VWC Globalization and Empire Blog

Hietala

2007-02-28T01:06:00.001-05:00

Interesting review of Hietala's Manifest Design

Links and such

2007-02-06T14:56:00.000-05:00

Please post any links or blogs you know that would be relevant to the site. I think it will let you add them yourselves.

William Appleman Williams

2007-02-06T00:33:00.000-05:00

Good job ES, it works,...

Here, a short review of William Appleman William's "Empire as a Way of Life" from JSTOR. Might be helpful.

Non-Binding Resolutions?

2007-02-05T22:07:00.000-05:00

The Senate appears to be doing little in the way of exercising responsible policy on Iraq. While the virtual tie between the parties makes headway difficult, it would seem that the increasing unpopularity and disparity of events on the ground would warrant honest debate.

This is not the case. Instead the debate has once again been reduced to grandiose statements about supporting the troops or not wishing to cause defeat on the ground. If only the Senators saying the President needed support could hear themselves. They sound like little cheerleaders not wanting to admit their heroic team is loosing.

However, blame is plenty. The gang of Senatorial Presidential candidates is using the situation and every other event from taxes to the economy as a grandstand for their own campaigns. The group is always willing to issue their own declaratory statements on what they want instead of focusing the issue at hand. That issue is acting as a Senator.

Furthermore, all these Senators on both sides fail to admit their own accomplice to the war itself. The few who did vote against it in 2003 have all the room in the world to speak against it. The others should not be so keen on merely blaming their decisions on bad intelligence. If it was bad intelligence, then it was also emasculated politicians who did not have the wherewithal to execute oversight.

The blame also rests with the populace. Just like the Senators, doing an about face is hard to accept when the majority seemed quite alright back in 2003. I do not wish to argue that people cannot change their minds. Instead, people must change their minds cognizant of their own prior actions in relation to the event itself. By doing so, the debate can become more than just a blame game and instead focus on questioning what can be done to fix a situation that we started.

If non-binding resolutions are the case, than the American system of divided government does not hold much hope.

The Pirate Bay - The worlds largest BitTorrent tracker

2006-12-10T17:09:00.000-05:00

The Pirate Bay - The worlds largest BitTorrent tracker

To anyone still reading the blog this late in the semester:
This is a site that is both relevant to some of our class discussions and interesting to read. The Pirate Bay is a Sweeden-based site that facilitates file-sharing, and it has a page dedicated to the legal threats it has received and the (often hilarious) responses they have sent back. It's definately worth reading a few since they raise serious issues of extraterritorial jusrisdiction, but are also entertaining to read.

A Question...

2006-12-05T23:30:00.000-05:00

Recent events have brought the question into my mind of what to do to prevent atrocities in foreign states. Iraq is the catalyst for this question. First, despite the motivations of the Bush administration, it should be a positive gain that Sadam is no longer in power. Second, liberals bemoan the plight of people living under the grasp of dictators or oppressive governments, but now find it unpleasant that the removal has resulted in the current strife.
How can we complain about oppressive governments if we do not have the will to deal effectively and decisively? Is it nicer to employ sanctions? One needs only look at the result and harm that sanctions did on Iraq.
That results in two possible solutions. First, give up the fake “we care” attitude and treat governments the same. Open trade and normalize relations in an effort to bring the rouge state into the fold while hopefully opening the society to norms that would resort in political change. This would make sense economically because it would open new markets while saving time from fruitless sanctions that do little but bolster the targeted leader.
The other solution would come from the barrel of the gun. If we take Mao Zaedong’s statement that “Every communist [my case: people in general] must grasp the truth, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”’, then it would follow that just and effective use of force would be a force for change in affected regions. It is hard to say no when cold steel is brought down. Economic sanctions leave room to maneuver while a 5.56mm round leave less room for negotiation. This new use of force would need to be different then our current method. It would need to rely on troops on the ground and a clearly defined rebuilding plan. It is nice to claim that justice exists eternally and needs no force, but we only need to look at what our own society finds necessary to maintain a reasonably just society. I am not endorsing the over-use of force by our police, only the reasoned use against deserving individuals.
This brings me to Dafur. The ads claim diplomacy is the answer. What will bring the government to accountability if they view the AU and UN as emasculated forces, incapable of concrete action? Will nice talk make them resign? What about sanctions if China will not enforce them?
I do not know the answer to these questions. It is illogical to cry about the misdoings in the world if there is no will to act. I understand this is problematic. However, if we are unwilling to act then we should accept the consequences of our inaction and absolve from fruitless political posturing or sanctions that only serve to do more harm to the affected citizens while giving us a warm feeling that ‘We are doing something’ (note: sarcasm). Hopefully there will exist a solution someday. I would like to hear your opinions on the subject. Good Night.

