Globalization: a tangent to Fort Hood

When I was a child growing up in California, we didn't have terrorism and I almost blundered in thinking about the topic of this thread and stated we didn't have terrorism in the US when I was a child. Such a statement probably wouldn't fly for others who grew up elsewhere in the US. One quick case in point would probably be a child waking to see hooded fellow Americans burning a cross on their lawn and possibly worse.

There is a serious thread open and in progress now regarding the Fort Hood shootings and as I started to post in it I realized my comments would be a side track and likely take the thread off topic should others chime in. I find it refreshing that the Cafe can be host to such a serious thread and I hope this can continue. I have found the Underground to be a viable and significant place for topics that couldn't survive up here but I also feel that with so many more members up here and such a great diverse membership, the chance for more insight and contributions is more than justification to attempt to have serious discussions up here. It is up to us to keep these threads open and compliant. It only takes a few hot headed and insensitive posts to ruin the discourse for all. (It only took one seriously screwed up individual to change things at Fort Hood)

Thanks to technologies in communication, transportation and commerce we are becoming a global economy and I think most of us will agree that money has a strong influence on society and its foundation. Many believe that we face some threats and issues of limited resources as well as their distribution and that we face these as a global community and on a global scale. The US started out as open land and local laws with local government and enforcement. It evolved to statehood for much of the territory and ultimately the states became united. Without being a historian or student of societies and law, I can imagine that the growth and evolution of the US followed some obvious needs and justifications.

Now the US and its citizens are interacting with the rest of the world and on an ongoing and very significant basis. But this brings pressure for some form of unification beyond our united states. I suppose the United Nations could be considered a result of this "need". There has been talk by heads of state and other of a "New World Order". Clearaly multinational corporations are already doing business based on a global platform and it is in their best interest to have as much access and control over their markets as they can get.

Initially I thought and probably hoped that Hasan was an isolated case of someone who ultimately lost a grip on reality and failed miserably as a human being, destroying others in the process. I still do think he failed miserably as a human being but now it seems that he did so based on his religious and spiritual beliefs and not because of some mental aberration or illness. Hasan is an American and yet as a global citizen following a radical religious belief, he turned against fellow Americans. I think this is a real eye opener for some of us! It's a wake up call but what are we going to do now that we are awake?

Underlying all of the issues we face these days is power and control. Do global problems require global control? If yes, at what cost to individual freedoms? If people are out of control then we have to have some enforcement body come in and take control? Do we need more laws and more law enforcement?

It seems that there were warning signs about Hasan but due to what is being attributed to PC inactions, nothing was done. Concerned individuals were not free to act upon their concerns and limited to passing on a mention of their concern? Our hands are tied by laws so we can do no harm yet we are also restricted from doing good? Is it in the legal systems interest that we do nothing and leave it to them to decide a course of action while getting paid for their service to us?

I realize I am rambling here and I am certainly not suggesting any answers. Heck, I am hoping that this discussion might bring forth some reasonable questions!

I do believe we are now responsible global citizens and seeking shelter behind a political party, racial affiliation or national allegiance won't alter the fact; it might muddy it though. With such a diverse set of beliefs and morals celebrated on a global level, it would really be a shame to have to comply with some global standards reducing our freedoms and activities to the level that would be commonly accepted by all and yet I suspect this is the natural direction in which we are headed. Unless we can somehow retain some autonomy at more local and locally common levels, we may be giving up a heck a lot of freedom to become PC and Legally Correct as based on some global standard.

Clearly wars are one way to fight the tendency towards a Global Community and they are lucrative business for those in the industries of defense as well as being in their economic best interest; provided the decision makers don't have their lives on the line.

Hasan didn't infiltrate the US military as an alien. He didn't cross any geographic borders undetected. He did cross the border of humanity, IMHO, but he did it at home. Are we willing to forgo the freedom of "travel" for the security of border checks? Will we ultimately give up control to some world order because we can't or won't control ourselves? Should we all be open to search and seizure in an attempt to catch the next Hasan among us? The evil against humanity which I believe he and others of his beliefs represent is a clear and present danger. The only way TSA would have caught Hasan would have been at check points and security checks placed on public and domestic roads. He drove on to the base presumably with the guns he used in his spree of evil and destruction. A comprehensive security check could have interceded but at what cost to our society and freedoms of the other citizens also stopped at such a check point?

Consider CPF. We are a global community and we seek common ground and common interests. We have the ability to moderate our comments and actions such that the moderators don't have to step in. We have commerce among us and across international borders. We have the potential of benefiting from the diversity of our knowledge, experiences and abilities. Some of us know a fellow member across the globe better than we know our next door neighbor.

I sure hope that we, as humanity, can avoid the need for some uniform code of a global standard. I don't personally care for uniforms of any sort and would much rather skip and go naked (with enough foliage to block the view and not offend anyone else )

In many metropolitan settings, you can enjoy the diversity of cultures and races and people can retain their individualities without infringing on their neighbors. Freedoms and choices can exist but not without responsibility, accountability and effort. Oh yeah, one other element is required. Tolerance.

