930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: sonickteam2 on September 09, 2003, 09:39:00 am
-
from atease...dont know if anyone has read this yet....
Losing the faith
Thom Yorke
Monday September 8, 2003
The Guardian
The west is creating an extremely dangerous economic, environmental and humanitarian timebomb. We are living beyond our means. The poorest countries need to trade on fair terms with us if they are ever to get off their knees. Handouts are no longer the answer.
When the WTO started out, poor countries were spun the line that they could gain access to western markets if they signed up to a pro-business agenda - even though that agenda was potentially at the cost of their already suffering populations.
The west has not fulfilled its part in those agreements. It has reneged on its agreement to cut subsidies to its own farmers, and rules on intellectual property rights mean drugs are too expensive and 30,000 people die every day as a direct consequence. When developing countries export to the west they have to pay tariffs four times that between western countries themselves, costing £63bn per year.
Why?
Western governments, as they increasingly lose their grip on the reality of the situation, see the key to fixing these problems (that they have helped to create) to be... more liberalisation.
This, to me, feels like a bus full of religious lunatics rolling into town singing free trade songs and banging tambourines as war and famine break out and all about them turns to shit. It's nonsense. Why should the most desperate continue to cooperate with such fools when they increasingly have nothing left to lose? They are not seeing the so-called benefits but they are seeing too much of the costs.
This sort of free trade capitalism is a faith. A faith against all the odds. Nowadays it seems to have taken on the authority of the word of God, as if it has always been thus. But all it is really is a set of trade rules that should and could benefit all, and could be changed. Why should it be a corrupt protection racket?
There must be a change to trade rules in favour of the poor and the environment. International human rights must be respected. There must be corporate accountability so that multinationals are taken to task over corruption, human rights and environment abuses.
What the developing countries need is to be able to protect the livelihoods of their own farmers and allow their industries to develop.
Increasingly the effects of such globalisation make it clear the only ones benefiting are the multinational corporations, who have the ear of our governments and are having their free trade cake and eating it. They make sure any rules affecting their "freedoms" are first on the agenda at the WTO.
Poor countries are told this is free trade - this is the way we succeeded, this is how we built our great capitalist system.
The amnesia and hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Even the World Bank now admits that a nation's economy needs protection for it to grow in its early stages of development, just as it did in the UK, US and Asia. The constant mantra of the "trickle-down" effect of wealth creation is comical. It's so last week, dahling.
What the poorest countries need are specific policies that improve their situation in their terms.
When I got involved in Jubilee 2000, and tried to persuade governments, the IMF and the World Bank to cancel the unpayable debts it seemed like a reasonably fair thing to ask.
The situation was so utterly ridiculous I didn't believe they would deny us. But they did.
They found every excuse they could, but the only reason that I could find was that the west cannot shake its need to control the rest of the planet in any way it can. They cannot shake off this colonial attitude. In order to keep order they have to have fingers permanently wrapped around throats.
Debt burdens are a beautifully tight noose, and now, even better, they have the WTO to do the dirty work for them.
Poor countries at the WTO have been too scared to speak out, for fear of making their situation worse, and they are outnumbered. Sometimes countries cannot afford to send even one representative to the WTO meetings. Yet the EU can send 500. Much of the agenda is still decided by the rich nations in closed meetings. The WTO, thus far, has been hijacked.
But I think this is the turning point. This is a crossroads in the global economic system. Do we carry on preaching this free unfettered trade garbage or do we admit our mistakes and try to do the right thing for once?
The Trade Justice Movement states that if Africa, east Asia, south Asia and Latin America could increase their share of world exports by 1% it would lift 128 million people out of poverty. Just how difficult is that?
· Thom Yorke (lead singer of Radiohead), on my small soapbox in a hotel bathroom in Washington DC.
-
Bono? Is that you?
-
No, it's Gwinnie's boyfriend from Coldplay.
-
Why can't musicians just stick to entertaining us, and politicians stick to being assholes?
Anybody heard the new Howard Dean blues album?
-
Does that mean another concept album is on the way?
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
Does that mean another concept album is on the way?
lets hope not.
But you know what....i may be wrong, but it seems as much as Bono has stuck his nose in everyone elses business...U2 hasnt really ever written one of those "concept" albums. And as political as some songs seem to be, he's kept "his" views and "U2" view seperate....i think.
-
ever wonder why its whiny Brits guys who go on about this?
Why can American men not step up to the plate. Has the bling-bling blinded them?
-
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
ever wonder why its whiny Brits guys who go on about this?
Why can American men not step up to the plate. Has the bling-bling blinded them?
Beastie Boys and Tibet
Neil Young, John Mellencamp & Willie Nelson and Farm Aid
Henry Rollins and The West Memphis 3
Eddie Vedder and Ticketmaster
Steve Earle and capital punishment
Greg Ginn and homeless felines.....
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
Greg Ginn and homeless felines..... [/b]
Ohh, you forgot Metallica and Napster......
all of those issues are worthy, I guess, but have very little impact on mine own little world. Or on a global scale.
<<<Couldnt farm aid be seen as a bad thing? Isnt it part of the unfair competition that Thom Yorkie is on about?>>>
<<<genuine question I dont know the answer to>>>
-
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
<<<Couldnt farm aid be seen as a bad thing? Isnt it part of the unfair competition that Thom Yorkie is on about?>>>
<<<genuine question I dont know the answer to>>>
"Bad" for whom?
I don't think the family farmers like Ma and Pa Rhett Miller would find subsidies for small American farmers to be a bad thing.
But yes, in terms of your question, Farm Aid is working in the opposite direction of what York is fighting for.
-
jello biafra and Krist Novoselic - wto
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Why can't musicians just stick to entertaining us, and politicians stick to being assholes?
My thoughts entirely...The other thing that bugs me is when the media jump all over the things celebs say about Bush etc....they are allowed their opinions too.
markie...I just learned what "bling bling" means, and now I know it pisses me off even more.
-
Tom Morello (RATM and Audioslave) and Serj Tankian (System of a Down) -- www.axisofjustice.org (http://www.axisofjustice.org) -- WTO, war, corporations, third world debt, environment, homelessness, human rights, indigenous rights, racism, etc....
-
Why shouldn't musicians have the right to say what they think? You got a voice? Use it. Eminem uses his in his music, and we are subjected to his crap. Thom Yorke wants to say something with a bit of insight and thought about his opinion and he should shut up? Give me a break. Bono, Bob Geldof, Chrissie Hynde, etc. have come out to speak up for people (or in Chrissie's case, animals) that don't have a voice. Good for them.
-
I think the problem is when the loyal subjects of said musicians take the word of their idols to be the end all and be all on whatever subject. As if Mr. Musician somehow has some inside track on information and the workings of the world.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I think the problem is when the loyal subjects of said musicians take the word of their idols to be the end all and be all on whatever subject. As if Mr. Musician somehow has some inside track on information and the workings of the world.
or have no clue what a band politics are... i.e. rage against the machine and the zapitistas
-
The thing that annoys me the most is when they start preaching their beliefs during their performances....If I wanted to be at a political rally I'd go to one, just shut the fuck up and do what I've paid to see you do.
The only exception would be Billy Bragg because that's his whole thing, and people know that when they buy the ticket.... well, it was before Wilco made him shite.
If someone wants to put it in their lyrics then that's entirely up to them, if you think they're talking a load of crap...like eminem, you just don't buy it. To dribble on about it during a concert is entirely different.
-
The only exception? Man, I didn't realize how dated you were!
-
Originally posted by mankie:
The thing that annoys me the most is when they start preaching their beliefs during their performances....
I agree...and they all seem to just think the same thing...we hate Bush, he's so lame...blah blah blah...yeah, we all know he's lame...why do they have to sully our evening with political crap (Rhett Miller did this at Bumbershoot)
-
Originally posted by bunnyman:
Why shouldn't musicians have the right to say what they think? You got a voice? Use it. Eminem uses his in his music, and we are subjected to his crap. Thom Yorke wants to say something with a bit of insight and thought about his opinion and he should shut up? Give me a break. Bono, Bob Geldof, Chrissie Hynde, etc. have come out to speak up for people (or in Chrissie's case, animals) that don't have a voice. Good for them.
YEAH! no matter who you are yuo should be allowed to say what you want. The only thing i dont like is when you have to do it in the middle of a concert. If i want to hear Bono, or Thom or whoever, thats fine, but dont make me listen to it at a concert. Thats all i ask. and if you do, at least keep it semi positive!
-
Originally posted by mankie:
The only exception would be Billy Bragg because that's his whole thing, and people know that when they buy the ticket.... well, it was before Wilco made him shite.
I thought he went shit after the Red Wedge fiasco... and Markie's picture.