The Wealth of Networks

2006-12-04T14:41:00.000-05:00

Benkler's conclusion is interesting, though I found it to be quite a difficult read. He concludes that although there is a push to use law to enclose the technological sphere and protect information and innovations from being shared freely, it is not likely that "law can unilaterally turn back a trend that combines powerful technological, social, and economical drivers".

I agree with Evan that Benkler's argument does seem to be a bit idealistic and it seems that he believes in a higher level of freedom that what these networks will bring us. I do think that networks are important for communications and bring about a stronger basis for supporting a free market and providing individuals with information.

Wealth of Networks

2006-12-04T14:33:00.000-05:00

I agree with Benkler's belief that the reduced cost of disseminating information creates an environment in which control over information and media are more less centrally controlled than they had previously been. I was interested by the inefficiencies that Benkler sees in proprietary systems as compared to non-proprietary ones. While non-proprietary systems of information on the Internet such as Wikipedia are interesting and certainly have found their niche, I do not believe that this is somehow undermines the well-established proprietary systems. Benkler provides a broader view of the Internet's ability to facilitate change than Goldsmith and Wu, but it did not seem to me that it was necessarily in contradiction with their conclusions. While Goldsmith and Wu warned against the belief that there would be a borderless internet, Benkler warned against discounting the real changes that the Internet has made.

The Wealth of Networks: Blogging

2006-12-04T00:27:00.000-05:00

I liked Benkler's conclusion, but my interest was caught by his elaboration on the common critique of the internet's ability to improve democracy and autonomy at the same time.

Especially interesting is the democracy-part where Benkler points out how mutual pointing and linking are connected ("Here, see for yourself. I think this is interesting"), because this is exactly what we are doing by blogging or what blogging in general is all about: We are contributing to and we are observing the judgments of others to what is interesting and valuable at the same time, in order to create some kind of "interest groups" or to utter criticism when necessary. The platform, a blog, is definitively less hierarchically organized than other parts of the mass-media environment such as tv or newspaper and therfore we can refer to ourselves as non-intellectual lemmings, not following any kind of movements or opions that makes us feel impelled to say certain things.

The idealism of networks

2006-12-03T18:46:00.000-05:00

The excerpt was interesting despite the heavy use of jargon. The argument that networks will provide greater freedom carries weight. It is logical that something far-reaching as the internet will help provide greater awareness because of the ability to connect people seemly across borders and will help foster the sharing of info that was not possible before due to territorial constraints or costs.
However, I do not agree with the assumption that networks will be as productive in creating overall freedom as Benkler suggests. While he notes their limitations, he forgets to see that networks are a tool and that a tool requires implementation. It may be unfair to judge his argument on the current progress of networks thus fair in creating freedom, but it does not seem that their primary purpose has been genuine individual autonomy and freedom unless you consider the ability to listen to ‘free’ music or buy from almost anywhere the growth of personal autonomy proposed by minds such as Voltaire or Kant.
It would also reason that people would have to have an interest in creating freedom. It would stand that there are more postings are the Internet currently on the latest culture item or scandal than on Dafur or global warming.
Furthermore, how can a network exist without engaging the system it lives in? Who will pay or foster greater development? There are certainly those who will work towards progress without pure economic progress, but it seems that this network is rooted in a physical world. The lines of transmission or wireless routers are beings of the physical world in which money is required to create this network that will provide freedom.
I do not want to discount the argument that networks will help to foster freedom. They are a major improvement in greater awareness. However, it seems premature and idealist to claim they will provide the level of freedom argued for by Benkler. Good Night.

The Wealth of Networks

2006-12-03T12:32:00.000-05:00

The conclusion of Benkler's discussion of the position of the internet in modern society is an interesting bookend to Goldsmith and Wu's Who Controls the Internet? While Goldsmith and Wu strongly believe that the internet has and will continue to be controlled by governmental policy, Benkler sees blogging, Wikipedia, and other collaborative social efforts to be ultimately in control of the internet. Benkler believes that "social production," or the efforts of group collaborations, are ultimately more profitable under the new market introduced by the internet. Like Goldsmith and Wu, Benkler acknowledges the role of government control over the internet, realizing that it can impede on the growth of this new sector of the economy, but he seems to think that this is less likely. Benkler is much more optimistic about the democratic future of the internet. He sees the freedoms expanding through these new ecnonomic opportunities.