Too often these days, IMHO, I hear the comment that there ought to be a law. I think a law should be a last resort. Laws are expensive and should be avoided with reasonable actions and considerations if at all possible.

CPF is an experiment in a global community and we are all participants. One of us can ruin it for everyone.

On the other hand, we can learn from each other, enjoy our common interests and express our common concerns with hope for understanding and possibly even solutions.

Is truth now a needle in a haystack of lies? Who piled up the hay and why?

Great topic which I hope will remain open. You raised a very interesting question when you said "Do global problems require global control? If yes, at what cost to individual freedoms? If people are out of control then we have to have some enforcement body come in and take control? Do we need more laws and more law enforcement?"

I'm not sure we need more laws. If anything I tend to think we need fewer. A good test for making a new law should be to ask if the action being outlawed definitely physically or financially harms others. Not might, but actually does 100% or nearly 100% of the time. As it is, we have too many "preventative" laws which in my opinion already greatly impact our freedoms, even micromanage our lives. For example, if traffic gets too heavy and I want to cycle on the sidewalk, there is currently a law against simply because I might hit somebody. So an option is taken away from me because of someone else's carelessness and/or incompetence at cycling among pedestrians, even though I can and have done so without any problems. Now I would be perfectly willing to accept a law that says if I hit a pedestrian and injure them, then I am responsible. Turns out that law already exists, so why the need for yet another law which only hurts most cyclists? And so it goes with our society. Someone does something stupid, everyone pays. Look at what happened here with >5mW lasers on account of a few people's stupidity.

On the flip side of this, people and corporations are often allowed to do things which definitely cause harm to others if money is in the equation. I've written many rants against the harm caused by using fossil fuels, and yet it's been allowed to continue simply because some people make money off it. Ditto for certain aspects of medicine which cause more harm than good. And it even carries over to things we eat. I only recently discovered how harmful the high fructose corn syrup which is seemingly in everything these days is. Indeed, this one ingredient more than any other may well be responsible for the obesity epidemic we're facing. And yet it's allowed to continue to be used instead of sugar because it increases the bottom line of food companies.

So bottom line is we probably need fewer laws in most areas but could do with a few more laws in a limited number of areas.

Now getting to the most interesting part of your question by far-should there be some sort of global control to global problems? I think the answer to that is yes, but the practical problem is who will enforce it? Do we create and fund a brand new entity with the military might to enforce its will on any country, including a superpower like the United States? And if so, then what can be done to prevent this new entity from running amuck, perhaps curtailing freedoms worldwide in the name of order? That's the problem here. It's a great idea in concept, but totally unimplementable given current technology. Down the road, however, I think it may be a reality. We could create an army of machines programmed to enforce the laws we make. We don't give them the ability to make new ones or to think independently. Only to enforce whatever laws are on the books. We make a new law, it gets enforced instantly and uniformly. We take a law off the books, enforcement stops. I'm thinking something along the lines of Gort in The Day the Earth Stood Still. Something which we can't stop once we turn it on, but also something which will obey our commands without question. If the countries of the world live in peace, then we'll have absolutely nothing to fear. On the other hand, if they start to make war, then the aggressor may well face their annihilation at the hands of a machine. This includes not only countries, but also unilateral terrorist organizations.

Of course, the ability to implement this is decades away, but IMO I really don't see any other possible way of enforcing some sort of global set of rules. Countries can and have cooperated at times for their own self-interest, but it still hasn't prevented wars. My guess is so long as land and resources are limited, war in some form will always be with us unless some sort of world policeman exists. And by definition, to do that job this policeman must be independent of and more powerful than any one country, and yet it can't be a country in its own right. A machine or army of machines is really all I think would be capable of fulfilling that role. I also tend to think if laws are universally enforced by machine, then we will tend to have a lot fewer of them, effectively gaining back many of the freedoms we've incrementally had taken away from us by overzealous politicians.

Good points Don- what is one of the best ways for a country to control it's population? Fear. I think you likely grew up during the height of the Cold War and probably remember the Cuban missle crisis- the Red Menace and people with Bomb Shelters in their basements. I work with a non MIC (Military Industrial Complex) related company in maintaining compliance with provisions of the US Patriot Act. I really have seen the "dark" side of that Law in action.
Your line below was so fitting:
"Is truth now a needle in a haystack of lies? Who piled up the hay and why? "
I would counter that: The MIC piled up the hay. They and those who do not want War and Fear to go away-so they may stay in power and play. Reaping profits thru blood and treasure-our freedom may not survive their measure.

We all still remeber that the CIA provided funding, training and equipment to the Mujahadeen and OBL during the Soviet occupation of Afganistan don't we?

McGizmo said:

When I was a child growing up in California, we didn't have terrorism and I almost blundered in thinking about the topic of this thread and stated we didn't have terrorism in the US when I was a child.

Click to expand...

But we did live in fear of the Soviet bloc. Duck and cover.

