Slashdot

One of the measures of intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing viewpoints in your head at the same time. By this measure I'd have to estimate that most people are not very bright. The argument that "my scumbags are far superior to your scumbags" is only possibly where a switch has been turned off. The ability to critically analyze the behavior of ANY political group will yield inescapable conclusions. However, you do have to be able to divorce yourself from an emotional attachment to a "side" while still acknowledging that attachment.

Call it American Pragmatism, I do.

Right now the only thing that is obvious is that one party control of government is a Bad Thing. As a strategic voter I'd vote Democrat in the midterm election purely to address this issue. If the democrats held the same position I'd vote republican. Vote without affliliation, it is the only way to save America.

heh heh. I happen to think that if you step up a few thousand feet and look down what you see is an online landscape that is forming itself around the (needs/rules/requirements/pressures/right word?) of social community.

Before long I think it will be quite common to be as recognizable as a real person online as it is in meatspace. This won't happen overnight because many services and accounts (and etc) must be linked together first. The privacy nuts will scream and yell the entire way and generally make what is obvious become a painful ordeal.

One site I saw recently that takes a tiny babystep in this direction is http://grou.ps. They are still trying to focus this at the level of discreet groups rather than letting individuals form an identity via account linking FIRST and then use matching algorithms to form the groups. See where I'm going here? Scary, yeah I won't deny that but it is the future of human interaction.

For a moment there I thought you were talking about the United States (but you kept saying China). Nation-states have learned, over time, that some element of capitalism must exist in an economy for mega-societies to survive/thrive. However, the lesson so far has been that oppressive governments can use capitalism as effectively as non-oppressive ones.

Some may argue that the inevitable result of this is that most nation-states will tend toward a blended model with more repressive governments that rely more on a "free" market for distribution. Where the oligarchs feel like skimming they will skim and where they feel the "invisible hand" needed they will let that operate. The lesson of failed communism was learned well not only by the Chinese but by other nations as well. Slowly, quietly, insidiously I think you'll see personal and political freedoms erode even as economic freedoms expand. I also think it will happen slowly enough that most won't even notice it happening.

One open question is whether the nation-states in the Middle East have learned this lesson as a way to develop advanced economies WITH religious fundamentalists in charge of the government. With that as an open question it makes one wonder exactly what the US is trying to spread to Iraq. Also, under this particular lens, the recent victory of Hamas makes more sense. Will they enable a free market while still oppressing political freedom and human rights? China has shown the way to doing exactly that AND how to get the support of the West in the process.

Interesting times.

I went into this at length when the same thing came up WRT MS and China. I'm going to defend Google the same way I defended Microsoft. Corporations are not here to be champions of human rights. Google has an obligation to its shareholders to make money.

The chain of responsibility here remains The Chinese people>Chinese Government>Pacific Rim nations>The Western world

For the Western world the majority of the obligation falls to elected leaders to use government policy to attempt to implement change around the world. Corporations have an obligation to follow the law as set by governments and the people have the obligation to select the right government. Corporations WILL do buisness in whatever enviroment they are placed in. That is, in fact, one of the strengths of the corporation and why they can be so heartless and ruthless. If you want change in China here is what you do:

A) search for the political party or politicians who support taking actions to promote human rights in China.
B) Dig out your wallet and donate money to said party or individual.
C) Get ass to polls to vote.
D) If that person wins make sure you stay in contact with them on the issue.

There you have a real, and workable plan to implement change in the world. Now, you had better bear in mind that any intrusive actions or offensive actions on the part of our government may piss off the Chinese. This can cause them to sell our bonds, pop the real estate bubble, and make you wish you were never born. But hey, at least the Chinese people would have...well I'm not sure what they'd have--a pissed off government for sure. What does NOT work is bitching about corporations that you think should unilaterally either cut off the Chinese people or flagrantly offend the Chinese government. Yes it feels good because there don't seem to be consequences but the harsh reality is that real change that is faster than the people in a country want comes with very real consequences (koff Iraq koff koff).

I don't have a problem with GM foods. I DO like to be able to avoid eating them if I so choose and I usually do so choose. I'm a lot like your "other half" in that I'll pay the premium for the USDA organic label on the front of a package. However, there have been efforts to weaken the USDA Organic standard in recent times. Part of the problem is that the organic foods business is now a multi-billion dollar a year industry and those industry leaders want to maintain their 20% growth rate. To do so I think they have calculated that USDA Organic and "all-natural" have to get a lot closer...meaning that organic move a lot closer to "all-natural". With "all-natural" being a throw away label that means almost nothing you can imagine a lot of people are pissed off.

In fact, Arthur Harvey took the Secretary of Ag to court over this very topic and won! Of course Congress rushed to pass laws to mitigate the impact of the loss on the big "organic" producers who said that actually complying with the original 1990 act would put them out of business. HELLO! USDA Organic was never intended to be some catch-all label. It was meant to be a high standard with some pretty strict guidelines that must be followed and is why we pay such a high premium for it.

To see how one big producer reacted to this go to Organic Valley's website. They basically complain about being required to comply with the law and I think that sucks. I think the "democratic process" they refer to is the one they pay their lobbists to structure in Washington and how dare this guy win in the courts on the ACTUAL LAW. I was stunned by this and I've written Horizon for their opinion on whether they also think it sucks to obey the law.