-
Originally posted by bunnyman:
Why shouldn't musicians have the right to say what they think? You got a voice? Use it. Eminem uses his in his music, and we are subjected to his crap. Thom Yorke wants to say something with a bit of insight and thought about his opinion and he should shut up? Give me a break. Bono, Bob Geldof, Chrissie Hynde, etc. have come out to speak up for people (or in Chrissie's case, animals) that don't have a voice. Good for them.
I agree to a large extent.
Yorke's piece is pretty crappy though. One can construct a pretty good argument against the practices of the EU, the US, and the WTO. But you wouldn't know it from reading Yorke's "hipster with a heart" screed.
Too bad he squandered this opportunity by writing a completely emotional response rather than constructing an argument on facts and logic. People will now believe "free-trade is bad because Thom Yorke told me so."
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Too bad he squandered this opportunity by writing a completely emotional response rather than constructing an argument on facts and logic. People will now believe "free-trade is bad because Thom Yorke told me so." [/b]
perhaps the fact is , sheer facts and logic dont always put the same spin on things as human emotion. One could get a point across by listing names numbers and events, true. But its not the only way. words, pictures, and music, can also get ones point across. and isnt that what he's been doing best for 10 years?
doesnt make his arguement/point any more or less powerful.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
doesnt make his arguement/point any more or less powerful.
Yes it does.
If you can't cite specific examples of how the practices of the WTO and the western nations are abusing "free-trade" to the detriment of the LDCs, then there is a good chance your just parroting some crap you heard.
Same if somebody argues for free-trade based on notions of fairness and community, but can't offer up any facts or logic to support the idea that free-trade is beneficial to all parties involved.
When we discussed the "murder capital" you offered up an article to back up your point. That's far more convincing than if you had simply said, "D.C. has been tragically torn asunder by the heartbreak of rampant gun violence."
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
When we discussed the "murder capital" you offered up an article to back up your point. That's far more convincing than if you had simply said, "D.C. has been tragically torn asunder by the heartbreak of rampant gun violence." [/b]
Well i think that is because this board is the fact arguing based group. I post the article because if i dont have facts, everyone here shoots me down..BUT an emotional response can trigger a lot in a persons brain to sway thier opinion on something. And some people are more convinced they are doing the right thing when thier heart feels good, and not thier head so much. its just different people. Besides, this essay seemed to be more "this is whats on my mind" then a formal complaint to the WTO. Its all in the way you look at it.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Well i think that is because this board is the fact arguing based group. I post the article because if i dont have facts, everyone here shoots me down..BUT an emotional response can trigger a lot in a persons brain to sway thier opinion on something. And some people are more convinced they are doing the right thing when thier heart feels good, and not thier head so much. its just different people. Besides, this essay seemed to be more "this is whats on my mind" then a formal complaint to the WTO. Its all in the way you look at it.
When Hitler convinced his countrymen that the Jews were evil and were to blame for the poor fortunes of Germany, it was a wonderful day for the supremacy of emotional arguments over facts and logic.
When Slobodan Milosevic preached to his Serbian brethren that the dirty Croats and Moslems were undermining the goodness of the Serbian nation, he was likewise appealing to emotion.
Unless you're talking about music or the like, an intellectually-based argument is superior to an emotionally-based one.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
When Hitler convinced his countrymen that the Jews were evil and were to blame for the poor fortunes of Germany, it was a wonderful day for the supremacy of emotional arguments over facts and logic.
When Slobodan Milosevic preached to his Serbian brethren that the dirty Croats and Moslems were undermining the goodness of the Serbian nation, he was likewise appealing to emotion.
Unless you're talking about music or the like, an intellectually-based argument is superior to an emotionally-based one. [/b]
whatever.
-
life should not be a bunch of people stating facts and numbers. thom was being human in his argument against what he feels is wrong.
he stated so in the end.
i am sure it was more well written than anything you couldve come up with.
you watch too much CNN my brother.
-
I love Radiohead, but just because Thom Yorke says something and gets it off his chest doesn't mean I agree or even like what he has to say. It's up to each and everyone of us to digest information, weigh pros and cons, find out more, and then make an educated decision based on what we know. That's the best any of us can do...but I certainly don't encourage people to jump on a bandwagon just because musicians are trying to convince them of something.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
life should not be a bunch of people stating facts and numbers. thom was being human in his argument against what he feels is wrong.
he stated so in the end.
i am sure it was more well written than anything you couldve come up with.
you watch too much CNN my brother.
It's possible to do both, you know. It's possible to be human while providing a logical explanation for your position.
If one has to rely solely on emotion for their argument, then chances are there isn't any intelligent support for their argument. Since there are some decent factual arguments for opposing the WTO and Yorke chooses not to use them, he has constructed a poor article.