McGizmo said:

Hasan is an American and yet as a global citizen following a radical religious belief, he turned against fellow Americans.

Click to expand...

But all of us could be termed "global citizens." Hasan's defining point is following a radical religious belief. For example, would the neo-Nazis who follow a radical ethic originating in post-WWI Germany be more "global" than others?

McGizmo said:

Do global problems require global control? If yes, at what cost to individual freedoms?

Click to expand...

This debate is echoed in federal vs. states rights: local vs. global.

McGizmo said:

It seems that there were warning signs about Hasan but due to what is being attributed to PC inactions, nothing was done.

Click to expand...

Here, the problem lies in ethnic relations, as opposed to global relations.

McGizmo said:

The only way TSA would have caught Hasan would have been at check points and security checks placed on public and domestic roads. ... but at what cost to our society and freedoms of the other citizens also stopped at such a check point?

Click to expand...

Indeed, at what cost. Hasan is just another of the office and school shootings from the past few years writ large.

McGizmo said:

Tolerance.

Click to expand...

I second that thought. In many ways American culture is too confrontational. On the other hand, where I am in Japan, too many things get swept under the rug in the name of social harmony. A lot is connected with the culture we nurture (instill? brainwash?) in schools, which receive precious little money relative to their importance to society.

Duck and Cover... simpler times where MAD doctrine-mutual assured destruction- made for a simplistic, horrific final solution.

Thanks for your thoughts and comments guys!

RageCage, fear definitely was served up while I was growing up but like many self centered young individuals, it really didn't get much of a foothold. The Duck and Cover mentioned by nisshan was perceived, at least by me, on par with the fire drills we also had to practice. And the fear was based on distant shores which never did make it to our beaches. There was also the questioning of authority going on as I was growing up and perceptions of some BS being served up to us by means of Reefer Madness and such. The fear back then was also clearly good for the economy in that it created jobs and there was times of real prosperity as well as stability. The race to space may have been based on politics and a need to best the USSR but it had some great effects on our economy and productivity as well as advances in technology.

As a youth I also had more faith in the inherent goodness in mankind and there were role models of Leave it to Beaver and Father Knows Best. I realize now that they were no less fantasy than the Simpsons and other examples of dysfunctional and irreverent shows on prime time. I appreciate the irony and humor as an adult but there is no stage of innocence to prepare for the grimer realities or set one on a Golden Rule path. Perhaps I am wrong.

9/11 was the first episode that really drove it home to me that our shores had been compromised and a new age entered. Initially it seemed that we had finally joined together once again as a nation and I was optimistic that we could be led on a new and fresh path where we could reassert the meaning and values established by our forefathers. Unfortunately, and IMHO, 9/11 was also seen by some powers to be as a grand opportunity to seize more control and with the excuse that it was necessary and for our own good.

I think now more than ever we need to find a way to get back to the basics of our constitution and regain both the freedom as well as accept the responsibilities of maintaining that freedom for ourselves and not outsource it to our "protectors". We are no longer isolated or insulated from the world at large and denial won't change anything.

I may be wrong but I fear the loss of freedom and privacy I sense in the Patriot Act more than I fear a terrorist act that will take me off the game board. The terrorist act that takes me out might happen but the Patriot Act and invasions of privacy are a reality. I have nothing to hide but resent being stopped and searched and I really resent the power given to others allowing them to do the stopping and searching. And no, I haven't been stopped and searched (at least to my knowledge) but the potential for abuse of power is a given and demonstrated time and again in history.

I saw a special on new military equipment and technologies and the expectation is that wars and battles will be moving to the urban battle fields and fought by soldiers at hand and not so much from a distance. Coming soon to a home or theater near you?!?!

When things seem out of control, is it wise to relinquish one's control and freedom to others? Father knows best?

Again, I am confused and mildly concerned.

Sorry, Copperfox, your post has been removed with a recommendation to take it to the Underground.

Pursuing a debate on gun control and expanded 2nd amendment rights, while potentially interesting, is certain to meet sufficient controversy to earmark it as Underground discussion.

You raise some interesting points but I think you skirt an important issue. You state "I do believe we are now responsible global citizens". Well, quite clearly, there are many around the world who still disagree.

The thing is, you can't look at your own actions, measure them by your own standards, and then grandly state that your behaviour should be considered fine by everyone else. There are 300 million people that are US citizens, and 6.5 BILLION people that aren't. That means that in population terms, you are sharing this planet with 22 other USA's. You need to try and consider your behaviour from their point of view, even if you don't particularly like it (or understand it): 'climb inside of his skin and walk around in it'.

Let me give an example. I grew up in the UK and now live in Australia. I'm not religious. The only guns I've ever seen have been in policemen's holsters. I'd rather not see even them. I suspect that most of the members on this board (being American) would have a very different view of the world than I do. There are obviously a large number of pro-gun, religious Americans that, on the surface, I would have very little in common with - except that I bet we could sit down and share a drink and find certain subjects that would have us howling in laughter all night long. We might even find it fascinating to see the world through different eyes for a couple of hours. The point is we CAN agree to disagree, we don't need to beat each other senseless in a vain attempt to make everyone see the world through the same eyes, but we need to start from a basic platform of mutual respect.

