|
|
24 Feb 2005 @ 20:20, by vaxen. Globalization
This ought to wake up a few people.
What You Didn't Know
About Taxes & The 'Crown'
By Mark Owen
2-17-5 More >
|
|
|
|
9 Feb 2005 @ 23:03, by mathuesiam. Globalization
More tools for connecting and expanding our collective vision of Global Unity!! More >
|
|
|
|
2 Feb 2005 @ 02:18, by bushman. Globalization
US Declares Iraqis Must Destroy Their Own Seeds.
Edited by Iman Khaduri
[link]
www.globalresearch.ca
2-1-5
For the record: "U.S. declares Iraqis can not save their own seeds"
"As part of sweeping "economic restructuring" implemented by the Bush Administration in Iraq, Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds, which include seeds the Iraqis themselves have developed over hundreds of years. Instead, they will be forced to buy seeds from US corporations. That is because in recent years, transnational corporations have patented and now own many seed varieties originated or developed by indigenous peoples. In a short time, Iraq will be living under the new American credo:
Pay Monsanto, or starve ."
"The American Administrator of the Iraqi CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) government, Paul Bremer, updated Iraq's intellectual property law to 'meet current internationally-recognized standards of protection'. The updated law makes saving seeds for next year's harvest, practiced by 97% of Iraqi farmers in 2002, and is the standard farming practice for thousands of years across human civilizations, to be now illegal.. Instead, farmers will have to obtain a yearly license for genetically modified (GM) seeds from American corporations. These GM seeds have typically been modified from seeds developed over thousands of generations by indigenous farmers like the Iraqis, and shared freely like agricultural 'open source.'"
Iraq law Requires Seed Licenses November 13, 2004
"According to Order 81, paragraph 66 - [B], issued by L. Paul Bremer [CFR], the people in Iraq are now prohibited from saving seeds and may only plant seeds for their food from licensed, authorized U.S. distributors.
The paragraph states, "Farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties or any variety mentioned in items 1 and 2 of paragraph [C] of Article 14 of this chapter."
Written in massively intricate legalese, Order 81 directs the reader at Article 14, paragraph 2 [C] to paragraph [B] of Article 4, which states any variety that is different from any other known variety may be registered in any country and become a protected variety of seed - thus defaulting it into the "protected class" of seeds and prohibiting the Iraqis from reusing them the following season. Every year, the Iraqis must destroy any seed they have, and repurchase seeds from an authorized supplier, or face fines, penalties and/or jail time."
As per an Iraqi proverb, the day will come, sooner rather than later, when the Iraqis will shred Bremer's Laws, soak them in water and offer the glass to Bremer to drink.
[link]
Iraqis Can't Save Seed
By Bud Landry
1-19-5
"U.S. Declares Iraqis Can't Save Seed," by David Deschesne
According to Order 81, paragraph 66 -[B], issued by L. Paul Bremer [CFR], the people in Iraq are now prohibited from saving seeds and may only plant seeds for their food from from licensed, authorized U.S. distributors.
The paragraph states, "Farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties or any variety mentioned in items 1 and 2 of paragraph [C] of Article 14 of this chapter."
Written in massively intricate legalese, Order 81 directs the reader at Article 14, paragraph 2 [C] to paragraph [B] of Article 4, which states any variety that is different from any other known variety may be registered in any country and become a protected variety of seed - thus defaulting it into the "protected class" of seeds and prohibiting the Iraqis from reusing them the following season. Every year, the Iraqis must destroy any seed they have, and repurchase seeds from an authorized supplier, or face fines, penalties and/ or jail time.
This is the freedom that comes with the American form of democracy?
[link]
More >
|
|
|
|
29 Oct 2004 @ 00:47, by ov. Globalization
It is quite evident by now that the Iraq war was about oil. In 1997 the US national security advisor Brzezinski wrote the book The Grand Chessboard. In it, Brzezinski claimed the US must take control of the world’s oil and gas reserves to gain total control over the world - or “full spectrum dominance” (yes, the very same “full spectrum dominance” Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell have referred to several times in the past 4 years.) In 1999 the Pentagon declared readiness to wage an oil war. Another part of the plan for global domination, a new American empire, is to stop any regional power, friend or foe, from becoming powerful enough to rival US hegemony. The book says the greatest threat to US hegemony would be a united Europe, or worse, a united Eurasia: Europe and Asia working together peacefully. The Neocons, who have hijacked the White House, have made this idea of worldwide US hegemony, an American empire, their declared policy goal. That explains why Rumsfeld tried to drive a wedge between European countries with his “old” Europe and “new” Europe comment.. It also explains the madness behind the US policy to pre-emtively shoot down European satellites, if or when they will threaten US space superiority. Shortly before the Iraq war, Cheney and his close buddy Baker announced that the US was facing an unprecedented energy crisis and that the US had to gain access to Iraq’s oil, by military force if neccesary. Notice, in that policy statement, there was nothing mentioned about Iraq posing a threat to the US with WMD. Instead, the policy paper states that Iraq is a threat to the US, because Iraq has a lot of oil, which the US may not be able to get under Saddam. And today we know that every word about the WMD was a lie. There were no WMD. Iraq was not a threat to the US. Those WMD claims were delusional. Cheney held a secret energy meeting about Iraq’s oil fields. Then, during the war, the first objective was to secure the oil fields and the oil ministry. And while American tax payers have to pay billions for this war, that money goes straight into the pockets of Halliburton and other war profiteers. At this point, anyone with at least half a brain can see that the Iraq invasion indeed was all about oil and profit. So, what is the rest of the world doing about it? For one, even our oldest allies no longer trust us. US reputation is at an all time low. And sooner or later, the rest of the world may very well unite against us, and use economic pressure, rather than military force, to end American imperialism. More >
|
|
|
|
 1 Aug 2004 @ 16:09, by koravya. Globalization
“the future of one of the earth's most vital resources is being determined by those who profit from its overuse and abuse. A handful of transnational corporations, backed by the World Bank, are aggressively taking over the management of public water services in developing countries, dramatically raising the price of water to the local residents and profiting from the Third World's desperate search for solutions to the water crisis. The corporate agenda is clear water should be treated like any other tradable good, with its use determined by market principles.”
[link]
/*/*/*/*/*
Blue Gold (Hardback)
The Battle Against Corporate Theft of the World's Water
Authors: Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke
[link]
*/*/*/* More >
|
|
|
|
 25 Jun 2004 @ 05:11, by ashanti. Globalization
Open source, and open access are the keys to unlocking the financial barriers to bridging the digital divide. An exciting groundswell movement is developing. From the Mail and Guardian:"Something pretty revolutionary is going down in a dusty patch of Limpopo province. It involves billionaire and Africa’s first astronaut Mark Shuttleworth, a multi-national technology company and the government.
Shuttleworth is so passionate about it, he says it could rocket South Africa into the future: “We are on the cusp of a new era. This is the future of IT.”
He’s talking about open source software -- a revolutionary movement and philosophy that stands up to the likes of Microsoft to ensure computer programmes, such as word processors or spreadsheets, can be used by you, shared with others, and even modified at no cost.....
...At the launch at the Mogalakwena HP i-community centre in Limpopo province on Thursday, Shuttleworth emphasised that if South Africa is to become a world leader, improve the lives of its people and focus on skills development, then open source is the key.
He says open source software is critical to the development of Africa and other developing countries because the flow of information and knowledge is not limited by the software you can afford.....
...It appears the South African government and Shuttleworth are reading from the same word processor. The government agrees with Shuttleworth to such an extent that it has formulated a policy ensuring that open source software is the preferred option for government. The government has recognised the pivotal role that open source plays in economic development and skills creation in the country...."
Full text of the article can be found at the link to the Mail and Guardian cited above.
A parallel devlopment is the groundswell movement towards open access, especially in scholarly publishing. For too long, access to e-journals has been monopolized by corporate interests and has created an "information apartheid" that has deprived millions of people access to high quality, peer reviewed research. The Budapest Open Access Initiative is spreading the word about open access publishing. Researchers are encouraged to publish their material online so everyone can access it, not only the wealthy. A software package is provided so that e-repositories can be set up, and items are retrievable due to the use of metadata harvesting technology. The Open Archives initiative gives practical guidelines.
