Comments on: Do we need more Internet or fewer fistulas?

By: gary broderick

gary broderick — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:23:52 +0000

I think plenty of good can come from organized, bold, and politically educated American people. Organizing in New Jersey got an extra tax on anyone who makes over $500,000, that was important progressive taxation victory, where I’m from in Highland Park, people organized and got the bottom track removed from the High School, and brought awareness to tracking as a racist school practice.

When a state’s main function is making war and Corporate Welfare, thats extremely close to facism. So, I think “riddled with problems” is an understatement. But I don’t know when I said nothing good can come of it? I think organized people can always accomplish good.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:47:54 +0000

This is ridiculous. The outcome of this argument is that, since American democracy is riddled with problems, nothing good can come of it. This type of cynicism leads people nowhere except to a world where nothing matters.

By: gary broderick

gary broderick — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:43:34 +0000

That voting is the paramount form of civic participation in a Democracy is American Mythology. American Capitalism needs Decmoracy to be articulated as moments of accountability for representatives. Because the truth is, having to make decisions based on financial neccessity is anti-thetical to participation in power over your own life and society i.e to Democracy. Voting is important, but America is a perfect example of how economic inequaliy can completely underminde Democracy.

I don’t know enough about Cuba to defend it, but to continue posing questins for us both to search answers to:

Do the recently devastated people of New Orleans have more power over their own lives than Cuban citizens?

Also, Private “citizens” acting on their own whim, as you use it, means wealthy people promoting media literacy and technology abroad. Wealthy people or organizations with few exceptions are a result of a society with an infa-structure of inequality, so I don’t understand how that would withstand moral scrutiny. And to define private citizens acting on their own whim as meaning able to spend their wealth is problamatic if Democracy is defined by the empowermnent of all people.

Given the current terrible climate, private organizations can play a positive role, but in truth, citizens of Democracy should never have to rely on private mechanisms to secure their welfare.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:55:01 +0000

They’re not. We’re talking about private organizations using donated funds (yes, some of it from the U.S.) to promote media literacy and technology abroad — not with the intent of cultural imperialism (we’re all quite aware of that problem) but with helping cultures develop they’re own way. It’s an opposition to American domination.

Unlike in Cuba, in America there’s the possibility for private citizens to act out on their own whims, not the whim of the state.

By: gary broderick aka Fidel apologist.

gary broderick aka Fidel apologist. — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:48:20 +0000

I think this is interesting. Also when America gives technology to a land, what is it taking? To what extent is America or other westernized nations trying to make the world in its own image. The wonderful technologies that develop out of neccessiry in other parts of the world, maybe not be the same is American technology. Technology doesn’t exist as part of any specific chrnological order, but rather has been molded out of specific necessities, cultural factors, and research and development. I mean if it raising the living standards then thats a major argurment for it, but its also a huge co-opting, a huge infiltration of any American company that advertises on the internet?

And it shoud be kept in mind, that one of the main ways the American Empire functions now is by loaning money to country’s for them to build their infa-structure, the country has to hire American Corporations so right of the bat, its a redistribution of wealth from American taxpayers to American Corporations, if the deal is set up properly, the Country will have to default on the loan, which then puts American in a position to make any demands on the country needed to be American Corporate friendly.

So to what extent are these the same principles at play?