

        Good News: There’s a guiding force at work in the Universe. Bad News: It’s Irony.

        1. The line
          [quote=Binro the Heretic]It’s not the questioning of things that is at issue here but the intent behind the questioning and the use to which the answers might be put. [/quote]

          Good points all (sorry to cut them out in my reply) Binro. I should have read the story more closely. The law is said to be designed to…

          …punish public incitement “to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin”.

          They will also have to criminalise “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes” when such statements incite hatred or violence against minorities.

          The key point is the final sentence – when it “incites hatred or violence”. I would still have my doubts as to the grey areas which could be abused by authorities in proving an act “incited hatred”, but I’m far more agreeable to this.

          I would add a secondary question though as to why the law needs to be written specifically in regards to Holocaust denial, rather than basic incitement to violence or racial/ethnic/religious intolerance which covers all groups rather than this one rather specific act.

          Kind regards,
          Greg
          ——————————————-
          You monkeys only think you’re running things

    3. I agree
      I agree with you about irony – you – a heretic? 😉

      I for one do not believe in any sort of god, creator, divine light, supreme being etc… I do not believe anyone has a right to live, and my fact to support that is that everyone dies – we are all waiting for the executioner – only cancer seems to have a sense of immortality. I suspect that we are poles apart since you believe in many rights enshrined in legislation. Even the notion of the group over the individual that you seem to adhere to is not something I do.

      Now, just to muddy the waters (with excrement?), the above does not mean I do not wish all people to live, laugh, have children and grow old as opposed to being gassed, shot, beaten etc. Because I wish all people to have their share of life and laughter.

      That’s as much as I have got to give you. I shall return now to the error of my ways.

      1. Let’s put it this way
        If that terse collection of irrelevancies and misinterpretations is your idea of a rebuttal to the points I raised then I can only say that I sincerely do pity you.

        Good evening.

        Good News: There’s a guiding force at work in the Universe. Bad News: It’s Irony.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal