E-mail 2

 

From LP

I cannot thank you enough for putting together such an incredible website. I found it only recently -- but at such a pivotal time in U.S. politics, that I am overwhelmed with gratitude to you for assembling such an amazing collection of resources. I've passed the link onto everyone I care about -- a million thanks.

***

From TH

In researching for an English paper I ran across your site. You have managed the most incredible web site I have ever experienced. I must thank you for the largest collection
of deeply meaningful quotes and information I have seen on the web.

***

From BH

While I have not had much time to explore your site, something I intend to do, I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to you for having the drive to create "Third World Traveler".  This is perhaps the first time in my life that I have run into such a collective sense of dissatisfaction with the current system and the way things are run in the United States.  I guess what I'm really trying to spit out is a genuine thanks for helping me to finally feel like I am not alone in my quest to know more and my desire to force change.  I can assure you that I will frequent this site.  Please continue your amazing work.
 
***

From SA

TRIPE. that`s what all your propaganda is.

___

Steve's reply

tripe
1. The light-colored, rubbery lining of the stomach of cattle or other ruminants, used as food.
2. Informal. Something of no value; rubbish.

I don't think the information on my website is rubbish at all, and I don't think it is propaganda. To the contrary, what we get from our elected leaders, our policy-makers and our corporate media is propaganda.

propaganda
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those people advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine or cause: the selected truths, exaggerations, and lies of wartime propaganda.

I think it is vital that those who dissent from the mainstream view of America have the right to offer a different perspective about our country and its policies.

Dissent is as American as apple pie. The Revolutionary War was dissent against Britain; the abolitionist movement was dissent against slavery; women's sufferage was dissent against women's disenfranchisement.

So what makes you so sure you are right and I am wrong

***

From DW

I have been reading some of your email correspondence and see according to a response by you that you consider yourself neither communist nor socialist. Considering the overall focus of your website I am really curious how you do characterize yourself? You appear to care about social issues and have a grasp of what the sole purpose of a "corporation" is and what our government is about. A Populist? That would be a little light I think.

I'm a few years younger than you and also retired. I'm taking a couple of courses at our community college and am struck by the lack of awareness students seem to have compared to my college days during the 60's. Whether it's because it is a community college instead of a university, or youth today does not have the issues of a war to galvanize them, I don't know. There doesn't seem to be the same passion now as my generation had for political involvement. Anyway, I enjoyed the visit to your website. You've worked hard! You quote many of my favorites, Chomsky, Herman, Parenti, King. There is one I didn't see and you might want, Will Rogers. Otherwise, keep up the good work.

___

Steve's reply

I am an upper-middle class American progressive / liberal capitalist who has come to the conclusion that corporate capitalism as now practiced must be brought under the control of democratic institutions that represent not only the will of the majority of people, but the long-term interests of both the people and the world in which we live.

As during the period of legal slavery in this country, the system is rotten to the core, but people see no other alternative because they are not offered one. The vast majority of people accept the present state of affairs as "the end of history" - that this is the way it is, and it will always be so. Of course this is nonsense.

Slaveholders in the South felt that way, Roman Emperors felt that way, people who employed children in sweatshops in New York felt that way. They were all wrong.

When people are not offered commonsense, intelligent options, they see no alternatives to the unsustainable, inhumane policies of self-serving, elitist policymakers whose vision is limited to short-term capital accumulation. Anyone looking into the future at the long-term result of these policies would have to conclude that both the policies and the people making them and carrying them out are just plain insane.

There is a growing world-wide awareness that our Western capitalist system of converting nature into commodities and commodities into capital has resulted in the immiseration of tens-of-millions in the world, and will ultimately result in the destruction of the earth.

All young people are not the same. Some have been convinced that the only way to happiness and success is to embrace the system, think only of themselves and not be concerned about others or about the world. The young people who marched in Seattle and Washington DC have a different point of view. And, they may have started a movement that proves to be unstoppable. Youth in Europe, Indonesia, China, Burma and Palestine to name a few places have put their well-being, even their lives on the line for democracy, freedom, justice and sustainability. They are challenging their parents, their teachers, and their peers to act with them, before it is too late.

History can offer us no successful alternatives to capitalism. That does not mean that one does not exist. But, until we are given another system, or find one ourselves, we must work like heck to try to make this system work better.