While the reading was dense at times, his theories are interesting. However, after reading Goldsmith and Wu I am tentative as to the true "freedoms" the internet may hold. While large-scale group collaboration is possible on the internet without restriction (such as through blogs like our very own), I do not think the amazing transformation of "markets and freedoms" that Benkler implies is likely. New freedoms will be established, and the market will adapt to fit this new economic sector (as it already has begun doing), but eventually the internet will suffer the same regulations as all other spheres. The most interesting aspect of Benkler's arguement, in my opinion, was how he considers "social sharing" a form of free transaction. I had never thought of simple daily transactions in this manner before. Such a mindset opens up an entire world of unrealized freedoms, uncontrolled by government regulation. Benkler's implication that expanding this sector of transactions would undoubtedly expand freedoms in general is an interesting connection, but seems overly idealistic.

Benkler vs. Goldsmith & Wu

2006-12-01T21:27:00.000-05:00

The selection from Yochai Benkler’s book The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom seemed to be essentially the counterargument to Goldsmith and Wu’s Who Controls the Internet: Illusions of a Borderless World. Goldsmith and Wu claimed the internet to be necessarily bordered with required national governance to protect honest citizens from those that want to copy and defraud others. Meanwhile, Benkler assumed the “goodness” of all people and took pride in what he considered the greater autonomy, democracy, self-reflection and human connections offered by the networked information economy.

Where Goldsmith and Wu stressed the influence of territory and government interference, Benkler argued that the internet is a source “of information and communication facilities that no one owns or exclusively controls” (465). Benkler also stated that the internet offers “a genuine reorganization of the public sphere” (465) where Goldsmith and Wu emphasized the commonalities between the territorial space and the establishment of the internet. In a similar sub-argument Benkler claimed that the internet is less hierarchically organized and controlled than mass media. This idea was also addressed in Goldsmith and Wu’s work as they discussed the influence of the government hierarchy on the internet.

Finally, Benkler claimed that the internet would most likely bring about a redistribution of wealth and power from the dominant businesses to social groups and individuals. This somewhat utopian ideal was stressed by Goldsmith and Wu as antithetical to the real desires of internet users looking for a safe and secure network. The only statement all of these authors might agree on was that the internet is providing an “opportunity” for change. Benkler advocated taking hold of the opportunity in his work, and Goldsmith and Wu saw change as possible but only through certain restrictions. Overall, Benkler, Goldsmith and Wu all offered interesting perspectives on the future of the internet, but as they almost completely opposed each other; the end results will most likely be a combination of theories.

TNR this week

2006-11-29T14:18:00.000-05:00

The New Republic this week deals with the question of Iraq. I would recommend reading this because it covers a wide range of ideas. Here is a quote from the editors.

"At this point, it seems almost beside the point to say this: The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war. The past three years have complicated our idealism and reminded us of the limits of American power and our own wisdom. But, as we pore over the lessons of this misadventure, we do not conclude that our past misjudgments warrant a rush into the cold arms of "realism." Realism, yes; but not "realism." American power may not be capable of transforming ancient cultures or deep hatreds, but that fact does not absolve us of the duty to conduct a foreign policy that takes its moral obligations seriously. As we attempt to undo the damage from a war that we never should have started, our moral obligations will not vanish, and neither will our strategic needs."

XM Radio and Copyright Infringement

2006-11-29T13:33:00.000-05:00

After reading Who Control's the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World, by Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu, I thought about what other forms of technology may be experiencing this same path of creating borders that prevent users from crossing the line between what is legally, morally, or socially acceptable and what is not. The first thing I thought of was the XM Satellite Radio. So I searched for some news articles on the relatively new technology (it has been around for several years now) and found several law suits involving the XM Satellite Radio. Major record labels have filed suits against XM Radio because of copyright infringement. The recording capabilities of the new XM Radio receivers allow users to record save music, similar to how TiVo records on one's television.

So it appears that XM Radio has comparable issues to those of the Internet. There must be some limit to what a user can do with these new technologies so that legal boundaries, such as copyrights, are not crossed.

I do not really understand how this is different from recording music from a normal radio station to a cassette tape, but apparently that is illegal too, unless authorized by RIAA (there is a small subsection about this at the bottom of the article found below).

So what next, ban recordable CDs for recording music?

You can read the article here.

An Answer to All the Financial Issues Behind Globalization

2006-11-29T11:45:00.000-05:00

I a recent International Herald Tribune article, Daniel Altman announced that an economist from UC Berkley has in fact developed the solution to developing an international, stable monetary policy. Widely regarded as one of the main problems involved with globalizations, fluctuating monetary policies between countries is exactly the reason that the IMF and World Bank were created in th 1940s. Andrew Rose, the champion of the plan, has stated that "A combination of floating exchange rates and inflation-targeting is a recipe not just for a stable policy within a country... but also for a stable global monetary system." Interestingly enough, this a reversal of the original basis of the IMF. Where the system under the IMF called for a centralization of monetary policy, Rose believes that the complete decentralization of economic interests will prove most beneficial. In the new system, each country would develop its own monetary policy, indicting their own "goals for the size of the money supply, interest rates, and exchange rates." With the IMF removed from the equation, the 'referee' of the system disappears, but Rose believes that each country will keep their exchange rates logical because it is in their own economic best interest.
While the global economy has been moving away from intervention by the IMF, and the decisions made at the Bretton Woods Convention have not been truly effective since the 70s, Rose still proposes an extreme change from our current understanding of the global economy.

For a more indepth discussion of the economics of it all, check out the article
Altman relates Rose's propositions to both country and global economies, making it especially relative to our discussion of the globalization of economies.

Funkadelics Con't

2006-11-29T11:34:00.000-05:00

Well, as a result of Dan's blog and the enlightening lyrics he included, I did a bit of research on the history of these witty gentlemen.

Here's a excerpt from a PBS website on the history of George Clinton and the Funkadelics:
Spanning half a century, the history of Parliament Funkadelic is as varied in its musical stylings as in the rotating cast of musicians that have graced Parliament, Funkadelic and the collective P-Funk stage. From their early days as a literal barbershop quintet to the rise and fall—and rise again—of the famed Mothership, P-Funk’s five decades and counting also reflect larger changes in fashion, funk and more.
It all began in Newark, New Jersey in the mid-1950s, when George Clinton formed a doo-wop group, with three school chums, called the Parliaments. Later, in Plainfield, New Jersey, Ray Davis, Calvin Simon, Fuzzy Haskins and Grady Thomas replaced the original members and tightened up their harmonies in the barbershop where George did hair. By the 1960s, they had recorded a few pop and R&B songs including the R&B hit, “(I Wanna) Testify,” which reached the charts in 1967. But by the late 1960s, doo-wop had all but lost its cool.
P-Funk concerts were lavish occasions. They brought the glam rock phenomenon of David Bowie and KISS to black music, raising the bar for their contemporaries like Earth, Wind and Fire and Kool and the Gang. From 1975 through 1977, the Mothership Tour featured a giant spaceship that landed onstage with Clinton inside, who would then emerge dressed in an outrageous costume. Later, the Motor Booty Affair featured a host of amphibious characters who could “dance underwater and not get wet.” The collective nature of the band came through in concert, with often nearly 30 people performing on stage at once with extravagant props and outlandish costumes. Several spin-off groups were formed, such as Bootsy’s Rubber Band, the Brides of Funkenstein, Parlet and the Horny Horns. P-Funk even extended their work into the realm of film, with never-released features showcasing an actual Mothership “landing” in New York City’s Times Square.
For a complete history, check out the website...

They certainly were a creative bunch, with album names such as Clones of Dr. Funkenstein andTales of Kidd Funkadelic.

Hooray! No terrorists in Bollywood!

2006-11-29T10:47:00.000-05:00

Bollywood Star Guilty of Arms Possession, but Cleared of Terrorism

By AMELIA GENTLEMAN
Published: November 29, 2006
NEW DELHI, Nov. 28 — Indians were entranced by Sanjay Dutt’s portrayal of a middle-aged mobster in this year’s biggest movie, “Lage Raho Munnabhai.” Whether they will be as enchanted by his conviction Tuesday for real-life arms possession is less certain.
Mr. Dutt, one of Bollywood’s top stars, was playing himself when, looking even more disheveled than usual, he arrived Tuesday for a high-drama courtroom scene in Mumbai to hear the verdict. He was found guilty of illegally possessing weapons, which he was accused of buying from gangsters suspected of planning India’s worst terrorist attack. But he was acquitted of the more serious charges of involvement in the terrorist conspiracy itself.
The case stems from the 1993 bombings in Mumbai, formerly Bombay, in which 257 people were killed. Mr. Dutt faces up to 10 years in prison, but a time for sentencing has not been determined.
“I have not found that he was a terrorist or was destructive,” Judge Pramod Kode said. Later, the judge told Mr. Dutt, “I have said that you are not a terrorist.” ....

