|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dev
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 7:36 pm Post subject: Forget CNN - Try Democracy Now for your news |
 |
|
If you want to get real news, skip CNN and give Democracy Now a try. The site has a daily 1 hour program and features interesting speakers such as Noam Chonsky and Micheal Moore.
Check it out
http://www.democracynow.org/
You can also go on YouTube and find some past interviews from Democracy Now that people have posted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dev
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeMayonnaise
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like Democracy Now. Most people who know anything know about it though. It's pretty good, but sometimes get too liberal every for me (and that's pretty liberal!)
Michael Pollan is pretty good as well, but again, it's all stuff you should know already. Part of why I left the US is because America doesn't know the stuff Michael Pollen is talking about (not exactly, but you get the analogy). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quack Addict
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MM is a douche! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pink Freud
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks for the tip. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dev
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quack Addict wrote: |
| MM is a douche! |
I don't think so buddy. I respect him because no one's been able to disprove his information.
In the early days, people like Wolf Blitzer on CNN used to take cheap shots at him, but he always stood his ground. Now CNN is afraid of him.
There was a documentary made to discredit him, but it was not well received by the public. It was a smear campaign.
You probably haven't seen Capitalism:A Love Story. It's impressive and no one's been able to dispute it.
I think he's a credit to the U.S. and its freedom of speech right. He's trying to elighten the masses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomwaits
Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Location: PC Bong
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If what is going on in Mexico interests you look for the interviews with Charles Bowden.
I feel like cancelling my cable and sending them the money instead--a great site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dev wrote: |
| Quack Addict wrote: |
| MM is a douche! |
I don't think so buddy. I respect him because no one's been able to disprove his information.
In the early days, people like Wolf Blitzer on CNN used to take cheap shots at him, but he always stood his ground. Now CNN is afraid of him.
There was a documentary made to discredit him, but it was not well received by the public. It was a smear campaign.
You probably haven't seen Capitalism:A Love Story. It's impressive and no one's been able to dispute it.
I think he's a credit to the U.S. and its freedom of speech right. He's trying to elighten the masses. |
Eh, its a cult of personality. Can you summarize some of his points and put those forward rather than just talk about how he is right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rothbard
Joined: 23 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dev wrote: |
| Quack Addict wrote: |
| MM is a douche! |
I don't think so buddy. I respect him because no one's been able to disprove his information.
In the early days, people like Wolf Blitzer on CNN used to take cheap shots at him, but he always stood his ground. Now CNN is afraid of him.
There was a documentary made to discredit him, but it was not well received by the public. It was a smear campaign.
You probably haven't seen Capitalism:A Love Story. It's impressive and no one's been able to dispute it.
I think he's a credit to the U.S. and its freedom of speech right. He's trying to elighten the masses. |
Hahaha, that movie might be OK if it was actually about Capitalism! Giving money to thieves is not Capitalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dev
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Dev wrote: |
| Quack Addict wrote: |
| MM is a douche! |
I don't think so buddy. I respect him because no one's been able to disprove his information.
In the early days, people like Wolf Blitzer on CNN used to take cheap shots at him, but he always stood his ground. Now CNN is afraid of him.
There was a documentary made to discredit him, but it was not well received by the public. It was a smear campaign.
You probably haven't seen Capitalism:A Love Story. It's impressive and no one's been able to dispute it.
I think he's a credit to the U.S. and its freedom of speech right. He's trying to elighten the masses. |
Eh, its a cult of personality. Can you summarize some of his points and put those forward rather than just talk about how he is right? |
Well, for example, he exposed the Dead Peasants Life Insurance scheme where employers buy life insurance on you hoping you'll die.
Film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frs25RsstoA
News Report; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4ZdgIk8f_o
He also showed how working conditions have deteriorated for pilots. Some of them are on food stamps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKQJx3L_CDQ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, so this clip is a perfect example of why I don't like Michael Moore. He's done something good, and taught me that pilots are underpaid. But then he abuses this into his sweeping thesis, and leaves us with 'Capitalism allows us to profit over the death of an employee.' The image of the plane crash is showed, but of course, the cause of death wasn't they were paid little. The cause of death were the airline pilots were distracted.
Again, Michael Moore can be a progressive, and expose these things, and that's good. But then he gets dramatic and sensational. That's why many of us don't pay too much attention to him, anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rogue123
Joined: 23 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You don't have to be left to appreciate Democracy Now! At the least, it should be part of everyones news consumption.
The history of Capitalism is replete with examples of giving money to thieves. Rewarding "hard-work", that is, capitalists who organize workplaces, often ends up rewarding those who work hard at being crooked as well. Were this not true, why were the grassroots campaigns for consumer protection laws (tho lacking--as fraud in the mortgage market was rife through the last decade), labor protection laws, etc. so popular and necessary? But these were demanded through democratic struggle, not the market. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quack Addict
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dev wrote: |
| Quack Addict wrote: |
| MM is a douche! |
I don't think so buddy. I respect him because no one's been able to disprove his information.
In the early days, people like Wolf Blitzer on CNN used to take cheap shots at him, but he always stood his ground. Now CNN is afraid of him.
There was a documentary made to discredit him, but it was not well received by the public. It was a smear campaign.
You probably haven't seen Capitalism:A Love Story. It's impressive and no one's been able to dispute it.
I think he's a credit to the U.S. and its freedom of speech right. He's trying to elighten the masses. |
A 400lb man teaching me the evils of over-consumption...yeah right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rothbard
Joined: 23 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
[quote="rogue123"]
The history of Capitalism is replete with examples of giving money to thieves. Rewarding "hard-work", that is, capitalists who organize workplaces, often ends up rewarding those who work hard at being crooked as well. Were this not true, why were the grassroots campaigns for consumer protection laws (tho lacking--as fraud in the mortgage market was rife through the last decade), labor protection laws, etc. so popular and necessary? But these were demanded through democratic struggle, not the market. |
Why do I have to spend hours a day defending capitalism on this board?
Handing money to thieves is anti capitalism. A capitalist would say to let the market decide. Giving money to bankers is the opposite of that. What your thinking of is corporatism.
Labor laws are just workers trying to unfairly get a larger slice of the pie. We don't need those laws, as a worker who is injured or unfairly fired can simply take the employer to court. They also destroy jobs. So, current workers are sweat, but new workers get the shaft.
Corporations LOVE consumer protection laws. they keep smaller players from entering the market. eg the toys from China debacle.
In a truly free market, graft and corruption are impossible. As new producers can always enter the market and under cut the grafters. When you have govt involvement in the market (corporatism), this doesn't happen. Plenty of graft does though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rogue123
Joined: 23 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Rothbard"]
| Quote: |
| rogue123 wrote: |
The history of Capitalism is replete with examples of giving money to thieves. Rewarding "hard-work", that is, capitalists who organize workplaces, often ends up rewarding those who work hard at being crooked as well. Were this not true, why were the grassroots campaigns for consumer protection laws (tho lacking--as fraud in the mortgage market was rife through the last decade), labor protection laws, etc. so popular and necessary? But these were demanded through democratic struggle, not the market. |
Why do I have to spend hours a day defending capitalism on this board?
1) Handing money to thieves is anti capitalism. A capitalist would say to let the market decide. Giving money to bankers is the opposite of that. What your thinking of is corporatism.
2) Labor laws are just workers trying to unfairly get a larger slice of the pie. We don't need those laws, as a worker who is injured or unfairly fired can simply take the employer to court. They also destroy jobs. So, current workers are sweat, but new workers get the shaft.
Corporations LOVE consumer protection laws. they keep smaller players from entering the market. eg the toys from China debacle.
3) In a truly free market, graft and corruption are impossible. As new producers can always enter the market and under cut the grafters. When you have govt involvement in the market (corporatism), this doesn't happen. Plenty of graft does though. |
1) "Corporatism" is a (your) misnomer (see #3 for a more accurate term). But in any case, this misnomer merely describes changes in institutional forms within capitalist societies, as, under your 'corporatism' the relations of production and, thereby, basic accumulation process is left unchanged--i.e. still capitalism.
Markets do often decide to give money to thieves (Enron, Madoff, the S&L scandals, false advertisers, snake oil salesmen, etc). That the finance capitalist were able to convince, deceive, and nudge many of the politicians they bankrolled into elected office to bail them out, is not anti-capitalist. Rather, it is capitalism benefiting--surprise--capitalists! It's Raison d'�tre.
2) Yes, after the worker dies, then he/she can sue his/her former employer. That's a great solution. How about instead of letting the worker die/get injured, we don't. An ounce of prevention.... Then, here comes the old dogma, worker protection laws (labor market intervention) create unemployment. It sounds so intuitive. But an ocean of empirical evidence has shredded that nonsense. See, Card and Kruerger, etc. Also, positing fairness (normative arguments), for/against economic policies, is useless because the economic world is just not f@#king fair.
3) In a truly free market that has never existed and, if any semblance of democratic institutions and processes continue into the future, never will. Not only because people tend to get a little anxious when the next capitalist crisis hits and they don't have jobs, and so some scant safety net is put into place. But, in terms of pure positive economics, starting in your most perfectly competitive market of markets, capital tends to concentrate and centralize by its very successes and endemic workings (as the strong beat out and buy up the weak). Ah, the utopian-market-fundamentalist bourgeois apologists. Again, throughout the history of capitalism governments (the state) have been instrumental in securing trade routes, destroying strikes, opening foreign markets, financing extremely costly and risky R & D which can be subsequently privatized, etc. In that sense "corporatism" has always existed, and becomes fruitless as a descriptor. The current phase would be more accurately termed Monopoly (Finance) Capital.
Why do you have to spend hours a day defending capitalism on this board? Nobody knows, apparently not even you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
