The Free Press is bringing back a Reviews section after some absence. We hope to review plenty of events around town. Check back frequently and if what\'s going on is any good.
Arts & Culture
Making Globalization Work.
Joseph Stiglitz.
W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 2007.
Having read Stiglitz' first work, "Globalization and its Discontents", having thought at the time that it was a strong work, then having read his second book "Fair Trade For All", which is not even mentioned in this current work - indicating perhaps that he is not that proud of it, as he should not be, it was terrible - and now having read his latest book "Making Globalization Work", I am now thoroughly disenchanted with his ideas and thought development.
"Making Globalization Work" is much like his first book in that it is a reasonably clear read, and while there is by necessity the use of the economic and political lexicon (that's jargon for 'jargon'), it is not so obtuse (that's jargon for difficult) that it is not unreadable. It is simply not well argued, and retains the major faults that were obvious in the middle work, "Fair Trade For All". [1]
Joseph Stiglitz.
W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 2007.
Having read Stiglitz' first work, "Globalization and its Discontents", having thought at the time that it was a strong work, then having read his second book "Fair Trade For All", which is not even mentioned in this current work - indicating perhaps that he is not that proud of it, as he should not be, it was terrible - and now having read his latest book "Making Globalization Work", I am now thoroughly disenchanted with his ideas and thought development.
"Making Globalization Work" is much like his first book in that it is a reasonably clear read, and while there is by necessity the use of the economic and political lexicon (that's jargon for 'jargon'), it is not so obtuse (that's jargon for difficult) that it is not unreadable. It is simply not well argued, and retains the major faults that were obvious in the middle work, "Fair Trade For All". [1]
When comedian Lewis Black said sardonically that he knew we shouldn’t go to Iraq, and he was just sitting on his couch, he also echoed how numerous Americans felt about the stolen presidential election of 2004. On November 3, of that same year, we woke up and felt that, once again, we had been had without knowing all the facts. We felt it because we knew that what had happened in 2000 had not been fixed. Sadly, before the 2004 election we proceeded on a noble mission to register thousands of more voters than ever before, believing that the truth of a great turnout would be the antidote to voter fraud, as if a higher paying job would resolve being robbed at the bus stop every day.
However, they, the GOP, had done it again, but how could we prove it, and what could we do, especially since another Democratic contender passively walked away from us? A collective depression set in and then we began the stages of grief, but somehow we weren’t able to go beyond denial. Fortunately, some followed the inference of the last election, and lifted themselves above the post-election stupor in order to find out exactly what happened.
However, they, the GOP, had done it again, but how could we prove it, and what could we do, especially since another Democratic contender passively walked away from us? A collective depression set in and then we began the stages of grief, but somehow we weren’t able to go beyond denial. Fortunately, some followed the inference of the last election, and lifted themselves above the post-election stupor in order to find out exactly what happened.
Fair Trade For All – How Trade Can Promote Development. Joseph Stiglitz and Andre Charlton. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., 2005.
In 2003 Joseph Stiglitz published his much acclaimed and critically popular book Globalization and it Discontents. Its overall thesis, arguable particularly to those hidebound within the ‘Washington Consensus’, simply stated that following International Monetary Fund (IMF) rules and regulations – the combination of trade rules, loans, and ‘structural adjustments’ required to receive financial assistance – “the result for many people has been poverty and for many countries social and political chaos. The IMF has made mistakes in all the areas it has been involved in.”
In 2003 Joseph Stiglitz published his much acclaimed and critically popular book Globalization and it Discontents. Its overall thesis, arguable particularly to those hidebound within the ‘Washington Consensus’, simply stated that following International Monetary Fund (IMF) rules and regulations – the combination of trade rules, loans, and ‘structural adjustments’ required to receive financial assistance – “the result for many people has been poverty and for many countries social and political chaos. The IMF has made mistakes in all the areas it has been involved in.”
