[mojo2]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050914/ts_nm/un_bush_dc

Bush to UN: War alone won't defeat terrorism
By Steve Holland
Wed Sep 14,11:36 AM ET

U.S. President George W. Bush told the United Nations on Wednesday that war alone will not win the fight against terrorism and world leaders must tackle conditions that lead the oppressed to take up arms.

"We must defeat the terrorists on the battlefield and we must also defeat them in the battle of ideas," Bush told the U.N. World Summit.

Bush made his address with his job approval rating at an all-time low over the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina and continued bloodshed in Iraq, where a wave of attacks on Wednesday killed more than 150 people in Baghdad.

Bush, who failed to gain U.N. backing in 2003 for the Iraq war over unproven charges that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, urged the U.N. to stand with Iraqis "as they complete the journey to a fully constitutional government."

He thanked the more than 115 nations and international organizations for offers of assistance after Hurricane Katrina caused the worst U.S. humanitarian crisis.

"Your response, like the response to last year's tsunami, has shown once again that the world is more compassionate and hopeful when we act together," he said.

Saying increased trade could alleviate poverty, Bush said the United States was prepared to drop all obstacles to free trade if other nations followed suit.

"Today I broaden the challenge by making this pledge: The United States is ready to eliminate all tariffs, subsidies and other barriers to the free flow of goods and services if other nations do the same," he said.

NOW, let's see what the enlightened world leaders do with this. They have to agree. Don't they?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by mojo2

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050914/ts_nm/un_bush_dc



NOW, let's see what the enlightened world leaders do with this. They have to agree. Don't they?

No, they don't.

Eliminating all tariffs also means greater protection for some products. It also means a threat to some cultures that wish to protect themselves from the invasion of products that may overwrite them.

For instance, Satellitte radio represent such a media which products could pour out in other countries and eradicate cultures in a few decades.

That is my take on it.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

No, they don't.

Eliminating all tariffs also means greater protection for some products. It also means a threat to some cultures that wish to protect themselves from the invasion of products that may overwrite them.

For instance, Satellitte radio represent such a media which products could pour out in other countries and eradicate cultures in a few decades.

That is my take on it.

Interesting. Then the only way to protect from the negative effects of Howard Stern and Martha Stewart (on Sirrius Satellite Radio next year) a government would have to practice censorship of the whole range of programming.

Hmm. Or, parents would have to exercise their responsibility. But what about the adults who might be lured from following their own culture? Hmm. And it may not be JUST the sensational hosts but the whole spectrum of programming, wouldn't it? Maybe the government could make a deal with the satellite companies to have some kind of V-Chip which would block all but the programs the government approved of. But then the satellite broadcaster would be effectively encouraging or prompting or being a partner in thought control?

Hmm.

And what about the local broadcasters?

Hmm.

Very interesting. Got links that discuss this issue from that point of view?

I'd like to read it.

[nath]

Originally Posted by mojo2

"Today I broaden the challenge by making this pledge: The United States is ready to eliminate all tariffs, subsidies and other barriers to the free flow of goods and services if other nations do the same," he said.

If true, and followed through, then this is fantastic news.

[James L]

Bush to UN: War alone won't defeat terrorism
By Steve Holland
Wed Sep 14,11:36 AM ET

U.S. President George W. Bush told the United Nations on Wednesday that war alone will not win the fight against terrorism and world leaders must tackle conditions that lead the oppressed to take up arms.

Well, certainly not war when you invade a country for bullshyt reasons, based on intel so poor no sane man would act on it, and instead of defeating the terrorists (that weren't there to start with) simply create a martyr situation that draws more people to the terrorists cause.

It is good to see he has realized the errors if his ways. He did get it right in Afghanistan, however.

Saying increased trade could alleviate poverty, Bush said the United States was prepared to drop all obstacles to free trade if other nations followed suit.

"Today I broaden the challenge by making this pledge: The United States is ready to eliminate all tariffs, subsidies and other barriers to the free flow of goods and services if other nations do the same," he said.

Yeah.... right. Bush's government, in complete violation of NAFTA and the WTO, slapped illegal tariffs on Canadian softwood several years ago. Bush's government has currently stolen over $5 billion dollars from Canada due to these tariffs. These tariffs have caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada. These tariffs have been found illegal by the highest courts, by NAFTA, by the World Trade Organization, etc. Bush's government has appealed every legal loss they have encountered in this battle.

And, he tells people he supports free trade? Yeah, right.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Interesting. Then the only way to protect from the negative effects of Howard Stern and Martha Stewart (on Sirrius Satellite Radio next year) a government would have to practice censorship of the whole range of programming.

Obviously, you do not understand what I am talking about. I apologize if I was not clear enough. I'll try to be more explicit.

When Bush suggests that all tariffs, subsidies, etc to trade, he opens the door to a flow of exchanges that advantages mostly the U.S., which economy is probably one of the healthiest, and is not, one of the strongest anyway. This is a deal that will affect the minority of very rich people whom are mostly situated in the U.S. Incidentally, the poor will still suffer, and are likely to suffer more.

True, Free Trade is likely to open opportunities for people, but is not going to be a solution to everyone since the benefits will fall mostly to those who already have a major control over the economy.

The example I provide, the one regarding culture, has to be excluded from a benefit-driven process because it creates a standardization of cultural referents. Popularization creates a blanket of similarities that drives interests towards fields of limited options. Since money drives the world, it will not be long that many creative processes will struggle against monopolies. This is how we see colas has a more popular drink than water, with the ill-effects associated with them (caffeine, sugar content etc.).

Hmm. Or, parents would have to exercise their responsibility. But what about the adults who might be lured from following their own culture? Hmm.

You suppose that all parents are responsible enough and able enough to control access to media; I doubt it. The simple fact that agencies exists to put a tag on movies and TV shows is a good example; agencies act on behalf of parents to make a decision of what is appropriate for children or not. Whether parents (especially those striving to survive b y having 2 and 3 jobs with meager income) have time to assist their children even for the basic of day-to-day education is also quite debatable and there is a good case to prove they actually cannot suffice tot he task.

And it may not be JUST the sensational hosts but the whole spectrum of programming, wouldn't it?

Interestingly enough, the multiplication of channels did create a multitude of useless and uninteresting shows. The problem is that they are mostly in the English language makes it a problem; the case of the protection of the French language in Quebec is a good one. On one side, you have a 7 millions individuals population surrounded by a couple of hundred millions of English speaking indivuduals. On one side, one population is striving with little financial means to protect its French base culture while the other one is so vast, the question of the survival of the English language is unthinkable (except in Florida where some movements to protect English saw the light of day). This reflects a form of cultural imperialism where popularity of cultural referents is so important that minorities are threathened because of those numbers.

Maybe the government could make a deal with the satellite companies to have some kind of V-Chip which would block all but the programs the government approved of.

Hmm... that brings us back to subsidies and tariffs, right?

But then the satellite broadcaster would be effectively encouraging or prompting or being a partner in thought control?

Partially, if you restrict totally the access. Culture is a mind thing; control of information, whatever that is, will control some aspects related to psychological processes.

And what about the local broadcasters?

Local broadcasters have limited access to cultural content; it all depends of the finances available to local creativity. NBC has a budget that is likely to be 100 times bigger than Radio-Canada's (French side of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). Governmental subsidies are still not enough to assist.

Very interesting. Got links that discuss this issue from that point of view?

I'd like to read it.

Nope.

But I'll lead you in a direction you could find interesting. Most movies created in Europe have access to the U.S. because of business agreements with some major distribution companies that favor only the English speaking population. They actually control the market for the continent. The market is such that any movies to be distributed in North America has to go through a monopoly that will make these movies available in English, mostly, unless French is the original language of the production. Another example is the availability of movies in French. If those movies are made in the U.S., marketability (which is strongly dependant on benefits) will make some movies unavailable to a French speaking population, because there is no benefits important enough to be expected from the post-synchronization process.

The solution calls for the population to learn English, which is not a bad thing, but opens the door to a standardization of practices. If people learn English, why should those who own the rights of distribution waste their time and money in translating the language used in their products? Consequently, why would a non-English speaking population waste their time learning and develop their natural language, since all the cultural elements made available are in English only?

[Pendergast]

I found 2 contradictions in this article:

Originally Posted by mojo2

U.S. President George W. Bush told the United Nations on Wednesday that war alone will not win the fight against terrorism and world leaders must tackle conditions that lead the oppressed to take up arms.
(...)
Saying increased trade could alleviate poverty, Bush said the United States was prepared to drop all obstacles to free trade if other nations followed suit.

Isn't that a contradiction?

Prevent the oppressed by free trade?

Bush, who failed to gain U.N. backing in 2003 for the Iraq war over unproven charges that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, urged the U.N. to stand with Iraqis "as they complete the journey to a fully constitutional government."
(...)
"Your response, like the response to last year's tsunami, has shown once again that the world is more compassionate and hopeful when we act together," he said.

So it's OK to "act together" when the U.S. say so, but not when the U.S. says not?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Then the only way to protect from the negative effects of Howard Stern and Martha Stewart (on Sirrius Satellite Radio next year) a government would have to practice censorship of the whole range of programming.

Interesting; doing some marketing, aren't you?

[olePigeon]

Also known as: