Corporate America - DPChallenge Forums

07/24/2002 09:55:44 AM · #76

Well, as someone else said in earlier posts...any person could write a book about their "opinion" of any side of the "New World Order".

Here is the bottom line.

The United States is the superpower, the only superpower left on the planet. It''s a dangerous place to be because nothing makes a better target than the person on the top of the hill. We got here by doing some things right and are a little bit anxious when countries who are a little newer and less successful at the "World Survival Game" start telling us how to survive with world courts, ecological treaties and the like.

The United States also has a long history of supporting countries who have a hard time protecting or feeding themselves. Israel might look like the bad guy right now but the United States has a history of supporting Israel in the midst of countries when the majority wanted to wipe Israel off the map. For the U.S. to up and run at the first sign of Israel making mistakes would be a sign of weakness and political correctness that the European community seems all too willing to play all the time.(Addendum..minus England..who at great peril has stood beside the US in spite of many of the other Euro powers) And the United States has tried to use its influence with Israel to bring them to the bargaining table endlessly.

Now, I have had my share or relatives fight in world wars and I won''t play THAT card but I will say one final thing.

We all love our homelands and that is a fine thing. But when it comes to the dangerous planet we live on I would like someone to show me what other country you would rather have standing up and taking it on the chin other than the United States?

And as for the Corporate World? Don''t mistake the Corporate world problems for the United States my friends. I think the WHOLE world has enough of these corporate scumbags to not be able to claim any moral high ground.

* This message has been edited by the author on 7/24/2002 10:14:58 AM.

07/24/2002 10:17:05 AM · #77

To quote from the 1st Austin Powers Movie â��The thing you donâ��t understand is, there is no world any more, only corporationsâ��

07/24/2002 10:25:17 AM · #78

Originally posted by Ronin:
To quote from the 1st Austin Powers Movie â��The thing you donâ��t understand is, there is no world any more, only corporationsâ��

Well, In my opinion "Austin Powers" is a nice way to spend 90 minutes of entertainment time but the world is still about people. Corporations are just a reflection of the people. Sometimes we like to portray corporations as these entities that exist seperate from us.

They are us. We are them. Koo.koo..ca choo..;-)

Their greed is our greed. Their avarice is ours. And if we are unhappy with their influence in the world maybe we should take a look at how often people vote and get involved. Not often enough by every measurement stick out there.

The fact that 18 year olds are considered adults, can enter into legally binding contracts in the United States and can''t drink alcohol shows that some of the biggest idealists in society won''t get out from in front of the nintendo long enough to participate.

It only SEEMS they can''t vote in the incredibly low numbers that they DO vote :-/

* This message has been edited by the author on 7/24/2002 10:30:46 AM.

Kimbly

Canon PowerShot G2

07/24/2002 10:27:31 AM · #79

Originally posted by hokie:
The fact that 18 year olds are considered adults, can enter into legally binding contracts in the United States and can''t vote or drink alcohol shows that some of the biggest idealists in society won''t get out from in front of the nintendo long enough to participate.

18 year olds can vote. Can't they???

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/24/2002 10:29:32 AM · #80

Originally posted by Kimbly:
Originally posted by hokie:
[i]The fact that 18 year olds are considered adults, can enter into legally binding contracts in the United States and can''t vote or drink alcohol shows that some of the biggest idealists in society won''t get out from in front of the nintendo long enough to participate.

18 year olds can vote. Can''t they???
[/i]

You wouldn''t think so the way the laws are written nowadays.

But I mistakenly added vote to the drinking thing..

I have corrected that :-)

BTW...to have a portion of the voting public EXCLUDED in a consumer right seems unconstitutional, this coming from a person who had the drinking age at 18 during his formative years :-)

* This message has been edited by the author on 7/24/2002 10:34:34 AM.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

07/24/2002 10:31:52 AM · #81

Originally posted by Kimbly:
18 year olds can vote. Can't they???

Only since the 26th Amendment was ratified in 1971.

-Terry

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/24/2002 10:32:23 AM · #82

Originally posted by jochen:
To all US people who feel offended by what I wrote...

What I was going for: US people should be more aware of the impact of the decisions their government makes. Their foreign policy just sucks. I'm sorry, it just does. ...
J.

Although you make the common error of equating "Corporate America" with the US govenment (really, it's not official, yet) you present the perfect argument for posting the original challenge. People around the world are affected by US corporate activities and usually have an opinion about that. If anything, I think that narrower topic would be easier for folks in other countries to address than just generic "corporations."

Kimbly

Canon PowerShot G2

07/24/2002 10:34:15 AM · #83

Originally posted by clubjuggle:
Only since the 26th Amendment was ratified in 1971.

I was born in 1979. Why should I care what happened before then?? ;-)

07/24/2002 10:37:54 AM · #84

Is there going to be a test on this afterwards? I havent been taking notes...

07/24/2002 10:38:59 AM · #85

Originally posted by Kimbly:
Originally posted by clubjuggle:
[i]Only since the 26th Amendment was ratified in 1971.

I was born in 1979. Why should I care what happened before then?? ;-)

[/i]

Hehe...

Kimbly...I get on my soapbox about voting all the time. I have been voting from the first day I was old enough to vote.

I think sometimes the way we insulate young adults into thinking "They aren't REALLY adults till they have a family and a house payment" is what is killing the responsibility of younger adults.

But as Dennis Miller says "Thats just my opinion, I could be wrong" :-)

Froober

Canon EOS-10D

07/24/2002 10:50:05 AM · #86

Regarding my 'war on oil' comment:

Admittedly, influence over the flow of oil in the Middle East is a potential kudo in the war on terror...not the primary goal...another shade of grey. After all is said and done in Afghanistan, do you really think the new government (ran by historically unruly warlords) is just going bow down to the U.S. let us control them? I seriously doubt the new government will survive more than 3 years. IF the U.S. is waging the 'war on terror' primarily to gain control over oil...we're investing our lives and $$ very foolishly. I just don't think we're that dumb.

A question for those of you who oppose the war on terror, what is the alternative for the U.S...to just sit back and wait for the next attack? Reminds me of the ol' Clayton Williams 'lie back and enjoy it' philosophy. We are faced with a limited number of imperfect choices...we choose what we perceive to be the least imperfect.

Our government acts to feed, shelter, and protect American citizens. When you're judging our economic, political, environmental, and foreign policy...try to think of it from the standpoint of 'What would I do to feed, shelter, and protect my family?' I too could go on and on about American policy...I could belt out a complete dissertation in defense of our decision not to sign the Kyoto treaty. I don't agree with every decision our government makes (for example, we should keep our noses out of the neverending Isreali/Palestinian conflict). But those that I strongly disagree with are few and far between.

Hopefully, that's the end of my political ranting. I can't wait to see next week's submissions...could be the most interesting challenge yet.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

07/24/2002 10:59:36 AM · #87

Lisa..you make some good comments.

The "War for Oil" is a war for energy reserves and that is just as legitimate as any other war really.

People sometime equate oil and the fight over it as a simple matter of money. At one level it definitely is for money.

But in the greater scheme it's about energy. Energy drives the world. And at this time in our history Oil is the energy. In the future it may be solar power, or wind or some unknown source as simple as water.

By controlling the energy reserves brings stability to the world. Maintaining oil prices keeps us out of major world wars, drives economies and ultimately keeps the average person fed and housed.

Wildly fluctuating energy prices leads to economic upheavel. Just look at what wildly fluctuating electicity did to California if you want a recent example.

I don't like the idea of young adults (not kids) dying for fights over money. But its about fighting to keep millions, even billions..from dying. We like to think people are rational but, if the world went apeshit due to a wild surge in economic misfortune you don't want to see how ugly even your hometown can get.

Just see how people get at soccer games or hockey games and multiply that a million fold.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

07/24/2002 11:13:14 AM · #88

this whole conversation is so pointless. i guess some people enjoy it. some get passionate about it. but it doesn't change anything. there are as many perspectives on these issues as there are people.

alot of us in the U.S. don't agree with the actions of the current administration, though. In fact, many of us think that they are an illegitimate admin because they lost the popular vote. They've reversed many of the good policies of the previous admin, incl the kyoto and the approach towards israeli/palestine rapprochement.

we also live in an environment now in which anyone who criticises the actions of this admin is deemed unpatriotic. this is an odd time we live in.

just remember that even though this admin was elected, they were not elected by the MAJORITY of voters in this country, and therefore, their views don't represent the majority of the people.

finally with regard to the WTC attacks, that was probably the biggest civilian casualty attack any western country has received since WWII, so you can't minimize the outrage that engendered.

anyway, carry no with your squabbling.. i'm going to go shoot some pics :)

Froober

Canon EOS-10D

07/24/2002 11:21:26 AM · #89

Originally posted by hokie:
Lisa..you make some good comments.

The "War for Oil" is a war for energy reserves and that is just as legitimate as any other war really.

People sometime equate oil and the fight over it as a simple matter of money. At one level it definitely is for money.

But in the greater scheme it's about energy. Energy drives the world. And at this time in our history Oil is the energy. In the future it may be solar power, or wind or some unknown source as simple as water.

By controlling the energy reserves brings stability to the world. Maintaining oil prices keeps us out of major world wars, drives economies and ultimately keeps the average person fed and housed.

Wildly fluctuating energy prices leads to economic upheavel. Just look at what wildly fluctuating electicity did to California if you want a recent example.

I don't like the idea of young adults (not kids) dying for fights over money. But its about fighting to keep millions, even billions..from dying. We like to think people are rational but, if the world went apeshit due to a wild surge in economic misfortune you don't want to see how ugly even your hometown can get.

Just see how people get at soccer games or hockey games and multiply that a million fold.

What you're saying makes perfect sense and wasn't outside my puny realm of knowledge. But, personally, I do not see that we are gaining any control over oil reserves with our 'war on terror.' Unless we've got that oil on our own soil...we have no real control (other than using some pitiful economic sanctions). Are we going to get Afghanistan temporarily stable and totally cooperative, slap in a pipeline, suck out all of the oil into tankers, and ship it home before they figure out that we're giving them the shaft? Or maybe, they'll just like us heathens enough to let us control it on their soil. I'm not closed minded about this. I must really be missing something. Enlighten me...how are we really gaining control over the reserves in this situation?

07/24/2002 11:23:27 AM · #90

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
this whole conversation is so pointless. i guess some people enjoy it. some get passionate about it. but it doesn''t change anything. there are as many perspectives on these issues as there are people.

alot of us in the U.S. don''t agree with the actions of the current administration, though. In fact, many of us think that they are an illegitimate admin because they lost the popular vote. They''ve reversed many of the good policies of the previous admin, incl the kyoto and the approach towards israeli/palestine rapprochement.

we also live in an environment now in which anyone who criticises the actions of this admin is deemed unpatriotic. this is an odd time we live in.

just remember that even though this admin was elected, they were not elected by the MAJORITY of voters in this country, and therefore, their views don''t represent the majority of the people.

finally with regard to the WTC attacks, that was probably the biggest civilian casualty attack any western country has received since WWII, so you can''t minimize the outrage that engendered.

anyway, carry no with your squabbling.. i''m going to go shoot some pics :)

Magnetic..I gotta disagree here. If rant sections aren''t about squabbles..why have a rant section at all?

And it''s only pointless to you maybe.

As far as the current administration, I can''t see that big a difference in the current one and the past one or the Gore one honestly. Their ideas about World Trade and where the United States fits into it all are about the same and its all about political inheritance anyway.

