I'm as informed (and as critical) of trade and economic policies as anyone, but when people starting talking about "globalist elites" and "international bankers", Lyndon LaRouche, Alex Jones, the Illuminati, FEMA camps, and the Protocols of Zion are typically right around the corner. Please, don't drag us into that garbage.
I'm as informed (and as critical) of trade and economic policies as anyone, but when people starting talking about "globalist elites" and "international bankers", Lyndon LaRouche, Alex Jones, the Illuminati, FEMA camps, and the Protocols of Zion are typically right around the corner. Please, don't drag us into that garbage.
No, hehe, I wasn't going there. Maybe I should clarify my terms tho:
There's no conspiracy in those words. A globalists is someone usually socialist, who is for breaking down the sovereignty of nations - usually first by trade. And an elite is basically anyone who has enough political power to set or persuade policy - on a national or international level. There's nothing scary or unusual there. Those kinds of people have been around since like, forever.
Anyway, if you examine the globalist (who are elites) agenda it seems very much to be about breaking down the sovereignty of "the west". And additionally promoting the ethics of the east - especially the Red east. My point was that as long as that's happening trying to enforce or even implement a respectable and enforceable set of patent policies is just about impossible. Like swimming against the current...
My "simple folk" remark was an attempt to imply that most people are not aware of such a current and are more concerned with what's on TV, keeping their job, or getting a new car (camera) or whatever... No matter how you see things it's almost always agreed that the majority of people on this planet do not know the specifics of what's going on around them - politically.
Bifurcator wrote:
A globalists is someone usually socialist, who is for breaking down the sovereignty of nations - usually first by trade.
Now I am confused :-D Isn't the left (aka "socialist") usually *against* globalization?
Also "sovereignty of nations" == "power of the state" :-) I don't see as self-evident that more of it is better.
Bifurcator wrote:
And additionally promoting the ethics of the east - especially the Red east.
I don't see that. If you mean "sit down, shut up, and do what I say", that's not ethics of the East, that's been the language of power since times immemorial...
I don't mean sovereignty is "power of the state" I mean it more as That nation (who are the people) have control over their own government as opposed to an NGO or another nation(s) having control (much influence) over them. I also never use terms like left and right so to me those are a bit meaningless. It seems that every person who uses those terms have very different meanings so unless everyone is prepared to write a huge preface with each usage...
You don't see that? You don't see what? I see both. I see the western governments becoming more controlling of their citizenries as influenced by outside organizations, and I see trade policies (starting from about 30 years ago) becoming more and more lenient and even supportive of the East and less and less lenient and supportive of the West. Or how do you explain the current trade deficit? Or even on a local level how do you explain companies like Wallmart who's shelves are stocked primarily with goods from the East - which arrived there basically free of tariff or tax? (Many of which may also be in violation of U.S. patent law BTW)
Globalists=elites=socialists=Marxists=international bankers=Zionists=Illuminati=alien lizard people. It's all there, explained by the master theorists on Bifurcator's sig website link. From Joseph Goebbels and Father Coughlin to Alex Jones and Lyndon LaRouche, it's all the same nonsense.
Bifurcator wrote:
I don't mean sovereignty is "power of the state" I mean it more as That nation (who are the people) have control over their own government as opposed to an NGO or another nation(s) having control (much influence) over them.
Um. I'm not sure what do you mean by "people have control over their own government". For example, using your definition, does China have sovereignty? Does Egypt? What about North Korea? Or, actually, how about the old US of A, since you seem to believe that the public is hopelessly misguided?
Bifurcator wrote:
You don't see that? You don't see what? I see both. I see the western governments becoming more controlling of their citizenries as influenced by outside organizations
Which organizations would that be? As to what I don't see, I don't see "promoting the ethics of the east - especially the Red east." I agree that Western governments are becoming more controlling, but I don't think this has anything to do with borrowing ideas from China. There is a long totalitarian thread in *Western* political philosophy.
Bifurcator wrote:
Or how do you explain the current trade deficit? Or even on a local level how do you explain companies like Wallmart who's shelves are stocked primarily with goods from the East
In the usual way that goes back to Adam Smith -- through comparative advantage. It's Economics 101.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
Globalists=elites=socialists=Marxists=international bankers=Zionists=Illuminati=alien lizard people. It's all there, explained by the master theorists on Bifurcator's sig website link. From Joseph Goebbels and Father Coughlin to Alex Jones and Lyndon LaRouche, it's all the same nonsense.
Alien lizard people! :-D I almost forgot about them. They're such an excellent meme :-) I wonder who came up with them...
Ah, a bit of googling and here we go -- David Icke. Looked like a regular bloke and then -- BAM! -- Son of the Godhead... :-D
Bifurcator wrote:
I don't mean sovereignty is "power of the state" I mean it more as That nation (who are the people) have control over their own government as opposed to an NGO or another nation(s) having control (much influence) over them. KaaX wrote:
Um. I'm not sure what do you mean by "people have control over their own government". For example, using your definition, does China have sovereignty? Does Egypt? What about North Korea? Or, actually, how about the old US of A, since you seem to believe that the public is hopelessly misguided?
Huh? "I seem to believe"? You don't think so?
Anyway, no, you're trying to take it in some strange tangent I didn't intend. To understand my meaning for example ask yourself how much power the U.N. or the C.F.R. is able to exert over U.S. policy. For example recently we went to war 100% based on a U.N. dictate (resolution). No congress was involved, no people had a vote. Like that. See. That is a good example of a loss in U.S. sovereignty - or at least what I mean when I say that. And actually technically speaking that was an act of high treason on Obama's part - an impeachable offense to be certain.
Bifurcator wrote:
You don't see that? You don't see what? I see both. I see the western governments becoming more controlling of their citizenries as influenced by outside organizations KaaX wrote:
Which organizations would that be? As to what I don't see, I don't see "promoting the ethics of the east - especially the Red east." I agree that Western governments are becoming more controlling, but I don't think this has anything to do with borrowing ideas from China. There is a long totalitarian thread in *Western* political philosophy.
So you don't see that we are allowing patent violations to be sold in the USA unhindered and unimpeded? How about all the welfare we give China? You don't see that either? Or you just mean you don't think that qualifies as "support" and a promotion of their ethics? If you steal cars and every time you do I give you an extra $100 am I not supporting your ethic? Or take it in a legal example. If you give away free medicine to the elderly and I subsidize you am I not supportive of your ethics?
Bifurcator wrote:
Or how do you explain the current trade deficit? Or even on a local level how do you explain companies like Wallmart who's shelves are stocked primarily with goods from the East KaaX wrote:
In the usual way that goes back to Adam Smith -- through comparative advantage. It's Economics 101.
Bifurcator wrote:
[re misguided public] Huh? "I seem to believe"? You don't think so?
I don't think so, other than as a general observation that politics/economics/culture are highly complex and the great majority of people -- in any society and at any time in history -- don't understand what's going on.
In *any* human society the masses will lack understanding and the powers-that-be will attempt to manipulate their perceptions. So what else is new?
Bifurcator wrote:
To understand my meaning for example ask yourself how much power the U.N. or the C.F.R. is able to exert over U.S. policy.
Pretty much none. You are forgetting that the UN is just a talking club of governments. Only the Security Council can pass something resembling binding resolutions (and look how much good did it do in the Middle East) and the US has veto power in the Security Council.
Bifurcator wrote:
For example recently we went to war 100% based on a U.N. dictate (resolution).
. You *are* quite confused, the causation is the reverse of what you think. The US went to war because it wanted to go to war, and the US got itself a UN resolution as a fig leaf to make it look decent.
Bifurcator wrote:
That is a good example of a loss in U.S. sovereignty - or at least what I mean when I say that. And actually technically speaking that was an act of high treason on Obama's part - an impeachable offense to be certain.
I don't see how squabbles between the the Executive and the Legislative branches of the US government about who can order the troops to go in represent a loss of sovereignty. In any case, the US Congress hasn't declared a war since WW2. If you want to take this route, *all* US wars for the last 60+ years are illegal.
Bifurcator wrote:
So you don't see that we are allowing patent violations to be sold in the USA unhindered and unimpeded?
"We are allowing" patent violations to be sold in the US in exactly the same sense that "we are allowing" millions of kids to download songs and movies off BitTorrent. So? In my personal opinion, the current patent system is FUBARed and needs to be scrapped and replaced anyway.
Bifurcator wrote:
How about all the welfare we give China? You don't see that either?
the evidence that terms like socialist fascist communist capitalist are of little use is well illustrated by the adventure of Nixon/Kissinger giving China the franchise for manufacture on planet earth. Nixon is my favorite socialist by far, wage and price controls, taking us off the gold standard, funding the great society, and calming the inner cities by importing tons of heroin from the Kuomintang. He and Henery figured out that there were three players and if we cut a deal with China before Russia did...
KaaX, yeah, we see the world way too differently to have a short meaningful conversation here. To get you to understand where I'm coming from would require thousands of pages and probably the same thing for me the other way around. But I will point out that in the first paragraph you nailed it and that is what I meant as well.
amplexis,
Yes. Well at least there's one person who's awake in here. Nice to know. Glad to meet ya!
Bifurcator wrote:
KaaX, yeah, we see the world way too differently to have a short meaningful conversation here. To get you to understand where I'm coming from would require thousands of pages and probably the same thing for me the other way around. But I will point out that in the first paragraph you nailed it and that is what I meant as well.
Well, that's true, this is not really the place to start sorting such things out :-) I don't feel there's a need for thousands of pages, though. I've known some people who expressed views similar to yours and after a bit of discussion it always turned out -- IMHO, of course, from *my* point of view -- that they had serious problems either with logic or with reality, typically both :-)
On the other hand, you're living in Japan and by my reckoning things within Japan will change rather drastically within the next few years. You'll probably see some validation for your views in that :-)
Bifurcator wrote:
amplexis,
Yes. Well at least there's one person who's awake in here. Nice to know. Glad to meet ya!
well, all i can add is that i now believe that being obsessed with trying to right things inevitably leads to disappointment. as a youth in the 50's/60's i always imagined living my golden years in a culture similar to Late Antiquity. it's a perfect time to live far from the capitol and enjoy the fruits of the empire. i'm grateful for the heads up about the 300mm auto-t, thanks
Hopefully this not now considered off topic, but my wife reports that I now have a box waiting for me when I get home from work. So it looks as if I may have a BK-45 gimbal head to try out when I get home.
Thanks
Apr 25, 2012 at 04:43 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
It's just a fun photo from an old thread here at FM. Where I showed someone that they can use the RRS Monopod head on the Wimberley head if they like to use shorter lenses.
I never use it like this. And I never use it with lenses shorter than 400mm
Ah, OK. Thanks Lars. I'm not sure why you don't use it for shorter lenses than 400mm but OK. What kind of head do you prefer for 100-300 (for example) if I may ask? How about panoramas? I mean sure, I can do panoramas hand-held in bright light but even then this gimbal makes it so much easier. And ballheads kinda suck a little bit for larger panoramas IMO.
Apr 27, 2012 at 08:42 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
. You *are* quite confused, the causation is the reverse of what you think. The US went to war because it wanted to go to war, and the US got itself a UN resolution as a fig leaf to make it look decent.