Yes, everything is indeed, opening up! And therein lies the hope for Africa's future. More >
|
|
|
|
15 Mar 2004 @ 06:51, by invictus. Globalization
Can't say that I've ever been a fan of socialism, or that I probably ever will be, nor do I believe that the solutions to most important problems have much of anything to do with government at all, but at least the guy is capable of saying something true. A politician, saying something true about the Iraq war. Next thing you know we'll see cancer-curing bananas growing on apple trees. To see one of the stupid governments that supported that war (against the will of the VAST majority of its people, but then "democracy" is when governments do what America wants them to, so no problem there, LOL) thrown out of office for the mess it helped create... gives one warm feelings inside. Here's to Blair and Bush being the next ones kicked out of power. I'd just like to give them both a big kiss for making the world so much safer (like, "really, BRAVO guys, you really know how to turn a country into a chaotic war zone and volunteer other people's lives en masse for... whatever"). *Sigh* and no, that doesn't mean any bombings are, were, or will be okay. It means that Aznar's government supported a murderous crime, based, as is now becoming clear, on outright lies (as some of us have been saying for a looooong time). And they probably shouldn't be surprised when, justified or not, some of those darned evil people they're trying to eliminate by way of invading entire countries decide to fight back. It's not a matter of giving them a sanction to fight back, mind you; the blessing and the curse (mostly a blessing) of human nature is that you can't stop them, no matter what you do. Each person can only control themselves. They simply don't control other people. That's how free we are. The really tragic thing is that innocent people in Madrid paid for something their government did without their support. Tragic, too, that there are people who have gotten so screwed up that they're crazy enough to carry out such acts.
About fighting back: a while ago someone asked me what I'd do if China or Pakistan (!?) invaded the US and told my mommy to walk in the street. You know, since I was arguing against the Iraq war, I must have been some kind of wimp who would just let people walk all over him and hand America over to the terrorists. I'll tell you what I'd do if someone invaded: I'd do my best to make life a living (not for long) HELL for any soldier (or any person who tried to use immediately life-threatening FORCE to make me pray to any god, Muslim, Christian, channeled Martian or otherwise, and who managed to create a situation in which simply saying "no" or "stuff it" would not suffice; I must add, by the way, that having someone on the other side of the world who has a culture you don't like and who isn't tolerant enough for your liking doesn't fall under this category), from any country, who presumed the right to invade my home, order my family around at gunpoint and kill my neighbors. I've said it before; I'm not a total pacifist. I believe in self defense. However, I don't believe that the laws of cause and effect are suspended when "self defense" is invoked; if one goes too far, even in perfectly justified self defense, there WILL be serious consequences, and nothing will make them go away. No amount of force will erase them. That's justice/karma/the golden rule for you. The moral of the story is that yes, you can defend yourself, but be careful who you murder. REALLY careful. Insanely careful. And if you can't avoid killing innocent civilians who've done nothing to you... then a lot of people are going to have VERY good reasons to make sure your troops become incapable of so much as firing a rubber bullet at them, ever again. I can think of several thousand people in Iraq, probably several million, who have a first class claim to self defense against the US and its troops. That kind of comes with the territory when you use force against entire populations, no matter what you're "trying" to do. I'd do anything I could to weaken the structure that supported the invading troops; anything I could to deprive them of power and of the ability to use force against me and the people I love, regardless of their rhetoric or stated intentions. Actually, that's not true. I'd probably fight ten times harder once the word "liberation" slipped out of their mouths. What a slander that would be. I'd do everything I could to force the poor duped troops to go home and live with their families (horror of horrors!) and leave my "freedom" to me, to fight for or die for as I saw fit.
Then again, that's me. My definition of "freedom" is an individual one; I believe that every individual has the right to decide to fight, or not, for what they believe in, and to fully accept the consequences of their action or inaction (in the case of inaction, if you accept the power of a dictatorship as your government, that is what you will get; if you allow yourself to be blackmailed into accepting it, that is what you will get; you have a right to give your life in the fight against it if you wish, but you don't have a right to volunteer anyone else's life unless they are trying to rule you through coercion). That right exists regardless, and almost always in spite of, any government or army. It exists because we are human beings, and that's it. It also exists regardless of what anyone else, or everyone else, thinks, says, or does. The decision and the courage involved in exercising that right are entirely the responsibility of each person. It exists, but it comes with no assurances of a house, job, or car. The only assurance it comes with is that you always have a choice not to comply with those who would try to tell you that your life is not yours to live or to fuck up as you please. I know that some people will try to push a collectivized idea of "freedom" which is a function of proximity to an SUV dealership and a nice suburban home, or defined as some misty conception of womb-like security. And, of course, however much individual people have to be brutalized or regulated into being "good" under such an idea of freedom, it's fine because the collective "greater good" is being served. Those things aren't freedom, by any stretch of the imagination. They are the products of the way particular people have chosen to use their own basic freedom, which for better or for worse has developed over hundreds of years of democratic rule (debatable, but I'll grant it here for the sake of argument) and which also has its base in a particularly liberal (in the older sense of the word; I'm not talking Democrats here) conception of philosophy and of humanity that dates back even further. It wasn't implanted by military occupation, and it didn't replace serfdom in a year, a decade, or even a century. It CERTAINLY was not a result of so-called "democratic" institutions; such institutions arose from it. The same is true of the Constitution. Nor is it the natural state of human beings. All of humanity is not somehow destined to end up that way, no matter how much some people wish that were so.
