 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to misc.consumers,rec.food.cooking,rec.arts.tv,alt.atheism,alt.books
|
|||
|
|||
A business model can never predict a race war
Lets Roll wrote:
> http://projectusa.org/ezine/2006/05-..._race_wars.php > A business model can never predict a race war > > A business entity exists for the purpose of generating profit for the > benefit of a limited number of individuals. A nation, on the other hand, > does not exist for any secondary purpose. Like society, a nation is an end > in itself. > A business entity and a political entity are thus different in kind. > The incongruence of politics and business means they each properly belong in > their own distinct spheres. It would be an obvious perversion, for example, > if we answered the political question: how shall we administer justice? with > a business response: so that it maximizes profits. > When a soldier lies dying on a battlefield, he is not thinking about > business. > A dying soldier doesn't think about the multinational Viacom Corporation, or > the multinational Microsoft Corporation, or the antinational U.S. Chamber of > Commerce. He doesn't think about whether he should refinance his mortgage, > nor wonder how his stock is doing. > A dying soldier thinks, instead, of his mom and dad, or his wife, or > children, or lover, or fiancé, and he may think of his teammates in high > school, or members of his church, or his neighbors in his hometown. > In other words, he thinks of his fellow citizens who have been special in > his life, which is to say, he thinks of those for whom he is dying. That is > our real meaning when we say, with sincere and grateful respect, "he gave > his life for his country." > Keeping that dead young soldier in mind, take a look now at Washington, DC. > What do we see? A plague of business swarming over the capital. We see > profiteers and immigration lawyers and other bloated self-serving toxins in > a steaming river of corruption billions of dollars deep and drowning the > country for which a much better person just died. > Business, as business, can see only profit, and so the business lobby, > absorbed in its orgy of self-enrichment, will be indifferent to the > soldier's death, just as it will be indifferent to another unnoticed tragedy > occurring just about now in an American town somewhere. > The mother of that young soldier freshly killed is getting the news that has > been sitting in the pit of her stomach since the day he left and making her > nights sleepless with fear. The man at the door brings the news right out > into plain view, and this will be the very worst day of her entire life. > As the poor woman sinks to the floor, way off in the distance you can make > out the greenish dung-glow of Washington, DC. Business hasn't missed a beat. > Mindlessly, business and its army of lobbyists are still gleefully gorging > themselves in a frenzy of greed on the political entity that claimed the > life and loyalty of her son. > Does anyone but the most degraded profiteer deny that the value of that > young soldier's life by itself so outweighs all the profiteering combined of > the immigration lawyers and oil companies and all the other businesses > dumping money on Washington that it's offensive even to compare them? > Since business, as business, is incapable of recognizing the existence of > even the slightest value in that mother's grief (outside the profit > potential in selling a coffin to the government in which to return her son's > body home to her) wouldn't we be justified in saying business should be > entirely banned from the sphere of politics? Can a profit-seeker ever > justify sharing for even one minute the realm-politics-that counts among its > noblest subjects something so rich, so costly, so tragic and golden and > complete in itself as a soldier's death in battle? > The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $28 million dollars last year pushing its > business into our politics. Much of the money was spent trying to shape > immigration policy to the financial advantage of its membership. > Though the immigration issue is extremely complex and hugely consequential, > until recently it has largely been left up to business to devise it. The > decisions our nation makes regarding immigration involve factors at the very > heart of our political being-the nitty-gritty of the human condition-but > Congress eagerly jumped to obey Alan Greenspan when he called for more > immigration in order to keep the housing market robust, and, backing him up, > the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal stood ready to destroy as a > racist and a xenophobe any member of Congress who offered dissent. > What has business given us? > The racialized mass demonstrations occurring across the nation over the past > few weeks were sparked, instructively, by nothing more than a reasonable and > tentative attempt simply to begin reasserting control over our own > immigration policy. > What are the implications for the future that hundreds of thousands of > illegal aliens have united racially against the passage of a race-neutral > law that almost apologetically tries to strengthen laws already on the > books-laws that require these very illegals leave the country. > Hell no, we're not going anywhere, say these foreign nationals, and all > across Latin America their fellow citizens are standing with them, > demonstrating against the gringos. What are the political implications of > that, you have to wonder. > What are the political implications of reports of a surge in illegal entries > at the southern border as others rush north apparently in racial solidarity > with the marchers. > What are the political implications that this massive racial movement is > fueled by hatred and resentment of white people, and marshaled by a legion > of race agitators spread across a vast network of foreign language media, > some of it already in open rebellion, embedded into every corner of the > United States? > A careful weighing of these political implications, a serious and honest > political debate, and a careful check of our political options are vitally > important steps that must be taken immediately. > Unfortunately, in the nation's capital, where that political debate should > occur, business makes the political decisions; maximizing someone's profits > has become the goal of much lawmaking. While a heroic few like Senator Jeff > Sessions of Alabama are battling several massive guest worker amnesty bills > endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce and written by the American Immigration > Lawyers Association, the rest of the Senate will happily pass them if it can > catch Americans napping. > Perhaps the steps can't be taken in Washington. > Inasmuch as business runs Washington, Washington will never even think to > ask what the political implications might be of a Latino majority with a > racial chip on its shoulder. There is no way to think about that in dollars. > To the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the racialized surge across our southern > border is economic growth; to business, race warriors are consumers. And if > Viacom owns a Spanish-language radio station through which gringo-hating > on-air hosts attract large followings by actively sabotaging immigration > enforcement efforts and fanning racial hatreds, Viacom will call it a > successful format and tout to investors plans to increase its holdings in > this profitable and fast-growing market segment. > Only the willfully blind or exceedingly stupid could fail now to see that > the decisions we make today about immigration may either be pulling us back > from the brink or sending us hurtling down the precipice toward unknown > horrors and more deaths for young soldiers. > Nevertheless, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will spend millions again this > year injecting business into the politics of immigration. The American > Immigration Lawyers Association will write draft legislation that legislates > fees to its members and opens the gates wider to its customers. Senators > Hagel, Martinez, McCain, Kennedy, Specter, and Craig will introduce the > legislation, telling Americans the economy would collapse without mass > immigration, and a brain-dead and lazy media will not bother to read the > legislation, but will simply repeat the lie as if, even were it true, it > mattered. > It's the very essence of corruption, isn't it? Very good article, suggest emailing to friends. Arch |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode
