You are currently browsing the archives for August 2018.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 40 entries.

Australia/2006

  • Posted on August 30, 2018 at 1:18 am

Contents

  • 1 January
  • 2 February
  • 3 March
  • 4 April
  • 5 May
  • 6 June
  • 7 July
  • 8 August
  • 9 September
  • 10 October
  • 11 November
  • 12 December

[edit]

Australia/2006
»

  • Filed under:
    • Uncategorized

On the campaign trail in the USA, July 2016

  • Posted on August 26, 2018 at 1:16 am

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

The following is the third edition of a monthly series chronicling the U.S. 2016 presidential election. It features original material compiled throughout the previous month after an overview of the month’s biggest stories.

In this month’s edition on the campaign trail: two individuals previously interviewed by Wikinews announce their candidacies for the Reform Party presidential nomination; a former Republican Congressman comments on the Republican National Convention; and Wikinews interviews an historic Democratic National Convention speaker.

Contents

  • 1 Summary
    • 1.1 RNC
    • 1.2 DNC
  • 2 Reform Party race features two Wikinews interviewees
  • 3 Former Congressman responds to Cruz RNC speech
  • 4 Wikinews interviews history-making DNC speaker
  • 5 Related articles
  • 6 Sources
On the campaign trail in the USA, July 2016
»

  • Filed under:
    • Uncategorized

Interview with US political activist and philosopher Noam Chomsky

  • Posted on August 26, 2018 at 1:10 am

Saturday, April 4, 2009

Noam Chomsky is a professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Linguistics and Philosophy. At the age of 40 he was credited with revolutionizing the field of modern linguistics. He was one of the first opponents of the Vietnam War, and is a self described Libertarian Socialist. At age 80 he continues to write books; his latest book, Hegemony or Survival, was a bestseller in non-fiction. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index Professor Chomsky is the eighth most cited scholar of all time.

On March 13, Professor Chomsky sat down with Michael Dranove for an interview in his MIT office in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

((Michael Dranove)) I just wanted to know if you had any thoughts on recent NATO actions and the protests coming up at the 60th NATO conference, I know you’re speaking at the counter-conference.

Could be I give so many talks I can’t remember (laughs).

On the NATO conference, well I mean the obvious question is why should NATO exist? In fact you can ask questions about why it should ever have existed, but now why should it exist. I mean the theory was, whether you believe it or not, that it would be a defensive alliance against potential Soviet aggression, that’s the basic doctrine. Well there’s no defense against Soviet aggression, so whether you believe that doctrine or not that’s gone.

When the Soviet Union collapsed there had been an agreement, a recent agreement, between Gorbachev and the U.S government and the first Bush administration. The agreement was that Gorbachev agreed to a quite remarkable concession: he agreed to let a united Germany join the NATO military alliance. Now it is remarkable in the light of history, the history of the past century, Germany alone had virtually destroyed Russia, twice, and Germany backed by a hostile military alliance, centered in the most phenomenal military power in history, that’s a real threat. Nevertheless he agreed, but there was a quid pro quo, namely that NATO should not expand to the east, so Russia would at least have a kind of security zone. And George Bush and James Baker, secretary of state, agreed that NATO would not expand one inch to the east. Gorbachev also proposed a nuclear free weapons zone in the region, but the U.S wouldn’t consider that.

Okay, so that was the basis on which then shortly after the Soviet Union collapsed. Well, Clinton came into office what did he do? Well one of the first things he did was to back down on the promise of not expanding NATO to the east. Well that’s a significant threat to the Soviet Union, to Russia now that there was no longer any Soviet Union, it was a significant threat to Russia and not surprisingly they responded by beefing up their offensive capacity, not much but some. So they rescinded their pledge not to use nuclear weapons on first strike, NATO had never rescinded it, but they had and started some remilitarization. With Bush, the aggressive militarism of the Bush administration, as predicted, induced Russia to extend further its offensive military capacity; it’s still going on right now. When Bush proposed the missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, Poland and Czechoslovakia, it was a real provocation to the Soviet Union. I mean that was discussed in U.S arms control journals, that they would have to regard as a potential threat to their strategic deterrent, meaning as a first strike weapon. And the claim was that it had to do with Iranian missiles, but forget about that.

Why should we even be debating NATO, is there any reason why it should exist?

Take say on Obama, Obama’s national security advisor James Jones former Marine commandant is on record of favoring expansion of NATO to the south and the east, further expansion of NATO, and also making it an intervention force. And the head of NATO, Hoop Scheffer, he has explained that NATO must take on responsibility for ensuring the security of pipelines and sea lanes, that is NATO must be a guarantor of energy supplies for the West. Well that’s kind of an unending war, so do we want NATO to exist, do we want there to be a Western military alliance that carries out these activities, with no pretense of defense? Well I think that’s a pretty good question; I don’t see why it should, I mean there happens to be no other military alliance remotely comparable — if there happened to be one I’d be opposed to that too. So I think the first question is, what is this all about, why should we even be debating NATO, is there any reason why it should exist?

((Michael Dranove)) We’ve seen mass strikes all around the world, in countries that we wouldn’t expect it. Do think this is a revival of the Left in the West? Or do you think it’s nothing?

It’s really hard to tell. I mean there’s certainly signs of it, and in the United States too, in fact we had a sit down strike in the United States not long ago, which is a very militant labor action. Sit down strikes which began at a significant level in the 1930’s were very threatening to management and ownership, because the sit down strike is one step before workers taking over the factory and running it and kicking out the management, and probably doing a better job. So that’s a frightening idea, and police were called in and so on. Well we just had one in the United States at the Republic Windows and Doors Factory, it’s hard to know, I mean these things are just hard to predict, they may take off, and they may take on a broader scope, they may fizzle away or be diverted.

((Michael Dranove)) Obama has said he’s going to halve the budget. Do you think it’s a little reminiscent of Clinton right before he decided to institute welfare reform, basically destroying half of welfare, do you think Obama is going to take the same course?

There’s nothing much in his budget to suggest otherwise, I mean for example, he didn’t really say much about it, about the welfare system, but he did indicate that they are going to have to reconsider Social Security. Well there’s nothing much about social security that needs reconsideration, it’s in pretty good financial shape, probably as good as it’s been in its history, it’s pretty well guaranteed for decades in advance. As long as any of the famous baby boomers are around social Security will be completely adequate. So its not for them, contrary to what’s being said. If there is a long term problem, which there probably is, there are minor adjustments that could take care of things.

So why bring up Social Security at all? If it’s an issue at all it’s a very minor one. I suspect the reason for bringing it up is, Social Security is regarded as a real threat by power centers, not because of what it does, very efficient low administrative costs, but for two reasons. One reason is that it helps the wrong people. It helps mostly poor people and disabled people and so on, so that’s kind of already wrong, even though it has a regressive tax. But I think a deeper reason is that social security is based on an idea that power centers find extremely disturbing, namely solidarity, concern for others, community, and so on.

If people have a commitment to solidarity, mutual aid, support, and so on, that’s dangerous because that could lead to concern for other things.

The fundamental idea of Social Security is that we care about whether the disabled widow across town has food to eat. And that kind of idea has to be driven out of people’s heads. If people have a commitment to solidarity, mutual aid, support, and so on, that’s dangerous because that could lead to concern for other things. Like, it’s well known, for example, that markets just don’t provide lots of options, which today are crucial options. So for example, markets today permit you to buy one brand of car or another. But a market doesn’t permit you to decide “I don’t want a car, I want a public transportation system”. That’s just not a choice made available on the market. And the same is true on a wide range of other issues of social significance, like whether to help the disabled widow across town. Okay, that’s what communities decide, that’s what democracy is about, that’s what social solidarity is about and mutual aid, and building institutions by people for the benefit of people. And that threatens the system of domination and control right at the heart, so there’s a constant attack on Social Security even though the pretexts aren’t worth paying attention to.

There are other questions on the budget; the budget is called redistributive, I mean, very marginally it is so, but the way it is redistributive to the extent that it is, is by slightly increasing the tax responsibility to the extremely wealthy. Top couple of percent, and the increase is very marginal, doesn’t get anywhere near where it was during the periods of high growth rate and so on. So that’s slightly redistributive, but there are other ways to be redistributive, which are more effective, for example allowing workers to unionize. It’s well known that where workers are allowed to unionize and most of them want to, that does lead to wages, better working conditions, benefits and so on, which is redistributive and also helps turn working people into more of a political force. And instead of being atomized and separated they’re working to together in principle, not that humans function so wonderfully, but at least it’s a move in that direction. And there is a potential legislation on the table that would help unionize, the Employee Free Choice Act. Which Obama has said he’s in favor of, but there’s nothing about it in the budget, in fact there’s nothing in the budget at all as far as I can tell about improving opportunities to unionize, which is an effective redistributive goal.

And there’s a debate right now, it happens to be in this morning’s paper if Obama’s being accused by Democrats, in fact particularly by Democrats, of taking on too much. Well actually he hasn’t taken on very much, the stimulus package; I mean anybody would have tried to work that out with a little variation. And the same with the bailouts which you can like or not, but any President is going to do it. What is claimed is that he’s adding on to it health care reform, which will be very expensive, another hundreds of billions of dollars, and it’s just not the time to do that. I mean, why would health care reform be more expensive? Well it depends which options you pick. If the healthcare reforms maintain the privatized system, yeah, it’s going to be very expensive because it’s a hopelessly inefficient system, it’s very costly, its administrative costs are far greater than Medicare, the government run system. So what that means is that he’s going to maintain a system which we know is inefficient, has poor outcomes, but is a great benefit to insurance companies, financial institutions, the pharmaceutical industry and so on. So it can save money, health care reform can be a method of deficit reduction. Namely by moving to an efficient system that provides health care to everyone, but that’s hardly talked about, its advocates are on the margins and its main advocates aren’t even included in the groups that are discussing it.

And if you look through it case after case there are a lot of questions like that. I mean, take unionization again, this isn’t in the budget but take an example. Obama, a couple of weeks ago, wanted to make a gesture to show his solidarity with the labor movement, which workers, well that’s different (chuckles) with the workers not the labor movement. And he went to go visit an industrial plant in Illinois, the plant was owned by Caterpillar. There was some protest over that, by human rights groups, church groups, and others because of Caterpillar’s really brutal role in destroying what’s left of Palestine. These were real weapons of mass destruction, so there were protests but he went anyway. However, there was a much deeper issue which hasn’t even been raised, which is a comment on our deep ideological indoctrination. I mean Caterpillar was the first industrial organization to resort to scabs, strikebreakers, to break a major strike. This was in the 1980’s, Reagan had already opened the doors with the air controllers, but this is the first in the manufacturing industry to do it. That hadn’t been done in generations. In fact, it was illegal in every industrial country except apartheid South Africa. But that was Caterpillar’s achievement helping to destroy a union by calling in scabs, and if you call in scabs forget about strikes, in other words, or any other labor action. Well that’s the plant Obama went to visit. It’s possible he didn’t know, because the level of indoctrination in our society is so profound that most people wouldn’t even know that. Still I think that it’s instructive, if you’re interested in doing something redistributive, you don’t go to a plant that made labor history by breaking the principle that you can’t break strikes with scabs.

((Michael Dranove)) I live out in Georgia, and a lot of people there are ultra-right wing Ron Paul Libertarians. They’re extremely cynical. Is there any way for people on the left to reach out to them?

I think what you have to do is ask, what makes them Ron Paul Libertarians? I don’t happen to think that makes a lot of sense, but nevertheless underlying it are feelings that do make sense. I mean the feeling for example that the government is our enemy. It’s a very widespread feeling, in fact, that’s been induced by propaganda as well.