It is 2007 and the majority of the American people are calling for the impeachment of the president according to a recent Zogby poll, but in 2004, Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis gave us what we need now to imprison George W. Bush in their book of the same name. In Imprison George W. Bush:Commentary on Why the President Must Be Indicted, Wasserman and Fitrakis make case after case as to why Bush must go. While expansive and ambitious in its reach, the book, a compilation of articles, reaches its goal offering the facts we need to arm ourselves with intelligent discourse in a time when even chat by the water cooler can be an organizer’s tool. Compact feature articles enhanced with masterful thematic cartoons are the format of this book. It is packed with well researched reasoning for not only the impeachment of George W. Bush but his imprisonment as well.
Three violent elements in American popular culture –- football, gangsta rap and dog fighting -- have intersected in the sensational case involving Michael Vick, the black football star. On July 17, a federal grand jury in the state of Virginia indicted the 27-year-old Vick and three associates on charges of operating an enterprise called "Bad Newz Kennels" to breed pit bulls for high-stakes fights to the death, and of killing off dogs who performed poorly by dousing them with water and then electrocuting them, slamming them into the ground or shooting them with a .22. One count in the 18-page indictment described a "rape stand, a device in which a female who is too aggressive to submit to males for breeding is strapped down, with her head held in place by a restraint."
If "The Waitress" were a pie, which it very well may be, it would taste like a variety of flavors from sweet, sour and spciy to utterly delightful! Somehow all of these flavors seem to work for this dish!
The main character a sincerely sweet pie-making artiste. All of her life feelings and problems are translated into different pies. Everyone feels badly for her, especially after her recent pregnancy with her horrible husband. Even her closest friends, two fellow waitresses at the pie shop, tell her they would never trade places with her. I too, would never want to be in her shoes, married to a man like Earl. All of which sets off the deliciousness of the main characters' affair. This movie is by no means a setting of morals and values. Almost all of the characters in it commit adultery or suffer from personality disorders!
But this gives the movie its reality factor as well. Although it's a movie with real problems and sadness, there is humor and irony to be found everywhere. The doctor with whom the main character confides and finds herself in love, is also married. Their love may be the most random suprising part of the movie
The main character a sincerely sweet pie-making artiste. All of her life feelings and problems are translated into different pies. Everyone feels badly for her, especially after her recent pregnancy with her horrible husband. Even her closest friends, two fellow waitresses at the pie shop, tell her they would never trade places with her. I too, would never want to be in her shoes, married to a man like Earl. All of which sets off the deliciousness of the main characters' affair. This movie is by no means a setting of morals and values. Almost all of the characters in it commit adultery or suffer from personality disorders!
But this gives the movie its reality factor as well. Although it's a movie with real problems and sadness, there is humor and irony to be found everywhere. The doctor with whom the main character confides and finds herself in love, is also married. Their love may be the most random suprising part of the movie
There is no shortage of political pundits now wading into the discussion of global warming, despite the scientific complexity of the field. One of the latest entries is Alexander Cockburn. I have read Cockburn regularly over the years, and while I recognized him as a very talented polemicist whose acerbic screeds I could tolerate when directed to the likes of Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara and Augusto Pinochet, his latest foray into the field of man-made global warming is scientifically dreadful, and hence irresponsible, and reflects journalism and public service at its worst. Were it not for the importance of global warming, we could easily dismiss his writing. But Cockburn has a sizeable reading audience through “The Nation” and his own publication, “Counterpunch.” And since educating the public on this matter is crucial if we are to do something about global warming, Cockburn needs to be taken to task for his dishonesty and slipshod journalism.
Holding the Bully’s Coat: Canada and the U.S. Empire
by Linda McQuaig.
Doubleday Canada, Toronto. 2007.
This is a wonderfully refreshing examination of Canada’s role, current and historic, as supporter of and participant in the American Empire. Linda McQuaig makes accurate assessments of Canada’s current role in partnership with the United States and the ongoing development of this role historically. Unlike the regular media, she recognizes that Canada is subservient to the Americans in Afghanistan under the guise of a UN approved NATO force occupying that country. Quite clearly in her opening arguments she states that Canada’s current role has brought it “more into line with the U.S. empire, even as Washington become a belligerent and lawless force in the world.”
by Linda McQuaig.
Doubleday Canada, Toronto. 2007.
This is a wonderfully refreshing examination of Canada’s role, current and historic, as supporter of and participant in the American Empire. Linda McQuaig makes accurate assessments of Canada’s current role in partnership with the United States and the ongoing development of this role historically. Unlike the regular media, she recognizes that Canada is subservient to the Americans in Afghanistan under the guise of a UN approved NATO force occupying that country. Quite clearly in her opening arguments she states that Canada’s current role has brought it “more into line with the U.S. empire, even as Washington become a belligerent and lawless force in the world.”
Home Front: The Government’s War on Soldiers
By Rick Anderson
(Clarity Press)
ISBN: 0-932863-41-8
Rick Anderson, a reporter for Seattle Weekly, opens his book, Home Front: The Government’s War on Soldiers, by referring to then US Secretary of Defense [sic] Donald Rumsfeld’s jaw-dropping rant about Vietnam draftees “adding no value, no advantage” to the US forces. This rant belongs with the government sentiment expressed toward soldiers previously by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who considered them to be “dumb, stupid animals,” mere pawns to achieve oligarchic aims abroad.
Why would anyone expect a regime that shows no care or compassion for the lives of others to show compassion for its soldiers? President George W. Bush does not even deign to pay last respects for fallen US soldiers. Bush’s administration even charged combat troops in Afghanistan for their meals while hospitalized. But Bush had made clear who his constituency was: the haves.
By Rick Anderson
(Clarity Press)
ISBN: 0-932863-41-8
Rick Anderson, a reporter for Seattle Weekly, opens his book, Home Front: The Government’s War on Soldiers, by referring to then US Secretary of Defense [sic] Donald Rumsfeld’s jaw-dropping rant about Vietnam draftees “adding no value, no advantage” to the US forces. This rant belongs with the government sentiment expressed toward soldiers previously by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who considered them to be “dumb, stupid animals,” mere pawns to achieve oligarchic aims abroad.
Why would anyone expect a regime that shows no care or compassion for the lives of others to show compassion for its soldiers? President George W. Bush does not even deign to pay last respects for fallen US soldiers. Bush’s administration even charged combat troops in Afghanistan for their meals while hospitalized. But Bush had made clear who his constituency was: the haves.
A powerful punch in a small package
I’ve always been a sucker for movies – they are such a vibrant art form, engaging so many of the senses. I’m a big reader, but I sheepishly admit that a movie telling the same story does have a number of advantages. One is that a viewer doesn’t have to work as hard as a reader, or spend as much time. The producer has already made those hard artistic choices, and the result is shorter and already partially digested. (You could argue that this is a downside to movies, but I am focusing here on the positive aspects.)
A movie has the ability to pull us down into the rabbit hole of the producer’s creation. I personally understand the power of film, as the documentary Invisible Ballots launched my initial leap into activism through my lending library project. Almost 3,200 copies later, I’m definitely sold on a film’s ability to make a case.
I’ve always been a sucker for movies – they are such a vibrant art form, engaging so many of the senses. I’m a big reader, but I sheepishly admit that a movie telling the same story does have a number of advantages. One is that a viewer doesn’t have to work as hard as a reader, or spend as much time. The producer has already made those hard artistic choices, and the result is shorter and already partially digested. (You could argue that this is a downside to movies, but I am focusing here on the positive aspects.)
A movie has the ability to pull us down into the rabbit hole of the producer’s creation. I personally understand the power of film, as the documentary Invisible Ballots launched my initial leap into activism through my lending library project. Almost 3,200 copies later, I’m definitely sold on a film’s ability to make a case.