Make this my home page
More buttons
Best of the Day
Page
Turn off that Wi-Fi network - it's disturbing our chakras.
Video

Hot For Words: Lollipop

Blog
Innocent Spam
Game
EA SPORTS Complex on PlayStation Home
Art
Kinetic sculpture is a cross between art and engineering.
Cool tools
Hot links
Dadaist deconstruction of new media, as a flash game.
Everything you need to know about microscopic water bears
News for nerds
For lovers of the Green Fairy
Stories and art from Australia's Yolgnu people
Australia's best science fiction author
Did the earth just move?
Don't discount journalism
Novelist and comic book legend's homepage
Searchable history of the internet
Exposing systematic torture in Iran
Museum of science fiction, utopia and extraordinary journeys
The real story of christianity
Image bookmarking
Developing tech to get the internet to its full potential
THE G20, THE G21 AND THE G192 - by Fidel Castro

As if there were not enough reasons to go mad, the proliferation of acronyms related to the crisis is such that one can hardly understand them.

The first was the G20, a selected group meeting in Washington that pretended to represent all. The second was the also selective APEC group which met in Lima. There was the richest country, the United States; with a per capita GDP of 45 thousand dollars a year. But there was also the 100th ranked country, the People's Republic of China, with a per capita GDP of 2,483 dollars; China is also the number one investor in US Treasury bonds.

Now, G192 is the way that Leonel Fernandez, President of the Dominican Republic, which is not a member of either of the two, calls the member countries of the United Nations attending an economic conference with Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate of Economics.

George Soros, an immensely rich magnate of Hungarian descent and an American citizen, was one of the attending personalities.

One would have to be a chess player to disentangle the arguments of such diverse national and business interests as are represented in the G20 and the G21.

The truth of the matter is that if a Third World country signed free trade agreements with eight or ten developed or emerging countries, --some of them traditional producers of abundant and attractive low cost goods or sophisticated industrial products, such as the United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, etc.-- the nascent industry of a developing country would have to compete with the sophisticated products of the most developed countries' industries or the hard working hands of their powerful partners, one of which handles world finances wantonly. The only thing left to them would be to produce inexpensive raw materials requiring large investments ultimately owned by foreign companies fully protected from nationalizing whims. They would only have their extended hands waiting for a pious development support and an eternal debt to be repaid with their children's sweat. Isn't this what has been happening until today?

That's why I don't hesitate to show my solidarity with Chavez's position as he said that he disagreed with Lima's recipe. There are plenty of reasons. Let's see how the situation unfolds, and keep demanding out rights without ever bending our knees.

View the pageGo back to previous pageLeave some feedbackPrint this pageEmail link to friendsBookmark in del.icio.usAdd to Stumble ThisAdd to your favourite bookmarksDigg this article

Tags

 

Related Stories

   
Next

So, I read today that the designer of Mattel's Barbie doll was obsessed with sex. Seriously? We need a book-length study to tell us that?

We in the land of feminist academics have been teaching the pernicious sexual politics of Barbie for years. The breasts that defy gravity, the hair, the long, long legs and of course the cruel, nipped in waist. Oh, don't forget the tiny clothes, the f*ck-me pumps, not to mention the well-equipped kitchens in every Barbie Dream House. The message of Barbie seems unambiguous to me.

Still, many students (and not a few colleagues) consistently resist seeing Barbie as a miniature sex toy, claiming instead that the doll was a good role model for little girls. (One could, after all, purchase a Barbie doll dressed as a doctor.) Or claiming, equally untenably, that toys had no impact on their ideas about gender roles or their own sexuality.

These students, mostly women, want to rescue Barbie, to protect their own childhoods from academic interrogations of pop culture and what those interrogations might reveal. That's understandable. Yet, many of these same students sit in my class pouring out of tank tops, squeezed into low-rise jeans, or tugging on mini-skirts so short they are nearly impossible to sit down in. That is, dressed like Barbie.

It's an experience I regularly have as a feminist critic of popular culture: a media event, book or news story demonstrates that I'm not wrong, my ideology is not based in "over analyzing," "hyper sensitivity," or "reading too much into things" (the three most common criticisms feminists tend to encounter). It's disappointing, frankly, to stumble so often upon evidence of society's sexism and to keep having to explain that it's there. Disappointing that Barbie was so obviously a sexed-up, misogynist, bad idea for little girls and to realize how thoroughly our culture embraced the toy anyway.

So, here we are again. Feminists were right: no one but a sex-obsessed man with a perverse idea of female anatomy would create a female toy like Barbie. And, as is too too often the case for feminists, being right isn't something to celebrate.

Dr. Bean is an Associate Professor of English at Marshall University, specializing in Gender Studies, Film and Drama. She is the author of "Post-Backlash Feminism: Women and the Media Since Reagan/Bush" (McFarland & Co. 2007). She hosts a blog on mid-life and feminism at kelliebean.com.