So pretty soon it will be April 15th, and the people in your neighborhood are going to have to send in their income taxes. The way they’re going to look at it, and the way they’ve been trained to look at it is that there is some alien force, like maybe from Mars, that is stealing our hard earned money from us and giving it to the government. Okay, well, that would be true in a totalitarian state, but if you had a democratic society you’d look at it the other way around You’d say “great, it’s April 15th, we’re all going to contribute to implement the plans that we jointly decided on for the benefit of all of us.” But that idea is even more frightening than Social Security. It means that we would have a functioning democracy, and no center of concentrated power is ever going to want that, for perfectly obvious reasons. So yes there are efforts, and pretty successful efforts to get people to fear the government as their enemy, not to regard it as the collective population acting in terms of common goals that we’ve decided on which would be what have to happen in a democracy. And is to an extent what does happen in functioning democracies, like Bolivia, the poorest country in South America. It’s kind of what’s happening there more or less. But that’s very remote from what’s happening here.

Well I think Ron Paul supporters can be appealed to on these grounds, they’re also against military intervention, and we can ask “okay, why?” Is it just for their own security, do they want to be richer or something? I doubt it, I think people are concerned because they think we destroyed Iraq and so on. So I think that there are lots of common grounds that can be explored, even if the outcomes, at the moment, look very different. They look different because they’re framed within fixed doctrines. But those doctrines are not graven in stone. They can be undermined.

Interview with US political activist and philosopher Noam Chomsky
»

  • Filed under:
    • Uncategorized

Ontario Votes 2007: Interview with Progressive Conservative candidate Penny Lucas, Kenora—Rainy River

  • Posted on August 26, 2018 at 1:00 am

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Penny Lucas is running for the Progressive Conservative in the Ontario provincial election, in the Kenora-Rainy River riding. Wikinews’ Nick Moreau interviewed regarding her values, her experience, and her campaign.

Stay tuned for further interviews; every candidate from every party is eligible, and will be contacted. Expect interviews from Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, New Democratic Party members, Ontario Greens, as well as members from the Family Coalition, Freedom, Communist, Libertarian, and Confederation of Regions parties, as well as independents.

Ontario Votes 2007: Interview with Progressive Conservative candidate Penny Lucas, Kenora—Rainy River
»

  • Filed under:
    • Uncategorized

Cisco sues Apple for iPhone trademark

  • Posted on August 25, 2018 at 1:32 am

Friday, January 12, 2007

The iPhone only made its appearance as a prototype and there have been controversies aroused.

The dispute has come up between the manufacturer of the iPhone (which was resented on Wednesday for the first time) – Apple Inc. – and a leader in network and communication systems, based in San JoseCisco. The company claims to possess the trademark for iPhone, and moreover, that it sells devices under the same brand through one of its divisions.

This became the reason for Cisco to file a lawsuit against Apple Inc. so that the latter would stop selling the device.

Cisco states that it has received the trademark in 2000, when the company overtook Infogear Technology Corp., which took place in 1996.

The Vice President and general counsel of the company, Mark Chandler, explained that there was no doubt about the excitement of the new device from Apple, but they should not use a trademark, which belongs to Cisco.

The iPhone developed by Cisco is a device which allows users to make phone calls over the voice over Internet protocol (VoIP).

Cisco sues Apple for iPhone trademark
»

  • Filed under:
    • Uncategorized

2008 COMPUTEX Taipei: Three awards, One target

  • Posted on August 25, 2018 at 1:30 am

Monday, June 23, 2008

2008 COMPUTEX Taipei, the largest trade fair since its inception in 1982, featured several seminars and forums, expansions on show spaces to TWTC Nangang, great transformations for theme pavilions, and WiMAX Taipei Expo, mainly promoted by Taipei Computer Association (TCA). Besides of ICT industry, “design” progressively became the critical factor for the future of the other industries. To promote innovative “Made In Taiwan” products, pavilions from “Best Choice of COMPUTEX”, “Taiwan Excellence Awards”, and newly-set “Design and Innovation (d & i) Award of COMPUTEX”, demonstrated the power of Taiwan’s designs in 2008 COMPUTEX Taipei.

2008 COMPUTEX Taipei: Three awards, One target
»

  • Filed under:
    • Uncategorized

Wikinews Shorts: October 26, 2009

  • Posted on August 25, 2018 at 1:05 am

A compilation of brief news reports for Monday, October 26, 2009.

Contents

  • 1 Walpole, Massachusetts car crash kills one, injures one
  • 2 Ireland pledges €1.3 million in emergency aid relief to Ethiopia
 Contribute to Wikinews by expanding these briefs or add a new one.

A fatal car crash has killed a 79-year-old man Framingham, Massachusetts, United States, and seriously injured a woman. The woman is currently being held at Norwood, Massachusetts Hospital and is being treated for serious injuries. It was a single vehicle crash that happened on Route 1 on Saturday afternoon in Walpole, Massachusetts.

The car was heading south when it lost control and struck a utility pole just after 4 P.M. local time on Saturday. The man died at the scene.

Sources


Ireland has pledged €1.35 million in emergency aid to Ethiopia, in order to help quell the ongoing food crisis in the country.

According to figures by the Ethiopian government released on Friday, the number of people needing food aid in the country is 6.2 million.

Irish Minister of State for Overseas Development Peter Power said that he was “deeply concerned” about the figures.

Wikinews Shorts: October 26, 2009
»

  • Filed under:
    • Uncategorized

US automakers GM and Chrysler seek more government aid

  • Posted on August 25, 2018 at 1:03 am

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The United States auto manufacturer Chrysler, which has been badly affected by the ongoing recession, has asked the US government for an additional US$5 billion in aid on top of the four billion it has already received, saying that it plans to fire three thousand employees. At the end of last year, the auto maker had just over 54,000 employees, meaning that the layoffs will equal about six percent of its total workforce.

In addition, Chrysler will cut the Chrysler Aspen, PT Cruiser, and Durango from production.

Another automaker, General Motors (GM), announced that it seeks $16.6 billion in loans from the government, in addition to the $13.4 billion that it has already received. GM plans to lay off 47,000 employees and close five factories. GM says that it might need as much as $30 billion from the US Treasury Department, an increase over their previous estimate of $18 billion. The company has warned that it might run out of money by March if more aid was not given.

Rick Wagoner, GM’s chief executive, described the firm’s plan as “comprehensive, responsive, achievable, and flexible”. “We have a lot of work in front of us, but I am confident it will result in a profitable General Motors,” he said, adding that “today’s plan is significantly more aggressive because it has to be.” GM says that it could be profitable in two years’ time, and might be able to repay all its loans by 2017.

HAVE YOUR SAY
Should the car companies be bailed out again?
Add or view comments

A third US car manufacturer, Ford Motor Company, has said that it can make it through this year without any government aid.

The US Treasury Department will review the car makers’ survival plans for several weeks before a decision is made on whether or not to extend the loans. That decision is due by the end of next month.

US automakers GM and Chrysler seek more government aid
»

  • Filed under:
    • Uncategorized

NFL: Cowboys cornerback Pacman Jones can’t discuss police incident

  • Posted on August 24, 2018 at 1:34 am

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Dallas Cowboys cornerback Adam “Pacman” Jones was not available to speak with reporters Thursday after a Tuesday night incident involving Jones and a bodyguard in a hotel bathroom in the south-Central American city of Dallas, Texas. Officials are calling the incident private and said charges are not likely to be filed. As of Thursday, the Cowboys have not disciplined Jones.

Police were notified by hotel staff after workers heard a disturbance in the hotel lobby men’s bathroom where Jones and his bodyguard arguing. Jones and his bodyguard told police everything was fine and were driven away by a friend.

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones spoke with members of the media on Thursday, saying that he was “very disappointed in that we’re having to deal with this,” saying that the altercation was not a big deal.

“They were literally kidding each other,” Jerry Jones told the Associated Press on Thursday. “They were jiving around … and all of a sudden one of them starting saying some things, and here you go.”