I consider myself very fortunate that I don't have to scratch in the dirt every day for a bowl of rice. This planet simply couldn't support 6.8 billion people living the lifestyle I have. I feel a bit guilty for that, but they are the cards I've been dealt and I'm lucky. I don't believe that any higher being 'chose' for me this lucky life: I could so easily have been born in Africa, India, China, wherever. When I've travelled to poorer places, I've been aware that I will be probably be viewed as the 'spoilt kid' by those that do have to spend 120 hours a week trying to scratch a living out of the dirt. At 20 years old I was 'rich' enough to scrape up a few pounds and head off backpacking half way round the world - many of these folks will work HARD for a lifetime and still never be able to leave their village. I'm aware of how they'd probably perceive me because I think that's how I would perceive me, if I was in their skin. As a result I felt it paramount to be respectful and polite - I took my shoes off and bowed my head when their culture indicated it. I didn't go marching in, waving my cash and shiny toys and demanding things be done my way, and yelling in some misguided machismo that they could prise my shoes off my cold dead feet.

And yet that is exactly what big corporations and mischievous governments do every day. Globalism was always a sleeping giant, but it wasn't woken by you or I as individuals politely saying 'good morning' - it was woken by our corporations and governments, acting without conscience to rape and pillage fertile new lands to further 'our interests' and line the pockets of shareholders. THIS is what got everybody so pissed with us in the first place - not our own beliefs and freedoms or our sunny disposition, but the outrageous acts that were being perpetrated in our name. Is it any wonder then that we (the west in general), with our apparent total lack of conscience or moral compass, has stirred such resentment, and that it will take more than our own assertion of 'good behaviour' to appease those whose noses we've broken?

The way we interact with the world has to change. We can't expect to get richer and richer off the backs of those poorer than us. We can't continue to manipulate other nations' governments to suit our own sensibilities or financial purposes, and we can't allow our corporations to set up shop overseas and behave in ways that a/ wouldn't be tolerated at home, and b/ don't show some cultural respect to their new hosts. Right now we're still talking the talk - we need to walk the walk for a while.

Sadly there will probably always be those that see radical, violent solutions as appropriate - but there have been plenty of home-grown examples as MicGizmo has mentioned. Remember that as a culture, we don't hesitate to use violence against our enemies either. The point is not to find better ways of dealing with our enemies, but to find ways of getting along in this world without making so many of them.

nisshin said:

I second that thought. In many ways American culture is too confrontational. On the other hand, where I am in Japan, too many things get swept under the rug in the name of social harmony. A lot is connected with the culture we nurture (instill? brainwash?) in schools, which receive precious little money relative to their importance to society.

Click to expand...

In most of the Asian culture they were being taught you are either conform to the social standard or otherwise you are just another social outcast. Soon or later this country will become part of the Globalization process that we will carry the burden from the third world countries!!

Wow. Good thread.

Cage, you mention the Mujahideen -- our CIA and Stinger missles are the primary reason the Russians chose to leave. We then abandoned our Muj allies, just as we did those in SEAsia a few years earlier.

I tend to think sometimes about "what if". What if we had kept a peaceful presence in Afganistan -- helped them recover and rebuild?

Just a sore point with me and sorta thread related.

Brewer said:

You raise some interesting points but I think you skirt an important issue. You state "I do believe we are now responsible global citizens". Well, quite clearly, there are many around the world who still disagree.

...

Click to expand...

I agree with you on all significant points. I want to clarify an obvious poor selection of words on my part. When I say we are responsible global citizens I mean that we have a responsibility as global citizens and don't imply that we are behaving or acting in a responsible manner but that we need to do so. Perhaps I should have said we are now responsible as Global Citizens. I doubt any other species can claim the level of self destructive abilities and actions we can and have dished upon ourselves unless it is during a case of over population and limited food sources. I meant this as a condition for the other species but perhaps it applies now to us as well.

I am sorry that Empath has already found the need to moderate this thread and perhaps I should not have started it here topsides anyway. None the less, I am convinced that our global civilization needs to find some common ground and deal with some real demons and problems facing us all as well as identify some that might be nothing more than smoke screens or hay on the pile.

Hi Don!

I'm glad you did start this topside, actually, as I have been temporarily staying away from the underground until I finish a project that I have been working on almost non-stop since the last time I was there. So I wouldn't have seen this down below. Or not right away, anyway.

OK, so, I think that this whole situation, and many others, boil down to left brain/right brain; codified laws/compassion and empathy.

It is my considered opinion that there is far too much top--> down structure in modern society, and far too little "organic" / grass roots structure. The whole notion of "there ought to be a law" which you brought up and were critical of is right in line with what I'm talking about here.

Globalization probably should (I suspect) just happen as it needs to happen, in the way that it needs to happen, as response to changing conditions, and the response should (when it can) be taken at the lowest level possible. Unfortunately, that can't always be done for political reasons, or simply for logistic or logical reasons. But often it can be done and even should be done and yet isn't done due to the (probably good) intentions of someone far away both physically and experientially.

Wanting to make a code of laws or rules is a left brain activity, and sometimes this is needed, but often a right brain response of tolerance, empathy and compassion is what is called for, and it simply isn't considered because people don't even think that this is "doing" anything. Fear and uncertainty and doubt kill compassion, and so if indeed a government is serving up fear, warranted or not, it is not helping compassion and tolerance.

You mentioned those killed in 9/11. What an awful event. What a terrible and fateful day. So many lives lost.

And also so many lives lost every year to car accident fatalities. So many. Does anyone know just HOW MANY lives are lost each year in car accidents? Take a guess (or don't) and then google it.

You will find that each year more than TEN TIMES the number people are killed in car accidents than were killed in 9/11. Forty odd thousand people every year. Even with all the seat belts and seat belt laws and air bags and better designed cars, so many lives are lost each year.

We see the bright side of the automobile. The freedom, the convenience, the liberty, the lifestyle. And when we see the dark side of the car, we see pollution. But rarely do we consider that the automobile is a terrorist par excellence that so far has racked up more deaths than any cell.

We accept the car because we feel we have a choice--we know the risks, we weigh the cost and benefit--and thus we have the illusion of control. 9/11 was so much more frightening because we were blind sided, we had no control, we didn't know the risks, didn't sign on for them, and thus we went wild in an effort to regain control, control at any cost.

This is the psychology behind blaming ourselves for things that are really beyond our control. An accident happens (they always will from time to time) and something terrible happens and we look for some way to regain control. "If I had not been STUPID," we say--"if I had been SMARTER, and had done this or that, then this terrible thing wouldn't have happened." And the implication is that in the future we will have control because we'll be smarter at any cost.

Yet, honestly, and in the true sense of the world "ultimately" we have no real control over external events in our lives, over our health, over what other people do.

There is only one thing we do have some real amount of control over, and that is how we will respond to these external events and to these other people, and to the joys and catastrophes of life. What will we do, how will we "cope"? What is our "plan"? We have to UNDERSTAND.

Again, a stab at control--the inner life, emotions, philosophy--and even here we sometimes find ourselves betrayed! We thought "we" were in control--meaning the ego, the small mind, the talking-head self, and then BAM! we find that ourselves falling in love against "our will". We find ourselves feeling anger or hate. We are confused and upset and unbalanced. Again we struggle for control at any cost. Instead of experiencing these unwelcome visitors, these OTHERS, we wall ourselves off with dogma, creed, principle, "explanation".

I haven't yet researched this--I have too many irons in the fire already--but in one of the books I recently read on neuroscience, the authors mentioned that despite what common sense would tell you, suicide bombers aren't primarily motived by religion. The notion that without some "belief" in an after-life a person would never do something like gun down a dozen innocent bystanders or fly a plane into a building is, according to this neuroscientist, not true. Granted, this may be a factor, but those without any belief in an afterlife can and do commit such attrocities. I suspect that Columbine might be one example. The main motivation, he said, was that these people wanted to WIN AT ANY COST and that they were abstracted from the feminine, from compassion and empathy, from the right side of the brain.

Tolerance.

Indeed, Don, you go to the heart of the matter in my opinion. So much of ethics is negative ethics. It defines a negative space you can not enter, and (and this is just the flip side of the same coin) it defines a positive space you MUST enter. Do not do this. Always do that.

But there is another sort of ethics. A positive ethics. It does NOT define. It suggests. It guides. It creates the proper atmosphere. It is the notion that we should each fulfill our own dreams and potentials as long as we don't harm anyone else in the process. It means live and let live. It is seen as naive and ineffectual, but it is neither. That's what we need more of today.

I see people tearing each other apart (figuratively speaking) over political issues or philosophical issues or even scientific issues. To read some of the exchanges between Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould, Michael Ruse, Daniel Dennett, etc., you'd think that these men were all in vastly different, fundamentally antagonistic religions. Yet, no, they are all atheist or agnostic scientists, getting all bent over relatively small differences regarding what is the unit of selection or whatever.

Does it really matter so much? Couldn't we focus on more congenial things? Can't we all realize the degree to which we all share our common humanity, our common life experiences? We're not so different. We're not so different at all.

Truth?

Whose truth? The truth of the logical mind? Or the truth of compassion, of the heart? The former can indeed get burried, but the latter can not. It is right there near your center.

Oh, and as a p.s., I should mention that I am as guilty as the next person of getting bent over stuff that doesn't matter, over intellectual arguments, stupid stuff, etc. I can say, however, that I always try to forget, forgive, move on, and do better next time--to strive for balance. I've failed many times before, and I will fail many times again, but the difficulty of a goal doesn't disprove its worth.

- The United States is in the midst of an unrecoverable decline from which it will not survive. What we are now seeing are the obvious characteristics of the West after the fall of Rome: the triumph of religion over reason; the atrophy of education and critical thinking; the integration of religion and the state, and the political and economic marginalization of our culture. If you view the key indicators of the health of a nation, namely Politics, Economics, and Culture, you can see how the US survived past depressions and great changes, and why it will not survive this one. If you want to know what the US will look like in 20 years, look at Russia today; a giant mediocrity that produces nothing.

- Globalization has nothing to do with people interacting, it is the concept of non-local corporatocracy. Americans have bought into the idea wholesale, sold to them by corporations through intensive advertising, and through politicians by manufacture of consent. It allows corporations maximum profit and minimum responsibility. Jobs go elsewhere, profits go only to the top tier.

- Politics in the US is exclusively dominated by one political party which is sold to the American public under two different labels. The two "brands" differ on smaller issues which get nearly all the coverage during election seasons, however on the larger issues, such as Globalization, they are in lockstep. Aside from this, any given large corporation has far more power over the daily lives of Americans than the government (media control, wages, etc), and the drive for privatization increases this daily.

- The economy of the US flounders because it has no interest in how the economy is run aside from maximum profit for whoever can achieve it. The wealthiest seek to increase their own wealth at any cost, the worker becomes merely an expendable resource (hence "human resources".) The average American will now work eleven jobs over the course of their life. Pay Disparity is a critical indicator of a society's health; in most European countries, the difference between a CEO's and worker's pay is about 40 to 1. In the US it's about 400 to 1. Reduction of the middle class increases profits.

- American culture is built on the foundation of mass media, a worldview composed mostly of corporate advertising and corporate-funded "news" (now with more technology and entertainment segments). American life is a permanent state of contingency, a timed and measured high-speed non-stop barrage with little time or processing capacity remaining for non-personal issues (note the incidence of driving-while-texting accidents/deaths, and the mind-boggling lifestyle implications). A faster and louder version of every-man-for-himself.

StarHalo said:

- The United States is in the midst of an unrecoverable decline from which it will not survive. What we are now seeing are the obvious characteristics of the West after the fall of Rome: the triumph of religion over reason; the atrophy of education and critical thinking; the integration of religion and the state, and the political and economic marginalization of our culture. If you view the key indicators of the health of a nation, namely Politics, Economics, and Culture, you can see how the US survived past depressions and great changes, and why it will not survive this one. If you want to know what the US will look like in 20 years, look at Russia today; a giant mediocrity that produces nothing.

- Globalization has nothing to do with people interacting, it is the concept of non-local corporatocracy. Americans have bought into the idea wholesale, sold to them by corporations through intensive advertising, and through politicians by manufacture of consent. It allows corporations maximum profit and minimum responsibility. Jobs go elsewhere, profits go only to the top tier.

- Politics in the US is exclusively dominated by one political party which is sold to the American public under two different labels. The two "brands" differ on smaller issues which get nearly all the coverage during election seasons, however on the larger issues, such as Globalization, they are in lockstep. Aside from this, any given large corporation has far more power over the daily lives of Americans than the government (media control, wages, etc), and the drive for privatization increases this daily.

- The economy of the US flounders because it has no interest in how the economy is run aside from maximum profit for whoever can achieve it. The wealthiest seek to increase their own wealth at any cost, the worker becomes merely an expendable resource (hence "human resources".) The average American will now work eleven jobs over the course of their life. Pay Disparity is a critical indicator of a society's health; in most European countries, the difference between a CEO's and worker's pay is about 40 to 1. In the US it's about 400 to 1. Reduction of the middle class increases profits.

- American culture is built on the foundation of mass media, a worldview composed mostly of corporate advertising and corporate-funded "news" (now with more technology and entertainment segments). American life is a permanent state of contingency, a timed and measured high-speed non-stop barrage with little time or processing capacity remaining for non-personal issues (note the incidence of driving-while-texting accidents/deaths, and the mind-boggling lifestyle implications). A faster and louder version of every-man-for-himself.

Click to expand...

Is that the beauty of capitalism like how the U.S. corporations export all the manufacturing jobs to China so they can increase their profit margin. And are you suppose to believe everything the mass media is telling you??

McGizmo said:

Now the US and its citizens are interacting with the rest of the world and on an ongoing and very significant basis.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I don't believe most US citizens are significantly interacting with the wider world in any meanigful way besides being consumers. I'd also venture to say that most americans have never traveled out of the country, (according to Newsweek only 22% of americans have passports) which is a huge educational experience in itself. IMO, understanding the world and our nations place in it, especially in a multi-polar era, is critical in ensuring continued prosperity. Sink or swim essentially. This isn't america bashing, I just find it worriesome that we don't seem to realize how many billions of intelligent, ambitious, enterprising people there are in the world. And unlike the past, they're now competing directly with us for their share of the global pie. Of course I could be wrong, (I hope so) and that seeming lack of concern for the future is mostly due to the impression given by the general media. Good topic BTW.

_js_,

Thanks for weighing in with your insight and perspective.:thumbsup:

Starhalo,
It is a bummer in how much that you say has the look of a needle and not a stick of hay. I have long felt that a society is an entity in and of itself and likely to enjoy youth and vitality followed by prosperity and complacency and then later decline and inability to remain flexible and responsive. We have seen or studied the rise and fall of all of the previous great societies and some are still a mystery as to why they failed. I view the US today much as I view myself; beyond prime, reactionary and headed towards pampers. But I also suspect there is some vast wisdom that can be passed on to the new and younger generations and I would like to think that at some point civlizations can evolve to the point that they can evolve and shed their old skins and old ways without needing to die off. I can see the every man for himself justification but is every man thinking for himself or merely reacting? I see a lot of tribe mentality as much as this self centered and individual approach. In either case it seems based on confrontation, offensive and defensive.

Consider this. Hasan actually had the freedom to chose a completely different approach to life. And death as it were in his case. Others still have the freedom, as individuals, to take journeys down completely new and untraveled paths. I see the age old strength is the weakness paradox here. People died because of a freedom granted all of us. They paid the ultimate price for that freedom in a manner I doubt any of them would have guessed at or anticipated. But that freedom and mobility that that Hasan used to such evil and destructive ends is a freedom that can allow us to achieve our life's dreams and goals and enhance our community and its well being. He proved himself unworthy of his freedom and the trust others placed in his hands but what about the rest of us? If we relinquish our freedom and trust because of his actions then he may well have succeeded to a greater extent than we need grant him.

Renewal and opportunity for change are more viable now I suspect than ever before. The US may fail but to the extent that it is no longer a government of the people, for the people and by the people, the people don't necessarily have to fail along with the country itself. I don't know if that makes sense as stated or not but I do have faith still in the individual and I believe the individual has resources available to them now that were never available before. The Titanic may well sail at dawn but with overnight delivery service, we can get some provisions and life boats on hand before boarding. To some extent, we don't necessarily have to follow our leaders, do we? I am not advocating mutiny or revolution and it's probably a bad idea to even type such words but I do have that freedom at this point and damned if I will give it up without contest. :green:

Kennedy said we have nothing to fear but fear itself. I know he only spoke for one party for the most part but that doesn't belittle his comment. Give me liberty or give me death. Another famous quote. If and as we evolve into some global community, it pays to keep in mind some of these great pearls of wisdom.

HELL LIGHT,

Corporations outsourcing labor and industry to China, India, Mexico or where ever certainly is part of the globalization process and I am not sure it can even be tagged as outsourcing if the corporations have their own factories in place in these other countries? I think that history shows us that greed, corruption and exploitation of fellow man can find its place in just about any form of government or economy. As long as it is part of the human condition it will be present to some extent I would guess.

Truth may well be relative and subject to the laws of physics whereas lies and fantasies are not so constrained. As a global community we have the opportunity to share perceptions from many vantage points and probably as good a shot at identifying truth as possible. That is provided we communicate openly and honestly and guard against passing on that which is not true.

js said:

Tolerance.

Indeed, Don, you go to the heart of the matter in my opinion. So much of ethics is negative ethics. It defines a negative space you can not enter, and (and this is just the flip side of the same coin) it defines a positive space you MUST enter. Do not do this. Always do that.

But there is another sort of ethics. A positive ethics. It does NOT define. It suggests. It guides. It creates the proper atmosphere. It is the notion that we should each fulfill our own dreams and potentials as long as we don't harm anyone else in the process. It means live and let live. It is seen as naive and ineffectual, but it is neither. That's what we need more of today.

Click to expand...

I'm in total agreement here with every word you wrote. What I think most characterizes this point in time is intolerance. We preach diversity and tolerance in schools and many other places, and yet in our actions I see the exact opposite. We make laws against certain actions which aren't harmful simply because they are perceived as dangerous, or perhaps even just annoy people. We often have so-called zero tolerance enforcement policies. Get caught, and the book is thrown at you. It doesn't matter if you've never been in trouble before. Our prisons have ceased being places where we try to rehabilitate inmates for eventual release back into society. Now we just warehouse them for ever longer times, with no hope for the future. We see every action in the worst possible light. If a teacher pats a student on the back for a job well done, this is now grounds for dismissal or even jail. It just goes on and on. We have a society where many people are literally scared to interact naturally with each other for fear of violating some law. Long term this type of environment has proven to be detrimental to both health and productivity.