You spend to much time lighting candles on your Radiohead shrine my brother.
-
Who cares what he had to say. What was he doing in DC?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
life should not be a bunch of people stating facts and numbers. thom was being human in his argument against what he feels is wrong.
he stated so in the end.
i am sure it was more well written than anything you couldve come up with.
you watch too much CNN my brother.
It's possible to do both, you know. It's possible to be human while providing a logical explanation for your position.
If one has to rely solely on emotion for their argument, then chances are there isn't any intelligent support for their argument. Since there are some decent factual arguments for opposing the WTO and Yorke chooses not to use them, he has constructed a poor article.
You spend to much time lighting candles on your Radiohead shrine my brother. [/b]
are you an english teacher or a debate teacher? "he has contstructed a poor article"
maybe we just want his OPINION...well, or so he thinks. but really, if i wanted someones opinion, i dont care if he has facts, i can look the facts up anywhere....ok
we need to end this, the dead horse is beaten
and YEAH , what WAS he doing in DC?
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
maybe we just want his OPINION...well, or so he thinks. but really, if i wanted someones opinion, i dont care if he has facts, i can look the facts up anywhere....ok
If the article was identical in every respect except it was written by Pat Buchannan or Ted Nugent or anybody else, would you feel as strongly about it? I doubt it.
Follow principles, not people.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
If the article was identical in every respect except it was written by Pat Buchannan or Ted Nugent or anybody else, would you feel as strongly about it? I doubt it.
Follow principles, not people. [/b]
Did i ever say i was following what Thom Yorke wrote? NO. in fact, i didnt even fucking read it until you started getting on my nerves and trashing it!!! I dont like politics, especially reading articles about politics by musicians. I posted the article w/o even reading because i thought someone may find it interesting.
Its about politics and people in DC like that shit (reason why i dont live in DC #245)
you talk so much shit , i dont think you even pay attention to exactly what you ARE saying.
I have no opinion on the article, and i dont particularly care for Thoms thoughts on the situation. I was, however, defending that it wasnt "poor" just because it didnt have "facts"
-
Jeez Sonick, don't get all emotional.
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
Jeez Sonick, don't get all emotional.
hehe. sorry
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
you talk so much shit , i dont think you even pay attention to exactly what you ARE saying.
Why the emphasis on "ARE" ?
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
I was, however, defending that it wasnt "poor" just because it didnt have "facts"
When is Thom Yorke going to get another shot at writing an Op-Ed piece?
My point was that he should have written something that was somewhat convincing and had some more meat than saying "The Western nations are shit." By not doing so, he comes across as just another empty-headed posturing rock star. I had always assumed he was smarter than that.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
My point was that he should have written something that was somewhat convincing and had some more meat than saying "The Western nations are shit." By not doing so, he comes across as just another empty-headed posturing rock star. I had always assumed he was smarter than that. [/b]
well , ggw. i talked to him and he said he would try to do better next time. Do you mind if i give him your email address and maybe you can proofread it before he posts it on his own website! :)
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
well , ggw. i talked to him and he said he would try to do better next time. Do you mind if i give him your email address and maybe you can proofread it before he posts it on his own website! :)
Should I negotiate my fee directly with Thom? Or are you acting as his agent?
-
Thom Yorke in the pocket of the enemy........
You know GGW's first piece of advice to Thom will be to buy a newer S-class.
-
Thom's article is probably inferior to anything GGW could write because Thom doesn't spend all day on the internet on search engines trying to steal other peoples thoughts.
-
Yeh, Thom's too busy ripping off Pink Floyd.
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
Yeh, Thom's too busy ripping off Pink Floyd.
at least he's got good taste.
-
As a disclaimer, I listen to tons of bands that rip off others.
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
As a disclaimer, I listen to tons of bands that rip off others.
its pretty much impossible not to i think.
you just have to try to pick the best ones!
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
As a disclaimer, I listen to tons of bands that rip off others.
its pretty much impossible not to i think.
you just have to try to pick the best ones! [/b]
You could be mank and just listen to the bands that todays bands are ripping off. ;)
-
Originally posted by mankie:
You could be mank and just listen to the bands that todays bands are ripping off. ;)
wouldn't you have to be a scouser for that?
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Originally posted by mankie:
You could be mank and just listen to the bands that todays bands are ripping off. ;)
wouldn't you have to be a scouser for that? [/b]
No, I think anyone can listen to any band regardless of were their home town is.