By the way, I'd never for a second go and kill the families of the occupying soldiers. So what happened in Spain was wrong, absolutely. Period. No questions asked. The people who did it, and only those people, should be hunted down like dogs. But frankly what do Bush, Aznar, Blair, and anyone else who actually supported the Iraq war expect? For the people of the entire world to present themselves as disarmed subjects to their military force? Please. "Oops, America is scared and has gone into chicken-with-its-head-cut-off mode, so I guess a couple thousand of us will die now, huh. Oh well, all for the greater good." Well I'll tell you something. Any "greater good" that is served by the death of innocent people, and which actually necessitates it, is something we can do without. If you don't like violence, and you want to prevent it, don't invade a country, kill twice as many civilians (at LEAST) as died on 9/11, and call it "collateral damage" or, crime of crimes, "necessary". If there's ANY lesson to be taken from stupid things like 9/11/01 and 3/11/04, it's that such things are NEVER justified. Those who think they are, for whatever reason or in service of whatever ideal or way of life, deserve only to be resisted. Those who take part in or support such things are kind of giving up any right to speak against violence. When they use violence unnecessarily and speak against it at the same time, what they're actually speaking for is domination (domination in the name of some twisted "good" is still domination). Because non-violence isn't written into the fabric of the universe. It's not automatic. I don't happen to believe that anyone's imaginary friend is sitting up there in the heavens telling us what to do. One can't initiate violence on a massive scale and then expect that the graces of "something" will allow them to lock the situation down immediately afterwards, even as their armed-to-the-teeth troops still occupy the place in question. The idea that violence just is not the way to do things exists as a "moral" only so far as people are able to restrain themselves and use violence only when they have no other choice at all, and certainly NOT when they get bored with inspections or come up with a really good fish story to scare people stupid or something.
|
|
|
|
22 Dec 2003 @ 10:24, by ming. Globalization
So, I've been procrastinating for a while going to the Préfecture to apply for our Carte de Sejours (residency carts). First because I was gathering the proper documents. Fresh copies of birth certificates with proper attestations and translations. Passport photos, financial records, copies of phone bills, etc. But I knew I didn't quite have everything needed, such as proper documentation of health insurance coverage, so I didn't quite know what to do. And my friend who has helped me before with this kind of stuff is out of town. And, traditionally, getting a Carte de Sejour is considered an arduous process, involving hours of waiting, lots of red tape, and having to return a number of times because one doesn't have the papers exactly right. Anyway, today I finally gathered myself together to stuff what I had into a briefcase and go down and see what would happen.
And here's the shock, then. The first thing they tell me is that we no longer need a Carte de Sejour. There's apparently a new law, just 3 weeks old, which says, essentially, that citizens from the European Union no longer are required to get Carte de Sejour. The point being, I suppose, that they in principle have the right to be here and to work here, so IDs from any of the other EU countries are considered equally valid here.
I suppose it is a relief. But that also leaves me a bit puzzled about what to do next. I mean, I kind of had looked forward to some French ID cards. I don't know what then actually indicates that we live here. And from my reading of that law, it also introduces some more stringent penalties for working here without a proper authorization to work, including fines and deportation. So now I'll worry about that instead until I figure out what our status really is.
But I find it interesting that Europe is becoming more open and relaxed about how people move around and the paperwork needed, whereas the U.S. seems to be going the other way. When we moved to the U.S. 18 years ago, anybody could pretty much come in and live and work there without worrying too much about anything. We were illegal aliens, but it didn't matter very much. You could get a social security card and a driver's license right away, and just start working, buying a house, etc. As long as you earned money, the details didn't matter. But now the U.S. is much more of a police state than it was before. And now in Europe I can live and work anywhere, apparently with less and less need for any other paperwork than showing my passport as ID. More >
|
|
|
|
1 Feb 2002 @ 04:12, by ming. Globalization
Arianna Huffington has an eye opening article about a little known clause in the NAFTA treaty. Essentially it adds up to that any multi-national corporation that loses business because of the regulations of a foreign government, can sue that foreign government for their loss. Whether those regulations are good or reasonable, or whether the proposed product is, apparently has nothing to do with it. More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 2 3 |
|
