Aileron

You call globalization "blind ignorance", but you do not compare it to anything else. There are three basic possibilities here, globalization, mercantilism, or a combination of the two. So if globalization is so horrible, lets compare it to the alternative. Lets take the example of two countries one 3rd world with no resources at all other than people and one 1st world with enough resources to fulfill all the worlds wants (an economic non possibility) ten times over. Suppose then, that there were no trade between them. The business of the first world country would be forced to hire employees from the 1st world country. However, since the 1st world workers already have their wants fulfilled twenty times over, it requires a huge salary to hire them. The 3rd world country would like nothing more than to have a job, but can't due to them not having resources. In the long term, the 1st world citizens live in bliss while the 3rd world citizens starve. Suppose then, that they could trade freely, without even problems of transport. The 1st world businesses would then hire 3rd world workers. While the third world workers would demand less than the 1st world worker, they would be making more than they would in the other situation. Over the long term, the wealth would gradually transfer to the 3rd world country, giving them more resources, and eventually they would start fullfilling their needs, then their wants. The 1st world citizens would be out of a job, and would have to accept lower standards until eventually their requests would be the same as the 3rd world workers. In this case the worldwide number of used resources increase because the third world citizens added to the workforce would increase the efficiency of the resources utilized. Suppose in this case it went from the worlds wants x 10 to the worlds wants x 11. However, note what happened to the 1st world country. They went from having their wants x 20 reached to their wants x 11 reached. They LOST money. It was the third world who went from x0 to x11. Thus, there are two cases in which a 1st world country will go along with globalization. The first case is that they are incredibly generous. Since according to the two 'M's, all first world countries and their citizens are evil, this can never happen. The other possibility is that the increase in the worlds production goes up proportionally, from x10 to at least x20. Then, they are getting more out of it than they are putting in. However, it must be noted in this case than the 3rd world country gets a x20 increase, where the 1st world gets x10. To sum it up, Globalization always helps the third world countries out more than the first world countries!!!!!

Actually, I was trying to leave that out as much as possible. But your overall point is right. Companies make more than money. As companies get larger, they also get power over their industry, both domestically and internationally. Basically, the free market system ALWAYS works. However, as companies become larger, they begin to control their industry, and the market is no longer free. Thus, government intervention is required. Basically, the debate over globalization is a distraction. What is needed is that the same controll over domestic free markets be applied to international.

Well, a nation by definition requires four componants: land, population, sovreignty, and culture. If it fails to have any of these, it cannot be a nation. Culture also has to have similar componants, such as race, lifestyle, language, religion, and other things. Since religion is part of culture, and culture is part of the defignition of nation. Thus, without ANY set religion, a nation will cease to exist. What I am referring to here is COMMON religion. If there were a state with all athiest citizens, they may not have a religion, but they would all share common beliefs. What I am referring to is a state in which every single person had a different religion. This group is what would not be a nation. They would have religion, but it is COMMON religion that they lack. Also note that this doesn't have to be ONE common religion. While this would create the strongest state, a nation could survive off of several religions. However, the more religions there are, the closer the nation is to no common beliefs and the weaker the nation. This alone does not prove my arguement. By this, a nation could coincidentally have a somewhat uniform religion without government support. However, since a nation requires by defignition that it has some uniformity in it's religion, the majority or atleast several groups of people must share a common religion. !@#$%^&*uming that there is sovreignty (another requirement for being a nation) and that the populace's voice affects the decisions of the government, (and this happens even in a dictatorship) the opinions of the populace will invariably define the government. Thus, since the populace must show some uniformity in religion and since the populace will always affect the government, a government cannot be completely seperate from religion. That was kind of lengthy, so I will sum it up: A nation requires culture and thus requires a common religion. Also, a nation is required to be sovreign, so it's government must be affected by its populace. Since the government must be affected by the populace and the populace must have a common religion, the government must have some hint of that common religion in it.

That simply isn't true. Latin America is way more religious than the US. Also, take Spain with a 99% Catholic population. More Spanish are Catholic than Spanish-Speaking. Also, take the UK - Ireland example. The ONLY difference between those two countries is religion. The Italian culture is also highly religious. Israel, if you count it a s a western society, is another good example. Note also that it is even WORSE for cases when these countries were founded. Yes, there is a christian element in the US society, but it isn't "more than most other wester societies." The D of I was left out because it as no current legal status. We are not diss!@#$%^&*ociting it with the Cons!@#$%^&*ution, it was never !@#$%^&*ociated in the first place. I also highly doubt that you have read every US state cons!@#$%^&*ution. If you did, you need a life. Seriously though, as an Australian, you probably haven't been let in on the intricities of what is going on. According to their theory, the reason why they considered the separation of church and state and the numerous references to God compatible was because in 18th century America, that was close enough. The only people here were christian, because no non-christian would have interest to travel all the way around the world by boat. I only agree with the references because of what they do. First off, they keep the government is a place under religion in the most universally way possible. Secondly, it gives a tiny hint of an endorsed religion that every nation needs. Just as pure democracy doesn't work, pure seperation between church and state won't work either.

Well, you are confusing your upper-class people. The Mexican upper class is the one (generally) kicking people off of their farms. The United States upper class is building the Maquilladoras. The Mexican upper class is the ones bribing the governement. The United States upper class would, but they generally don't know they can do that yet. Overall, this won't matter to the Mexican worker. However, supposing we could remove the US from the picture here, the Mexicans would be in a worse situation, because the Mexican upper class would still be taking their lands, but there would be no Maquiladora job to replace it. Overall, you must remember that the victims of globalization in the Mexican US case are the Mexican businesses and the US workers. That is because they now have to compete with tougher compe!@#$%^&*ion. Your overall point holds true though. Globalization and Capitalism should be a controlled process. However, nobody here doubted that to begin with.

Um, not to be rude Monte, but last time I checked this was a US-domestic issue. It really is none of your business.

Actually, Globalization is caused by increase in technology. In order to stop it we would need to uninvent the internet, the telephone, the airplane, the train, the truck, and the ship. Basically, understand right now that no matter what we do, it cannot be stopped. What we CAN do is negotiate trade agreements so that everybody gets the best deal. That is what the WTO meetings are for. As for the "exploiting" of third world labor, Live-Wire and Starlight Twinkle Dancer are right. The cost of labor in these countries is the only thing they have going for them. If you were to deny them that, and force companies to give the wage of a first world country, the company would simply move out. The thing about this is that they are getting a poor paying job in comparison with no job. Simply put, even a fraction of a dollor per hour is still better than nothing. Besides, the cost of living in third world countries is also a lot less. That pay wouldn't buy food in a first world country. However, the worker is surrounded by people even more poor than he is. Thus, that insignificant rate is enough to buy all of the worker's and his families' needs.

I don't think that post had a single opinion in it. What was your point? However, as to that last question, the former result is more likely. The European Union should be regarded as an exception to the norm because it is not only economics but politics that is gradually removing sovreignty to European countries. Thus, it is more likely that the rest of the nation-states will be able to control their policies, while the European bloc will control their policies as a group.

Some do the paperwork, answering the phone, etc. Others will help move patients and lift them up for whatever needs done.

You do have a point there, although it doesn't disqualify my use of the analogy. My point was that they were weak because they did not have a single strong central iden!@#$%^&*y. The reason they did not have a strong central iden!@#$%^&*y is irrelevent.

ours aren't. Our nurses are middle aged. However, the lower level !@#$%^&*istants are.

I am afraid the the US is slowly becoming the Ottoman Empire. For those who don't know, the Ottomans were the ULTIMATE in being nice to their many religions, races, and cultures. For instance, every local municipality had their own little national language. Also, you would never be held accountable for crimes of a religion that was seperate from your own. ...and now for the down side... The fact that every little province had their own language really hurt the country. Merchants would have to learn several languages to sell their wares. Government edicts would have to be translated to be emplaced. They could not build an effective military because orders would have to be shouted in several langauges. As for the second part, the fact that this happened allowed for no national law. Since laws and punishments vary from religion to religion, some people would be immune to laws that others would be executed for. I don't know what would have happened if there was a sect of aethiests in the country. Not only that, but criminals who had traveled would have to be shipped back to their home province to be tried. All in all, the problem with the Ottoman Empire was that it had no cultural iden!@#$%^&*y. Because of this, the nation was in actuallity a group of loosely-alligned provinces. This made the country incredibly weak, putting it in a long downward spiral until WWI. What is the relevence of this? It shows that a nation needs to have a cultural iden!@#$%^&*y. This cultural iden!@#$%^&*y includes a religion. Thus, we need to have one religion that happens to be predominent. This doesn't justify any discrimination against those who are not of the majority. It just means that we should not take an active part in supporting a minority over a majority. Thus, the seperation between church and state can only go so far, because it is in the state's interest that one religion is dominent. In my opinion, a hint of christianity in things like this is a good thing because it maintains national iden!@#$%^&*y while keeping the boundary between church and state distinct.

Um, most health care workers are not fat. I know a few, but most of us are too scared, because we see what happens to fat people. Basically, the PATIENTS are fat, not the health care workers.

Overall, I just don't think that "under God" compares to having government thugs going around arresting and torturing those who are not of the national religion. Yes, it does in some extent endorse the Christian beliefs. However, the scope of the endorsement is so small that it simply isn't worth correcting. If somebody has that big of a beef with it, can't they put "under Budha" or "under Allah" in their own little modified version of it? It would be a whole lot easier than having the ENTIRE country change for the minority. I mean, we have other wars to fight with poverty, unemployment, terrorists, etc. We are spending time away from important issues to spend time on two little words of a recited passage that you really don't have to recite anyway.

Actually, when they aren't, usually the reverse is the case - the government runs the church. The only exceptions I can think of were Spain where control was mutual, and the Ottoman Empire, where the laws which applied to a citizen was the laws of that citizen's religion. The former was due to a 99% Catholic Population, in which case to seperate church and state is impossible. The latter was due to weakness of central control and overappeasement to minority religions.

yeah, % off 20% on.

I think that this whole thing is overdone. It two f****** words!!!! The whole seperation between church and state origionated from the English forcing the Anglican church on everyone, which at the time held the King as leader. Basically, it would set up a religion in which if you opposed the king, you would go to -*BAD WORD*-. The two words in the pledge of allegience don't even compare to that. Also, those words also remind us that if there is a conflict between religion and country, religion should win. It is a reminder that a person serves their god before their country.

good point.

agreed

Shouldn't this be in the trash talk forum? It barely amounts to meaningfull criticism.

NEVER!

Yeah, well as a health care worker I suggest that you don't eat McDonalds no matter how rich or poor you are. Have you ever tried giving an X-ray to a person who weighs 600 lbs. from eating too many Big Macs? Tech> The lungs aren't showing, we need to increase mAs !@#$%^&*istant> It is already running at maximum capacity sir. Tech> We need more mAs! !@#$%^&*istant> She can't take the power, captain! Not only that, but it is absolutely impossible to push them around, even on a bed. And the best part is that since they are too lazy to get up and probably couldn't fit into their bath tub anyway, most of them have a few decades worth of stink to them. I haven't even covered the problems faced by other departments such as the amount of drugs needed and the difficulty in taking a blood pressure. Point being, not only does being fat hurt your health, but it decreases a hospital's ability to treat you, so stop eating those McDonald's hambergers!!!

*some kind of arguement supporting guns just as soon as everyone gets back on topic.*

Hurrah! Davis the Moronic is out of power. Viva la revolution!

Well, this was in Kosovo I think. There were no kangaroos around. Besides, blowing cows up is the quickest and easiest way to make third world hambergers.