Go to Eight Your Home Town
- Add a comment
- Go to Here's Kingmi's Thoughtful, Global Question of the Day (in 100 words) --
justsouno, Ahah! Paying attention are we? MAD is about nukes. Thank you
for being interested in our future. I really think this is imortnt -- more important than sloganeering and protesting in Seattle. Frankly, I do not understand it totally. But my goal is to finish the book by the time winter break ends. Cheers!
posted by
kingmi
on December 20, 2004 at 10:47 PM
| link to this | reply
kingmi
I am not trying to be a bur under anyone's saddle. But if those countries who trade together do not fight and it was going on before WWII how was it those countries you listed as those trading are those who engaged in that war?
posted by
Justi
on December 20, 2004 at 9:57 PM
| link to this | reply
sizextra, I hear you. You are more the norm than the exception. That's
why I'm so happy to be blogging. I can get people talking about issues that we should know about. If more people knew what was going on in the world, then they couldn't be fooled as easily by political leaders. This past election exemplified that to the nth degree.
posted by
kingmi
on December 20, 2004 at 7:11 AM
| link to this | reply
I'm not cut out for political conversation. Not on this level anyways. Not saying I'm not educated or anything, but I have my kids, my husband, my job, and my big butt to worry about. I'm lucky to get in an hour of news on any given day. Maybe once the kids grow up, I'll have more time to think about the global problems of the world. But for now, think I'll just worry about what I'm making for dinner, how crappy my pay is, how I really need to go back on South beach....etc. etc....
posted by
SizeXtraPoor
on December 20, 2004 at 7:06 AM
| link to this | reply
sizextrpoor, well, dude, it's like this. Countries that trade together
don't fight any more. This is good because we would blow each other up. Other countries cnnot trade together either because they are keeping their people in slavery-like, or they are too undeveloped. Examples include Iran and Nigeria.
However, those states that do not trade with us might attack us. so that's why US military is changing its focu from war in the future with China, to war with disconnected, undeveloped countries. How do you feel about this?
posted by
kingmi
on December 19, 2004 at 10:58 PM
| link to this | reply
justsouno, As i understand it, globalization is the connectedness of
economies. Been happening since ever...but past WW2 it was USA, Europe and Japan. Now it includes China, Korea, Argentina, Brazil & Chile, India, and Russia, since they have clamped down on mafia rule.
It seems like it is happening naturally as countries (like Japan and Germany) see that their future lies in economic success rather than military. The main drawback, as has been pointed out here by bloggers who like yourself are concerned environmentalists and individualists, that globalization means destruction, plunder, abuse of the poor and downcast. Another problem pointed out is that there are some countries that are economically ready to connect with the rest of the world, but culturally they are not. Like Nigeria (Miss World Pageant caused riots there) and Afghanistan (Bin Laden attacked us to prevent the encroachment of globalization on their isolated religious culture). The countries that cannot connect with the other countries are poor candidates for economic success, as they will not benefit from finding a market for their goods, etc. Also, the American military is re-thinking it's global preparedness strategies based on this model. If we are trading with a country, it is unlikely that we will go to war with them -- especially if they are a nuclear nation and pose Mutually Assured Destruction. The threat assessment being accepted now in Washington, d.C. is that our problems will come from countries who are not connected. Thank you for your comment!
posted by
kingmi
on December 19, 2004 at 10:51 PM
| link to this | reply
OWW. You just made my head hurt. Big words scare me. I go now.
posted by
SizeXtraPoor
on December 19, 2004 at 10:00 PM
| link to this | reply
kingmi
Sorry I mispelled the name.
posted by
Justi
on December 19, 2004 at 9:58 PM
| link to this | reply
kingme
I guess you have to get more specific in exactly what you mean by globalization. I do not want a United Nations type government for all. I do not want a one world court system, religion, money, trade system. In fact I don't want all the houses made of ticky tacky and we all go to the same university. All American main streets look alike now...Golden arches, Wal-Mart, yuk, yuk! I like the differences we have. America was erroded in 1947 after an organization established in the late 20s won a major court case. We have been headed toward Communism ever since. See my blog on the ACLU. As a Christian I believe in the Bible OT & NT and when all the people became to strong as one,they created the tower of babal, God changed their one language into many and scattered them all over the world where they formed different cultures. The trouble with America today is that so many other cultures are coming in and wanting to make it the same as they left, rather than come into it as it is. Then they are unhappy that they were not able to make it their Utopia. I am against globalization!
posted by
Justi
on December 19, 2004 at 9:57 PM
| link to this | reply
littleMsPickles, On the contrary. You have expressed the argument for the
other side very well. Thanks to you and Wiley for responding!
posted by
kingmi
on December 19, 2004 at 5:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Tough question....
I agree with globalisation but am against corporate greed! We are already on our way to having a global community where many Western and some Asian citizens live, work and play around the globe. Friendships and families exist across the waters - if these were strengthened perhaps then war, the environment, reduction in primary resources and other such issues could be tackled together instead of half-heartedly in an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mind fashion".
Greed and the need to be the very best and the top of the heap is what stops us from doing this. If people were able to accept other people's beliefs, even if not follow them, then perhaps a global community and globalisation as an off-shoot could work.
(A bit of a different global perspective, probably a little off track from your post, but some of my thoughts nonetheless...)
posted by
littlemspickles
on December 19, 2004 at 5:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Wiley, thank you. Hey you tackled this one and did yourself proud, Thanks for doing so.
posted by
kingmi
on December 19, 2004 at 4:50 PM
| link to this | reply
kingmi
I am almost afraid to answer this, how strange eh?
Well, I am against globalization, seems to me to be a plan by the "Corporate" side of democracy to have a way to get goods produced by the have not nations of the world at cheaper rates so more profits can be made for the few.
The price we are going to pay for selling to a nation like China that enslaves people, is that one day China will enslave North America.
I am all for North America doing what North America does better than anybody else, work hard, and invent and be creative, and giving, and be the light that shows the rest of the world what can be done if a country wants to do it.
Problem is, when systems like communism fail, North America helps out financially , and then those former communist countries get help to claw their way back out of the mess, and look out, because they will go back again to some other form communism, or totalitarianism, or dictatorship, because a democracy won't be allowed to survive I don't think.
Anyway, that's my rant Mike
posted by
WileyJohn
on December 19, 2004 at 4:11 PM
| link to this | reply