Bollywood?

This article from the New York Times caught my eye as we (obviously) have been talking about globalization. The Hollywood-Bollywood comparison was rather interesting...

Through the Michael Jordan book and the borderless internet book, we've been discussing how the spread of American culture affects other countries. We've asked what goals selling our goods and occasionally our celebrities, through film and television, have in other countries. I wonder who started Bollywood and when, whether or not it was American led, or Indian led through the influence of American films.

When ya gotta go....

2006-11-29T00:38:00.000-05:00

I guess when nature calls, there is no choice but to relieve yourself of it. When you are dedicated, you'll go to any lengths to win. For some, that can mean urinating in public, or on themselves. Check this out.

It is amazing what you can find on a topic when you start searching google for wierd stuff. Another thing mentioned in class was the so called "Runner's trots" as many call it. Apparently running for long periods of time causes gastrointestinal problems in some runners. There are even published articles on this topic from journals of medicine.

Funkadelics

2006-11-29T00:18:00.000-05:00

The Funkadelics were mentioned in class the other day, so I went to look up some lyrics. I found some pretty interesting lyrics, and have copied some below. You can find more lyrics here at songlyrics.com

{assorted groans, whispers, wails & moans}
{spoken}
A luscious bitch she is, true
But it's not nice to fool mother nature
The proud mother of god like all ho's

Is jealous of her own shadow
So who is this young Vic Tanny bitch
Who wish to be queen for a day?
Who would sacrifice the great grandsons and daughters
Of her jealous mother
By sucking their brain
Until their ability to think was amputated
By pimping their instincts
Until they were fat, horny and strung-out
In her neurotic attempt to be queen of the universe
Who is this bitch?

Iraq?

2006-11-28T22:57:00.000-05:00

Iraq seems to be getting worse by the day. Hundreds dead on Friday with more certain to come. The Iraq Study Group is working behind the scenes to come up with some solution to save face. John McCain said we should deploy the requisite troops needed to get the job done or find a way out if we do not have the will to do so. Meanwhile the Democrats are discordant in their policy with ABSCAM-participants being put up for election to the majority leader seat in the House due to political debts (Thankfully he lost). What if anything can be done or thought of?

I do not wish to propose any ideas because the ideas are useless unless we first determine what our goals are. The nation may wish to remain uninformed about the true motives or goals of the Iraq war. Whether it is to bolster oil, slow China’s progress, create political diversions at home, or to reshape the Middle East in an attempt to further its efficiency in the world system; the American public does not appear overtly willing to consider these ideas.

It troubles me what the effect of American involvement or withdrawal will be? Will it be better for us to do what is necessary to create some form of stability? While many Americans have now found it beneficial to call for withdrawal, it seems that withdrawal is akin to Vietnamization. Instead of fixing the mess, we appear to be ready to leave. It may be in the American thought to now dissolve ourselves of guilt and instead engage in some form of orientalism and claim it is “their” fault things are not working instead of acknowledging our own guilt. People on both sides who completely failed and emasculated themselves by refusing to question entry or the initial conduct of the war now say “not our fault, not our problem”. Maybe the question should now be, “our fault, how do we fix it so that Iraq works for their benefit and our own”, yes I said our own because it is our mess to clean up and as a realist sympathizer, a benefit to our own state power. Without endorsing Bush we need to be willing to take military, economic, and diplomatic measures necessary to fix the problem. This may be unpleasant but I think it is in our own interest and responsibility to find a solution that works without us leaving a bigger problem then we started with. This may be what our goal should be. Good Night.

Europe as the Future Global Hegemon

2006-11-27T13:04:00.000-05:00

Many of our readings, most obviously the recent book by McCormick, state that America's position as a global hegemon has already peaked, and is facing a great decline in the coming years. In an article from the International Herald Tribune, the opening line reads "Europe is overtaking the United States and Japan in the race to take advantage of the explosion in world trade and investment." This clear statement of growing EU power indicates the formidable future for US hegemony. As established in previous discussions, much of the characteristics required for true global control involve establishing a economic environment that capitalizes on your country's economic strengths and exploits the strengths of other countries. Recently, according to the article, the countries of the EU have come to have a much greater impact on the growing markets in Brazil, Russia, India, China, and other developing countries. In fact, recent reports from Merrill Lynch have identified the "euro zone," 12 countries in Europe, as their preferred market for the past 6 month and the coming year.
While pieces of the hegemonic puzzle are falling into place for Europe, it is important to note that a significant number of European citizens do not support globalization, and instead view it as a threat to the European lifestyle of strong unions and guaranteed employment. If Europe is to emerge as a singular global power, they must reform globalization to meet the needs of their population, or convince them otherwise. Obviously, the rise and fall of global powers is undeniably relevant to our understanding of globalization. I found the article extremely interesting... here is the full text.

Bookstore...

2006-11-27T12:54:00.000-05:00

I went to the bookstore and checked out some of the clothes they got:

Most of the product were made in Guatemala, Mexiko, Vietnam and Phillipines. Only one item was made in the US (IL). Be aware!

"Peace: A 'Divisive' Concept"

2006-11-27T12:23:00.000-05:00

Political activism and expression seems to be experiencing significant scrutiny in recent months. In this age of great political controversy, "architectural control committees" and home owners associations are beginning to impede on these first amendment rights of expression. An article I recently came across from the Houston Chronicle discusses the outlandish expectations of these ridiculous associations. I have never lived in a community with a Home Owners Association or any similar governing body other than the township itself, so such laws are extremely surreal to me. In the case cited in the article entitled "Peace: A 'Divisive' Concept," a Colorado woman placed a christmas wreath on her door that was in the shape of a peace sign. Various neighbors complained that the wreath was against the war with Iraq, and the Home Owners Association ordered that it be removed from her window.
While a sign of peace does not seem deivisive to me, the mere fact that an association can order the removal of any sign from a home owner's yard confuses me. Even if she did mean for the wreath to represent an anti-war message, that too is an opinion that should be respected under the US Constitution. Additionally, I can't help but see such organizations as the "Architectural Control Committee" as Orwellian euphemisms for outlandish control over personal actions.
Even more interestingly, this image of an ideal suburban neighbor full of labradors and white fences is just the American image our society loves to portray. Just as LaFeber explains in Michael Jordan, the capitalist motivation has begun to break down cultural characteristics. The generic, controlled environment that results seems disinteresting to most. As our suburban communities begin to be controlled entirely by such associations, the nondescript lifestyle that results is that same way of life we are selling to other countries.
Overall, I thought this article was a good representation of changes in America that will undoubtedly be processed by globalization and reach into the cultures of foreign nations.
Here's the full article if you're so inclined...

Darwin's Nightmare III

2006-11-27T11:12:00.000-05:00

Indeed, the documentary does a real good job. There are two interesting points that I wanted to add:

Firstly, what I also found quite striking is that the poorest of the poor are really self aware of their situation. During the documentary a Tanzanian security guard points out that he is very aware of the fact that international institutions as the IMF and the World Bank are ran by people from the Western world and that they are not interested in the common good of the Tanzanian people. In addition he says that only education would help to change the negative trend in Tanzania, but is also aware that he does not have the money to allow his children to study and go to school.

Secondly, besides the fact that the Tanzanian people are exploited by the Western world, I found it also interesting, how we employ Russians in order to transport weapons to African ( and even to Afghanistan) and transport fish to Europe. This documentary shows how global capitalism works and how the market is looking in all directions in order to find the cheapest labor (Russians, old Russian cargo-planes, Tanzanians).

Re: Darwin's Nightmare

2006-11-27T10:58:00.000-05:00

I saw the same Darwin's Nightmare documentary that Dan blogged on. The fishing industry in Lake Victoria is not sustainable, and once the fish are gone, the transnational corporations will most likely pull out of the country and leave it to perish. For the moment, fishing is the Tanzania's competitive advantage, but the industry is controlled by companies that have no real interest in the long-term effects for the country. I remember one of the local Tanzanian men saying in an interview that he hopes war breaks out again because war provides a way to make a living. The documentary does a good job illustrating the flaws in the ideology of free trade and its supposedly universal benefits.