We must demythologize and rein-in the war-makers and find and promote the peacemakers, and make them our heroes. And, we must educate ourselves and others, find allies, and act to make the worldwide economic, social and ecologic systems that now exist, more humane, more just and more sustainable. Corporate capitalism must be forced to become "kinder and gentler" or it will condemn tens-of-millions to misery, and the earth to despoilation and destruction.

Quite a job.

PS I don't have any Will Rogers' quotes because I have not seen them in the articles and books I have read. If you find any send them along.

***

From LCS

THO I agree with some of your stances (re Iraq, for instance), you have chosen to include in your main homepage some preposterous overstatements that subvert your credibility. I chanced across your site in looking for an update on the activities of Joe Clark, former principal of Paterson, NJ's Eastside High (after I watched the movie _Lean on Me_ on television). I agreed with much of the critique of poor schools and economic segregation in the United States that appeared on that page. But when you quote Fidel Castro saying that every three years, more than the entire death toll of the Second World War is exceeded in deaths from starvation and preventable disease, you've gone much too far. Some 50_million people died in World War II. The toll of starvation according to www.TheHungerSite.com is on the order of 7,600,000 a year, which would yield a toll of less than 23_million. That's appalling, and we draw the attention of visitors to The Hunger Site. But what is "preventable disease"? That is so vague as to be meaningless. Some health nuts assert that all heart disease and adult-onset diabetes, among many other maladies, are preventable by "lifestyle changes". And of course the deaths from tobacco are preventable if people stop smoking. By such reasoning, there are more deaths from "preventable disease" EACH year than from all of World War II. But that's not what you presumably intended readers to think. No, you imply that the mean old United States is starving children and withholding medical treatment from poor countries. But if we intervened in starving countries to demand that they feed their people, or into countries with bad health programs, we'd be denounced for imperialism. Similarly absurd overstatements as Castro's appear many times in your main page.

In short, you seem to subscribe to the theory that no sparrow falls to earth but was shot down by the United States. You thus turn off any sane progressive who wants to move the U.S. to a more active involvement in world development for social and economic equality. And that's a pity.

___

Steve's reply

Castro's quote may be an overstatement. If it is, it is an error of degree, not of fact.

The United States has not "shot every sparrow that has fallen to earth", but it has used sophisticated technology to threaten the sparrows, paid mercenaries to kill them, sold guns to their hunters, offered bounties on them, destroyed their trees with herbicides, laid landmines to blow them up, starved them with free-market food policies, structurally adjusted their meager lives, and generally made their lives miserable. The sparrows remaining are left huddling on the bare branches of a few remaining trees, hungry, unable to take care of their families, in fear of their lives.

I may have trouble coming to terms with the cruelty and atrocities perpetrated by my government, or the mountain of lies and hypocrisy that is called" truth" by the corporate media. But, my greatest difficulty is trying to comprehend how these acts could be commited in my name by apparently sane, intelligent, respected American policy-makers; how "pillars of our community", without decency, morality, or conscience could cause so much misery to innocent people; how the men and women we put in office, mothers and fathers and grandparents, can have no humanity - a stark example of the banality of evil in our "civilized society".

Yes, I know that "we" have not done all of the "bad" things in the world, but we have done more than our share, and we have supported many of those who have done much of the rest. So far as I can tell, we have not done many good things for very many people.

If we, the most powerful country in the world - the greatest empire of all time - can stand by and allow the misery of humanity to procede without lifting a finger, then what the heck is the purpose of all of our wealth and of our power? If we don't try to make the world a more decent place, then what is it all about?

If you can explain it to me, I would appreciate it.

*

LCS reply

YOU have been listening to poisonous propaganda, not from the "corporate media" but from some other source. The United States is first and foremost an isolationist Nation, disinclined to bother with the rest of the world unless some area or other intrudes upon us. It has been a long time since the U.S. Government acted abroad for corporate interests, but has indeed restrained corporations from participating in the way things are done in most of the world as, for example, forbidding them to bribe local officials. That
>has put many U.S. businesses at a disadvantage, but if any U.S.-based official orders or permits bribery abroad, he is subject to arrest and imprisonment at home.

The bulk of this planet is miserable because the bulk of ruling classes are horrible, beastly swine who steal from the poor to line their own pockets. The U.S. did not install these rulers and cannot unseat them without extraordinary effort. Look at how firmly entrenched Saddan Hussein is in Iraq, and how one corrupt prime minister after another rules Pakistan, alternating with military coups. U.S. law is, for the most part, forbidden
>to extend overseas. Rather, we must accept the right of other countries to run themselves according to their own traditions. That means, for example, that in India, a rigid caste system places some people permanently in power and others permanently at the bottom of society. The U.S. has essentially no say in how India (mis)governs itself, how Ethiopia keeps starving itself and redirecting resources to wars away from feeding its people, developing the economy, instituting effective population control, etc. No, we act in Ethiopia only when famine strikes, and do nothing to interfere with self-government and the miserable culture that gives rise every decade or so to millions of deaths from starvation.

To stop the abuse of people in the Third World, we would have to cast aside every reservation about "interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations", "imposing our culture on people who don't want it", etc., and demand universal compliance with human rights standards, etc. The instant we do that, in any part of the world, however, we are accused of "imperialism". It's the old "damned if you do, damned if you don't phenomenon.

So no, it is NOT the U.S. that is responsible for the miserable deprivation in the Third World nor the mass murders in Algeria nor ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, nor ANY of the other horrendous conditions you rightly feel shocked by. You seem to think that the U.S. is behind everything bad that happens but none of the good. That is almost EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the truth.

The reality is that the widespread democratization of the world is in large measure the result of U.S. pressure, consistent over decades, for governments to democratize politically and socially. The U.S. has expended hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid, fought back totalitarian "wars of national liberation" to empower people to change their government by ballot rather than bullet, brought in hundreds of thousands of students to train in our colleges and universities, and worked to undermine things like the caste system by promoting equal treatment under law and open societies in which people can rise as high as their talent takes them. These are not the things causing misery abroad; they are the things working to alleviate misery worldwide.

At end, tho, we can IMPOSE fairness and GUARANTEE democracy and economicdevelopment only to areas we control politically as of right: territory within our borders. In every other transaction, we have to deal with local power brokers who are entrenched and often immovable. We have very little power over them unless we go to war, which we rarely do. Even then, we can't always achieve the kinds of change we'd like. Witness Kosovo and shattered Yugoslavia. Warring ethnic communities strain at the leash, eager to slaughter each other again as soon as -- or IF -- we withdraw.

In short, your grossly exaggerate the power of the United States, and slanderously impute evil motives to people who are working as best they can to promote our version of civilized behavior in a world that doesn't share it. The existence of people in power like Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, and the mullahs of Iran show how little power the U.S. has over events abroad. Tho this dictator or that corrupt "president" in some rotten little country might like to exculpate himself by blaming Uncle Sam, it doesn't wash. We didn't install them and usually cannot unseat them. If you want to help people in the Third World, you've got to cut the Communist-propaganda crap and realize that the power of the U.S. to reform societies abroad is extremely limited. If you want people in the Third World to enjoy the privileges we in the U.S. enjoy, you will have to bring them into the Union.

___

Steve's reply

You may disagree with me, but please don't try to label me. Just because I am critical of US government policies, does not mean that I am a communist. Labeling someone a communist has been a weapon to shut people up for decades. It has been used to destroy the people who voice the opinion that the Darwinian capitalism practiced in this country during this century has been and continues to be exploitative, anti-democratic and immoral.

I am not the only person who disagrees with your view. All of the authors on my website have a different point of view than yours. Read William Blum's well-researched book Killing Hope about US interventions in the Third World since WWII to learn how "isolationist" the US has been. Michael Parenti, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Edward Herman and others have published numerous books and articles about the reality of US international policies and activities.

Below is an excerpt from the preface of a new book about US activities. I did not write these words, but they are closer to my understanding of the American role in the world than are your comments.

 

The Triumph of Evil - a book by Austin Murphy

Preface
"The Triumph of Evil represents a wake-up call to the world. Barraged by the most effective propaganda machine in history, I myself long believed at least partially in the make-believe world reported by the mainstream press and the USA establishment. However, having experienced the opening of the Berlin Wall first hand, I began to learn (as explained in the prelude to this book) that the stories told in the Western media often greatly distort the true reality of events. Having subsequently further researched the facts, I now feel an obligation to cite them for those who also wish to wake up to The Reality of the USA's Cold War Victory.

To begin, using a very objective measure of analysis, the Introduction to this book documents the fact that the USA is the most evil nation in history. In particular, the USA has deliberately killed more unarmed innocent civilians than any other country in the world (including even more than Nazi Germany). This conclusion is consistent with the main body of the book, which clearly shows that the "bad guys" won the Cold War..."

 

Although the US was isolationist when it came to involvement in Europe's wars (WWI and WWII), it has never been isolationist when it came to interventions in the Third World. No one has ever intruded on us, we are the ones who have done the intruding - Philippines; Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos; Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic; El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, Granada, and so on.

Our government leaders have an enormous influence over world events. Our military machine has enormous power and reach. Our CIA is everywhere, causing all kinds of "mischief".

Our leaders support American business, period. The interests of big business are their interests. The policies of big business are their policies. Our government's global activities have one overriding purpose - to protect and expand US corporate and financial interests all over the world, at almost any cost to the rest of the world. To this end, they will support any despot or tyrant who sides with US economic policies. It is pure, no-holds-barred capitalism, without a conscience, without a soul.

I am afraid your understanding of US corporate practices in the world are rather naive. US corporations enter a country, buy-off the undemocratic ruling elites and exploit the country's resources and labor. Their allegence is to their stockholders, not to the people of the exploited country. They support some of the most unsavory tyrants in the world, so that they can make their enourmous profits. For them, bribary is the name of the game, whether in Nigeria, Indonesia, Brazil, or Mexico.

The ruling classes in these countries would not survive if our government did not sell them arms, help train their armies and police forces, and provide counterinsurgency expertize to defeat social-reformist groups fighting for the freedom to use their countries' resources for the good of the majority of their people.

Saddam Hussein is still in power because it is in the US interest to keep him in power. If he were to go, our government feels that Iraq would disintegrate, and Iran would acquire too much power; our leaders are afraid of Iran. We keep Saddam, but we keep him weak, and in the process we starve and immiserate millions of innocent Iraqi men, women and children - a true genocide ( 1 -1.5 million Iraqi civilians dead because of the US-imposed sanctions).

We also need Saddam so US taxpayers will allow their hard-earned money to continue to be funneled into the enormous US military machine and the insatiable weapons industry. If we had no "enemies" like Saddam, Americans would demand a much smaller military and many fewer weapons systems. We might then expect our leaders to spend some of our money on "unimportant" things like education, health care, environmental protection, living wages, Social Security, Medicare, child care, developing a renewable energy industry. Since we no longer have real enemies that threaten us, we invent make-believe threats like Saddam or Quadaffi or Milosevic. Saddam and Milosevic are nasty people, but, we supported them both, before they got on the wrong side of the US government.

We have supported brutal dictators for a long time - Marcos in the Philippines, Suharto in Indonesia, the Duvaliers in Haiti, Somoza in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, Batista in Cuba, Rios Montt and others in Guatemala, Stroessner in Paraguay, Mengistu in Ethiopia, Mobutu in Zaire, Abacha in Nigeria, the apartheid government of South Africa. The list goes on. Every right-wing, anti-democratic junta or tyrant that wanted our help, got it, as long as they supported US economic interests.

There are pleaty of unsavory characters in the world. Many are evil enough not to need our help to be more nasty. But, we not only help them to continue their mean-spirited ways, we also aid them in their fight against national reformist movements that are trying to force them out of power and replace them with more democratic governments. The United States would never have come into being if the British had had a national security state and CIA to undermine those in the American colonies who wanted to revolt against Britain.

Before you call me names, look at the articles and books on my website from scores of different authors, and keep an open mind.

The United States is the most powerful empire in the history of the world. There has never been a nation with our military and economic strength. Our leaders, using our national security state apparatus, can do just about anything they want, anywhere. I just wish they would take some of that power and do some good. I wish the policies of my government would reflect not only the narrow, selfish, short-term interests of the business elite, but the decency of the American people.

You and I are very far apart in our understanding of the role of the US in the world. We will have to agree to disagree.

In my opinion, it will take an informed American public to finally say "enough" to the present American agenda in the world. That is my hope and that is the purpose of my website.

*

LCS reply

I SAID you listen to Communist propaganda, which you plainly do. I did say you were a Communist yourself. Communists have always been few in number -- for keeping out those they regard as incompetent for their purposes or likely to rethink and expose the organization to infiltration and destruction -- but they have done enormous harm by manipulating foolish, credulous people. Yes, that does include you. Anyone who believes that the United States is the most evil country in history is psychotically deluded. Please do not waste my time again with your poisonous nonsense. Cheers.

*****

From KB

I am an engineer in the aerospace/defense industry, but unlike many of my colleagues, I agree with the general sort of picture you painted on your website. I do believe working in the defense industry is an honorable profession; It is also very interesting and challenging. However, defense budgets for procurement have been falling off due to our reduced role in the world. I believe this will be the trend from now on, since the West is a civilization in relative decline, and our economic base vis-a-vis the rest of the world will continue to decline.

But what I wanted to share with you are my observations from working in this industry and having lived in 12 different locales throughout this country over my lifetime. The defense industry, like large corporations in general, strived to be "socially responsible" in the 1970s, with many of the managers possessing somewhat moderate-to-liberal views. Top executives, many of whom had humble beginnings seemed to possess a "live-and-let-live" attitude toward their workforce. This view was also shared by my engineering professors at the time (I was in college during the late 70s). This attitude in both industry and academia expierenced an abrupt turnabout soon after Reagan got elected, perhaps after his decertification of the PATCO union in 1981 (I believe it was Reagan and his advisers who were the architects of the current society).

The management attitude changed to one of condescending arrogance and mendacity toward the employees. Policies toward the employees soon took a "get tough" approach. This intensified in the layoffs of the late 1980s and early 1990s, where people became viewed as more expendible. Age discrimination is now the norm and is part of most of the industry culture. The 1990s also saw the emergence of a new type of manager, whom would best be described as an "enforcer", but this type now seems to be in decline since their methods were not as delicate as the middle and upper management felt comfortable, perhaps out of fear of lawsuits. However, this arrogant attitude still persists among upper management in the industry. If people don't hop, skip, and jump at he slightest comment by a VP, their careers will suffer. There is no allowance for assertiveness, honesty, or principle here.

Another component is the growth of authoritarian attitudes in the workforce. These attitudes were rare in the industry when I first started, but have become mainstream. These attitudes consist of opportunism, deference, desire to outrank others around them, to be part of the elite, to prove loyalty by being hostile to those in the out group, to be conformist, and to closely adhere to the party line. They seem to be largely puritan, fundamantalist, and even royalist in flavor. I believe these attitudes were fostered by upper management and are enthusiastically practiced by the conservative Generation-X, which now ranges from approximately 31 to 42 years of age. Most managers in the industry are now in this age group.

Academia is closely tied to industry in enginnering. Universities have traditionally catered to sponsors since Galileo solicited the financial support of Cosimo de Medici. However, an authoritarian attitude has taken hold and has grown steadily stronger during the past 20 years. This attitude has been one of insisting on deference and in being harsh and morally arrogant with subordinates. This attitude is shared by part of the management in industry as well.

What seems to be happening now is the use of information services firms like ChoicePoint, where a prospective employer can pull up a dossier on you with all sorts of personal information in it. There is also the appearance of agreements to submit to company-chosen arbitration fims as opposed to the courts for addressing disputes. Both offer lots of potential for abuse, and reflect a lust for greater power over the employee. My concern is when the next shoe will drop.

____

Steve's reply

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

I think there is a consensus among progressives that the Reagan presidency was a revolution which proceded to rollback most of the social advances achieved over the decades since the Great Depression. He was extraordinarily effective in altering, what Michael Lerner in his book "The Poliltics of Meaning" calls society's dominant discourse. (You should read the book.)

According to Lerner -- "Society's dominant discourse shapes not only its politics but the way people think about their personal lives and choices. Just as John F. Kennedy helped legitimize a discourse of idealism that gave impetus to the social movements of the 1960s, so Ronald Reagan managed to legitimize a discourse of selfishness and insensitivity that has had profound social consequences ... Shifting society's discourse - from one of selfishness and cynicism to one of idealism and caring - is the first and most important political goal ... in the next several decades."

I think we are moving very quickly down a slippery slope in which trust in government and business institutions is being lost, and the mass of people may begin to make demands on a system that will have lost its ability to respond to human needs, a system in which human beings are expendible, and increasingly superfluous to the needs of the corporation.

When the system gives people, who were raised to believe that they have rights in a democratic society, no option but to take to the streets, I think we will see more of Seattle and Washington DC - type demonstrations and increasing police brutality - a third world model of repression of dissent.

Those who see the ominous direction in which we are going will need to tell others, and work to try to prevent the loss of idealism, and of our democracy.

____

Reply from KB

I have pondered many of the things that you talk about on your website. My approach is different, in that I'm an empiricist, starting with the little things that impact my own life and working outward. This has proved very effective in developing a theory of how society works. It's taken me in different directions than yourself, although we agree on the broad conclusions.

I think our current situation is the result of how children are taught about society in school, especially at the lower grades. Although they are taught that the US is a democracy, the real message that gets across is that we are an authoritarian society for the benefit of the elite. That was my experience as a young kid back in the early 1960s (I'm 43 years old). Those that I grew up with now still hold those views and tend to support authoritarian candidates, usually conservative Republicans. These are not the kinds of people that will stand up for their rights, like those who protested the WTO in Seattle.

We had just recently moved to Connecticut from Tucson, but when we lived there my wife and I had to fight innumerable small battles with the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) over their restrictive system of rules. Their response was to the effect that they had to make the children obedient and productive in order to serve their future employers. My response was that their education was for their benefit and not for that of any future
employer. Nonetheless, TUSD receives much gift money from corporations (many of their schools now sport Taco Bell logos).

The principals of their schools usually came from the professional-managerial class (the new class that broke off form the middle class), and seemed to be mostly concerned with finding prospective members for their elite. The remainder they could care less about. Since Tucson is essentially a new city, having grown from a small town to a large city in the last 30 years, it has a geography that more closely resembles our society as it is in this day-and-age, with elites segregated in their own suburbs and gated communities.

Moreover, German social scientists have found that it was family life and upbringing in the early grades that created Nazi Germany. Erich Fromm in "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness" described how the social environment created personalities like Adolph Hitler. More recently, Alice Miller in "For Your Own Good" was even more on target by identifying the effect of "poisonous pedagogy" on attitudes toward society. I think they basically identified what is going on and both have warnings for us about our own society. In connection with this is a recent work by Bob Altemeyer (professor of Psychology at University of Manitoba) in "The Authoritarian Specter." Here Altemeyer explores the connection between the authoritarian (or Erich Fromm's sadomasochistic and sadistic) personality and the conservative movement in the US today.

Another core origin of our current situation are authoritarian historical attitudes, primarily those found in the South and around Boston. You may have had the experience of knowing someone from the South who is socially over-conscious, wants to put on airs and be above their neighbors, is nosy and on the lookout for the lowdown on someone, wants everybody to conform to the social rules, and is slavishly deferential to authority. I have lived in Baltimore, Jacksonville, St. Louis, Kansas, and Houston, and have encountered many such people there. The origin of this is probably the reign of Henvy VIII, who as a bully and founder of the Church of England basically called the tune and expected everyone to tow the line. The South was originally settled by Royalists from England and I suspect that theseare old royalist attitudes: "A place for everyone and everyone in their place."

Boston and the South reflect their Puritan/Baptist heritage, which traces its mentality back to the time of Cromwell. The Baptists were closeto the Puritans in religious belief to the Puritans and were allied with them under Cromwell during the English Civil War. They ruled as a theocracy while Cromwell was alive, but the British rejected their social model. Their rule was harsh and cruel, outlawing drinking, dancing, and the celebration of Christmas. Many members of these factions emigrated to New England either out of disgust for their society or because their factions ultimately lost out in the struggle for power. The Baptist faith was essentially found only in New England until it spread to the South in the 1700s and 1800s. It is this style of harshness and moral arrogance which has persisted in the Christian Right and in academia today (the first universities were started by Puritans and other Calvinists).

I think that such things like the WTO protests are helpful, but I am left to conclude that the center of gravity today are our school systems and the need to protect our kids from being inculcated with authoritarian attitudes.

___

Reply from Steve

KB

I agree with you that family is one of the keys, and that we are educated not to challenge or dissent, but to accept the mainstream view of things - to accept authority.

I was raised by a single mother (widow) who taught me to think for myself, to be independent, not to just accept what is told to me by those in authority. The key is critical thinking - thinking "out-of-the-box", thinking for yourself. If kids are not taught this at home, or if they are not exposed to this way of thinking sometime, I think it will be difficult for them to discover this" radical" way of looking at the world on their own.

In authoritarian countries like Germany - pre-WWII - where people were conditioned to accept what they were told by authority figures - family, teachers, leaders - without question, an abomination like the Third Reich could happen. Could it happen here? Who knows.

Americans are too comfortable and we are too lazy. We accept that we are number 1 and that no other country or system can teach us anything. We are confident in our democracy. Herein lies the problem. We are so sure we will ever lose our democracy that we expend little effort to ensure its continued existence.

If we can't depend on our schools to teach critical thinking, and if many have been raised to be unaware of the need for critical thinking, then the only thing left is for those who recognize its importance to teach others. That is what I try to do with my website.

***

From AG

Hi, I am a UNESCO-Disney-Millenniun Dreamer Ambassador. I read an article in your publication by Danielle Knight entitled "United MacNations?"

I totally understand what your writter was saying and in some ways I do agree. However, since your writer did not interview any of the 2,000 Dreamers, I think that she has made less of case than she could have.

Though I was not at the Seattle WTO conference, I would have been if I could have been. Having lived most of my life in Zimbabwe, I have seen first hand what types of things occur when the WTO/WB/IMF inforces it policy on developing countries.

I am also well aware of the social problems that beset my country and I have been doing what I have been able to to try to at least address the issues of racism, poverty and AIDS. All of which I have felt first. I have made a significant and positive impact on my communitiy, as have many other Dreamers, and we should be respected for such, not dehumanized by Ms Knight for trying to make a difference.

I feel like Ms Knight has demeaned my efforts and that of all the other Dreamers. This makes me very sad. If Ms Knight wants to demean big corporations that exploit others, please she should say all she likes. However, we Dreamers have given our heart and soul to helping others and being involved socialclly and politically in our communities. Our efforts should not be underminded. I would have told this to Ms Knight herself, except that when I tried her link on your site, it did not work. I am hoping that you would pass this on to her.
___

Steve's reply

Thank you for your comments. I am sorry you took offense at Danielle Knight's article about the corporatization of the U. N.. I'm sure your experience with UNESCO / Disney has been a good one, but you must understand that there are people who have a different perspective than you on the impact of transnational corporations, not only on the U.N., but on the world.

I don't think you were Danielle's primary audience. The people she was speaking to, like me, are probably convinced based on our experience and research that corporations are more of a threat to democracy, freedom and the environment than they are saviors and mentors.

Corporations have enormous wealth and power. They also run large and effect public relations compaigns to clean up their image. While the oil companies pollute and disenfranchise locals who protest the exploitation of their lands and waters, these same corporations also run "green" campaigns to convince Americans that they are environmentalists and friends of the earth.

But, you certainly should not believe what either Danielle or I say. As you grow and get more experience, you will make your own judgements. All I ask is that you keep your mind open, see not only what corporations say but what they do, and read opposing opinions about their role in the world. Then, come to your own conclusions.

Corporations are here to stay. They will continue to have an enormous impact on the earth and on American democracy. My job is to make sure that they do what they do well (make things) while at the same time are held accountable for the things they should not be doing (like controlling American democracy and unfairly exploiting the resources and labor of poor countries).

PS Keep dreaming.

***

From MAC

Steve, I love your homepage and the powerful message it is delivering.

When I was still growing up, I believed that what the US was doing is the RIGHT thing but then I found myself to be deceived. I questioned myself as I watched the series 'Nam: Tour of Duty and wonder why was the US involved in rescuing Vietnam. But then when the VC overran the whole place, they ran away like a coyote with a burning tail! Then came Iraq in which they pounded the place to ruins and the sanctions. I'm one of the very few people who oppose the sanctions because it is killing all the kids. It is like going after the children when you can't face their parents! Then came Kosovo and how terrified the US lead NATO to commit themselves to a ground combat is completely appalling. The US boasted that they were far more superior to China and the Russian army but were dragging their feet when it came to stepping on the mud. They claim the smart bomb is accurate yet it killed as much people as Slobodan henchmen did! Clinton himself was so proud that they would come to the aid of any human right abuses yet swept under the rug East Timor, Sudan, Albania, Cambodia (I still don't believe that Pol Pot is dead anyway), and to name a few. They bombed a Chinese Embassy and downplayed the issue and did the same to the Seattle demonstration. The US government and media branded that any protest in another country is correct yet lambasted the demonstrators in Seattle. When the FBI Director (I think it was Freeh) downloaded classified materials from his unsecured pc back at home, he was okay but when Wen Ho Lee downloaded data for backup, he got a heavy handed treatment. I saw the CNN Time and was quite surprised to hear Wen Ho's daughter saying that this is (the arrest) supposed to happen inChina and not the US.

How about the Gonzalez incident? The agent may claim that the GUN was not pointed at the kid but a GUN is still a GUN. Anyone would be agitated or terrified when a group of people bursts into your house with an automatic rifle, pointed at you or otherwise. The Waco incident is even more saddening. The government adopted the Pontius Pilate stance and how about the innocents (those child and unarmed) who were killed? The US criticized China for human right but how about that black fellow (I forgot his name) who was gunned downed 41 times (how many bullets do you need to kill a man - a shot to the legs could cause excessive bleeding and slow death)?

How about Indonesia, I read in Newsweek that US would not rescue East Timor because it would sacrifice Indonesia that is slowly going into democracy. How so very funny! I find it funny that how come CNN is the only global news presenter and there is no other news agency from Russia, China, Asia or Japan? Frankly, I find that Americans are okay but it is just that the foreign policy that sucks. It is true why the US keeps Saddam alive because they need him for the excuse in increasing the military budget.

I find you a critically intelligent fellow with an adept sense of humility, tolerance and perception. The US is screaming about Islamist terrorist (whatever they call it) but how about the McVeigh and the Alfred Murray devastation? Doesn't that sounds "Red Alert" or "to your battle stations, everyone!" Clinton claims that India is one dangerous place but have he tried to visit the school in which some gun-toting kids try to emulate the Wild West? I heard about the flight to Baghdad and I hope that every country would the same as the French and Russian did in helping the innocent and abused. I wonder why no US peacekeepers in East Timor and all they do is talk and talk. I was quite overwhelmed that US did not intervene in Jeffrey Shiling's kidnapping or send some military forces but trusted blindly that Estrada would "bomb" the right target. Don't they care about their own citizens anymore despite of what Shilling did to get himself into trouble?

I don't know about the rest but the US intention of being the GLOBOCOP is one very bad title. China is not that bad and I wish that the Chinese could say something to defend themselves about all those crazy allegations. I find is amusing that the US Senate said aye to weapons sale to Taiwan but panicked when China tried to acquire some sophisticated surveillance equipment from Israel. They say it will create instability but isn't selling weapons to Taiwan also does the effect? Is the US trying to start an arms race among the Asean countries? If they claim that China violates human rights, why did they try to get them into WTO? If you call a guy a killer, would you give him a shotgun's license?

I could go on Steve and I agree in what you wish to achieve. Change the system for the better of the people. What the elite are doing is making the whole system stink (it is like they douse an elephant's corpse with gallons of Chanel No 5, covers it with oil painted canvass and tells everyone it smells good). I just wish that everything would change for the better this millennium but then, it seems to be the same. But, I heard that anti-globalization drive is gaining strength and hope that this will bring some change. I hope that the minorities like us will be stronger and more influential. Thank the internet for this. Could you imagine what it was 30 years ago without this distribution of information?

Regards, bravo and kudos to you!

___

Steve's reply

MAC

Thank you for your thoughtful email. What can I say? I agree with most of your thoughts.

The list of inconsistancies and outright lies gets longer every day, but forces are at work as they have been throughout history to oppose the ruling elites as they short-sightedly careen toward destruction, taking most of us with them. The protests against the abuses of globalization, the destruction of the environment, the pollution of our food, the undermining of American democracy, the corruption of our political system, etc. gives me hope. Although it will be (and has always been) a long fight against powerful, selfish foes, eventually, if total destruction does not claim us all, gains will be made, the architects of insane and unjust policies will look around for scapegoats, some reforms will be made and the process will start again.

But, I hope next time those of us on the left (progressives / liberals) will get our act together and offer practical, common sense alternatives toward a more just, fair and sane world.


Email Page

Home Page