Magnetic, you don''t honestly think any side is blameless in voting irregularities do you?

And these world agreements are about National Soveriegnty. In the times we live in right now and the alliances I see forming we better think about us first when it comes to any agreement.

The jewish/palestinian issue is not the Bush admin fault. Yasser Arafat had a Camp David agreement he walked out on during the Clinton...not Bush administration.

The Bush administration sees this conflict in the same light the Clinton Admin did, a dangerous situation that needs to calm down with both sides coming to agreement.

I see people talk about stuff outside photography here all the time, why is political stuff so taboo?

* This message has been edited by the author on 7/24/2002 11:31:56 AM.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

07/24/2002 11:32:48 AM · #91

I think I need to watch more CNN...

Ok now, so who has the oil? And was it you cant drink when you vote? and whats the price of a Kilowatt hour? Im just jokin ,.. I watch tons of CNN ( but I think they are controled by the government)

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

07/24/2002 11:39:16 AM · #92

it's pointless because it's not about photography.

and no, you're wrong: people don't really talk about stuff outside of photography very much at all on these forums.

Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
[i]
And it''s only pointless to you maybe...<snip>
I see people talk about stuff outside photography here all the time, why is political stuff so taboo?

07/24/2002 11:42:23 AM · #93

Originally posted by Ronin:
I think I need to watch more CNN...

Ok now, so who has the oil? And was it you cant drink when you vote? and whats the price of a Kilowatt hour? Im just jokin ,.. I watch tons of CNN ( but I think they are controled by the government)

I get nervous watching those network gigs.

Living in Virginia I have gotten used to cheap energy in whatever form and get a heart attack when I travel to New York, Chicago or especially L.A. on business.

The only reason I have a weird sense of energy costs is that I worked for the Purolator Corporation for 6 years in their marketing department and we dealt with energy costs in our presentations to corporate users like Disney in California. I think the California costs at that time were 13 cents a kilowatt hour versus 5 cents in the Mid-Atlantic states (7 cents on the coastal regions).

Every time I bring the drinking age issue up I usally get a lot of folks saying "Not letting 18 year olds drink is a GOOD thing!"

Good or not it's still unconstitutional in my opinion.

Agamemnon

Olympus C-700UZ

07/24/2002 11:44:35 AM · #94

I watch tons of CNN ( but I think they are controled by the government)

Corperations actually. I believe the last numbers I heard 6 corperations controlled (owned) 90% of all news coverage world wide.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

07/24/2002 11:49:41 AM · #95

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
it's pointless because it's not about photography.

and no, you're wrong: people don't really talk about stuff outside of photography very much at all on these forums.

Well, magnetic I see people talk about stuff outside photography even when its not in the rant section.

And considering the topic this week is Corporate World I think discussions about the Corporate World and its affect on the political structure are right on target. You and others may not agree with that but others may agree it is appopriate.

Talks about energy costs raise ideas for a topic, talks about the voting system raise ideas.

The very idea of dissenting opinions raises topics. Rather than arguing the merits of the right to discuss, maybe just examining the wealth of topics IN the discussion is a good idea :-/

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

07/24/2002 11:58:47 AM · #96

and i said, do what you all want, didn't I? : ) ..

it was MY opinion, which I am also fully entitled to express, that this is a waste of time that will only lead to hard feelings - as it already has ..

dubya lover isnt going to agree with jochen, he knows he's "right". jochen isn't going to agree with 'dubya lover', he knows dubya lover is deluded or misinformed. etc. and on and on.

knock yourselves out; just don't come crying when someone puts an eye out, lol ...

<closes door quietly on way out>

07/24/2002 11:59:40 AM · #97

textI believe the last numbers I heard 6 corperations controlled (owned) 90% of all news coverage world wide.

think the California costs at that time were 13 cents a kilowatt hour versus 5 cents in the Mid-Atlantic states (7 cents on the coastal regions

And I thought I wasnt going to learn anything today ;)