|
 Wednesday, January 30, 2002
|
Davos on the Hudson: "Anti-globalism protesters would also do well to adopt a more solemn tone, consistent with recent events. After the destruction of the World Trade Center, the sort of violent clashes that broke out in Seattle and Genoa no longer generate the same anti-authority frisson. The anti-globalism message will be best received, certainly by violence-weary New Yorkers, if it is delivered not by physical confrontation and broken store windows but by appeals to reason and conscience.
"
This is absolute, patent bullshit. If it's true that "the anti-globalism message will be best received ... if it is delivered not by physical confrontation ... but by appeals to reason and conscience," then why the hell did the U.S. bomb Afghanistan to bits instead of appealing to the Taliban's "reason and conscience"? Does the idea sound ludicrous? Unfortunately, it does. I actually think the most profound and important thing the U.S. could have done after 9-11 would have been to launch aggressive, global initiatives for peace that had absolutely zero military/violence component. But that didn't happen. Why? Because 9 out of 10 people don't believe it would have worked. And now the New York Times has the audacity to say that peaceful protest is the best solution in the face of a corporate globalisation that is literally sucking the world dry of resources -- natural, human, and otherwise -- simply to line the pockets of capitalists!? Do they even have any idea what they're saying? 8:10:41 PM 
|
|
|
Oh. My. Gawd. This is pure gold. Financial reporter Bethany McLean worked at Goldman Sachs and "had an epiphany about accounting and its potential for abuse. "When you come out of a liberal arts background," she said, "you want to know why something is the way it is." In accounting, "there is no reason why. There is no fundamental truth underlying it. It's just based on rules." No kidding? And you had to work at Goldman Sachs to figure this out? The stock market is built on nothing but promises and illusions and fanatasies and dreams? Damn! And all this time I thought money was real. 7:52:14 PM
|
|
|
Last night in his State of the Union address, Bush tried to tell us that America has "never been stronger." Yeah, I guess we show our strength by continuing to to terrorize Afghani people by ransacking their homes. What is the strength of a nation? Is our nation stronger because our politicians are bought and sold? Um, can you say Enron? Is our nation stronger because the President and Vice President have declared the right to get "unvarnished advice from any source"? (Maureen Dowd translates this, but this is even better: Cheney really wants to preserve the right to take payoffs from anyone for anything, without having to tell anyone what he's done.) Better still, is our nation stronger because it's racing into budget deficits to give tax cuts to the wealthy?
You know what I think the answer is. And I know my saying these things doesn't do much good because, unless you already agree with me, you'll just dismiss this as liberal ranting. Which brings me to the main point, which is that I just finished The Future of Ideas by Lawrence Lessig, and this little liberal rant entry shows the brilliance of what Lessig has done with this book. Lessig argues, basically, that free markets and the profit-motive of capitalism are ruining/have ruined the internet. However, he knew that such an argument would be dismissed by a large majority of readers as liberal ranting, so he carefully couched his contentions in solid, pro-market rhetoric. This means that even a House Republican, or a Blue-blood conservative supreme court justice might read The Future of Ideas and come away with a deep conviction that markets need to be regulated to preserve the future of western civilization. Whether that's what Lessig intended or not, it's brilliant. Read the book. (Too bad it's not in the public domain so you could do so for free. Lessig gave me a great idea: Can you imagine a Napster for books!?) 9:33:13 AM
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  
Top 10 hits for conspiracy on..
 | 5/7/02; 7:38:05 PM. |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