So my question is how did it ever come to this? To be sure it didn't start with 9/11. The seeds were in place long before then. 9/11 may have accelerated the trend, but prior to this event zero tolerance policies, mandatory sentencing, excessive legislating were all well established. I think it came down to wishing to give ourselves the illusion of control. Crime had gotten out of hand in the 1970s and 1980s. Instead of bothering to find out why, and correct the root causes, we applied a bandaid. More laws, more jails, no mercy, no rehabilitation. Some of this worked, but at a far greater cost to our personal freedom than we shall ever now. Actions which many citizens used to partake of with no harm to themselves or others are now forbidden. Interactions which were commonplace are no longer. Spontaneity has been lost in favor of conformity and regimentation. With this came eventual loss of the creativity which thrives in unstructured environments. In my opinion we've lost far more than we've gained. I'll trade a little less order, a little more danger, for an environment where I'm free to be myself without fear of censure any day of the week. Sadly, an increasing percentage of the public can't even imagine such an environment, let alone make the decision to no longer tolerate the stifled way we're living.

This brings me to a major point. Without creative, critical thinking it becomes easier for those in charge to lead the public in any way they see fit, for better or for worse. StarHalo hit the nail on the head. The public has bought into the idea of globalization and corporate profits above all else lock, stock, and barrel. They were sold on the idea by the illusion that they too would benefit along with the giant corporations. Rarely has anyone stopped and looked at the reality of the situation. When the mantra is corporate profits, the worker becomes just another expense to be minimized. The declining middle class is evidence of this. Of course, long term this will hurt these same corporations when there customers become too poor to buy their products. But by then all these who matter to the corporation will have already enriched themselves beyond reason, so it won't matter. The corporation dies, the few on top walk off with obscene sums, thousands under them loose their livelihood for good. We've already seen this time and again. A corporation gets a new CEO who temporarily increases profits by cutting workers (hey, isn't that really creative?), takes an obscene bonus for doing little more than gutting a once viable company, and then leaves. Customer service and moral drop, the company loses customers, eventually folds, everyone else loses their jobs. Former CEO moves on to the next victim. A few people become very rich, most others end up working jobs with lower pay and benefits than before, assuming they can even find work.

It's really ironic living in the times we are. We could do with a lot more tolerance in most areas. At the same time, I'd like to see a lot less tolerance of the idea that wealth is paramount above all, along with the institutions that foster this. Unless things change, I agree with StarHalo that the US will be one big pocket of mediocrity which produces nothing except misery for those living there.

McGizmo said:

Renewal and opportunity for change are more viable now I suspect than ever before. The US may fail but to the extent that it is no longer a government of the people, for the people and by the people, the people don't necessarily have to fail along with the country itself. I don't know if that makes sense as stated or not but I do have faith still in the individual and I believe the individual has resources available to them now that were never available before. The Titanic may well sail at dawn but with overnight delivery service, we can get some provisions and life boats on hand before boarding. To some extent, we don't necessarily have to follow our leaders, do we?

Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. The individual does have some resources available to them which could only be dreamed of a decade ago. The Internet for one. Anyone can use the Internet to start some sort of business, and bring in a few dollars. Maybe not enough to support themselves, but perhaps enough to keep from eating pet food. And via the Internet we can communicate with people worldwide, see what others don't like about us, and perhaps do some self-introspection to change this viewpoint.

The problem as I see it is that as great as some resources available to individuals are, at the same time I see a lack of others, along with a cognitive disconnect on the part of those in charge to correct the situation. Case in point-our education system. We're lagging badly behind nearly everybody, and yet all we do year after year is throw more money at the problem. Money isn't the answer. Indeed, it's part of the problem. We're rewarding failure instead of success. And getting a higher education is often tied in with the ability to somehow pay for it, rather than whether it is needed to reach one's ultimate potential. As a result, many fail to live up to their potential, even though paying for their education would pay for itself many times over.

Second case in point-our infrastructure. It doesn't matter how well educated or creative our populice is if they lack the basic tools for commerce. And yet little is done to fix our aging infrastructure, let alone bring it into the 21st century. The electrical grid is teetering on the verge of failure 24/7. Our transporation system, along with the layout of our society, is largely based on a single transportation mode which marginalizes those unwilling or unable to provide their own vehicle, effectively shutting millions of people out of any meaningful participation in the economy. It's very telling that every other first world country, plus quite a few third world ones, either has or is building high-speed railways. And already has an extensive local public transit system to tie into the national system. And yet whenever we try to do this in the US, parochial politics derail it.

Bottom line is due to the incredibly myopic thinking of those in charge, the Titanic is sinking, and even those with lifeboats may not be saved. There's only so much any individual can do. Some of the things needed to facilitate commerce in a modern economy can only be paid for by the government. And yet our government continues to see these things as unimportant.

Didn't read all the post, but I am from Singapore. My views is that these things does happen and cannot be prevented. We do have shooting incidents in the army here too. USA has more fatal encounters becos of its gun law. You can't prevent someone from going crazy, there will always be crazy people who fall though the cracks, no system is 100% efficient. The thing is we don't have guns here, so the most the crazy guy can do is stab a few people unlike the US where they can gun ppl down. To me, it is not a religion, globalization, freedom, kind of issue. It just happens and the media play up all sort of stuff. If he aren't crazy, he can always complaint to his superiors on any racist remarks and there shouldn't be any problems at all.