Cowboys nose tackle Tank Johnson said everything was overblown and shouldn’t distract the team.

“This is not that big of a deal,” Johnson told the Associated Press. “Nobody’s in jail, nobody’s in trouble, nobody’s hurt. We’re all here ready to practice, ready to work.”

National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell told ESPN radio that he was frustrated that the league was even discussing the incident involving Jones and his bodyguard. Goodell also said the NFL league is investigating the matter.

Jones has already been in police trouble in connection with a shooting at a Las Vegas strip club and other incidents which have led to his arrest six times since he was drafted in 2005 by the Tennessee Titans. Jones was suspended in April 2007 by Goodell and allowed to return to play in August.

Jones said this after his reinstatement: “I know my responsibilities to the NFL and I’m going to hold my own and do what I need to do to make sure I stay where I am right now, which is reinstated. I work hard every day to make sure I don’t make the same mistakes. Can I say I would never ever make the same mistakes? No, I can’t say that. I’ll make sure I put myself in way better situations than I have put myself in the past.”

The Dallas Cowboys are a professional American football team in the Eastern Division of the National Football Conference (NFC) in the NFL. They are based in the Dallas suburb of Irving.

NFL: Cowboys cornerback Pacman Jones can’t discuss police incident
»

  • Filed under:
    • Uncategorized

The History Of The Renault}

  • Posted on August 23, 2018 at 3:21 pm

The History of the Renault

by

Levi Quinn

The Renault is a vehicle brand name that is a creation of the Renault S.A. Company. Renault S.A., Societe Renault Freres, as it was known then, was started by a man known as Louis Renault in 1899. Louis started the Renault S.A. Company together with brothers Fernand and Marcel and friends Julian Wyer and Thomas Evert. Although the Renault Corporation was established in the year 1899, the vehicles had already been produced from the late 1897. Renault Voiturette 1CV was the first car from Renault, purchased by a friend to the father of Louis after he was given a test run on the 24th day of December in 1898. This friend to Louis father was so awed by how the small vehicle operated and how it went up the streets leading to his purchase of the vehicle. Louis was quite bright, as he was an aspiring youthful engineer, having designed and developed a few models before being joined by his brothers who were quite skillful in business after working in a textile firm that was owned by their father. When the company was starting, Fernand and Marcel took care of company management and Louis managed production and design.

The brothers saw the vehicles they had made achieve recognition after participating in a motor racing, making Renault instantly renowned. This was especially so after gaining their first victory in the first ever city-to-city racing competition which took place in Switzerland. This then resulted in increased production for this company and swift expansion. Marcel and Louis raced in the companys vehicles but an unfortunate accident took the life of Marcel during a car accident in the race of Paris-Madrid of 1903. The same year saw Fernand retire due to health reasons and Louis was left to manage the Renault Company all by himself. The companys reputation for vehicle innovation was nurtured quite early with the first sedan car being introduced in 1899. Back then the cars were a luxury and the smallest available Renault vehicle was a staggering 3000 francs.

YouTube Preview Image

In addition to the small cars, other Renault manufactured vehicles were buses, taxis, as well as cargo vehicles for commercial use before the First World War broke out. When this war started in 1914, Renault made the switch to creating ammunition vehicles, tanks like the ground-breaking Renault FT-17 and military airplanes. The creations of the military designs from Renault were very successful that Louis Renault was honored for his tact by Allies in the assistance to aid in their victory. When the war ended, Renault became the single French private manufacturer. When the 2nd World War broke out and France surrendered in 1940, Louis refused to make tanks for Nazi Germany which had control of his company and after France liberation in 1944; he was arrested and accused for collaborating with the German occupiers. Eventually, he died in prison even before making a defense. However, Louis Renault and his brothers are renowned for the great invention they made back in the late 80s that is held as a mark of success up to now.

Don’t pay more than you have to for auto insurance! Discover the fast and free way to

shop for the best quotes on auto insurance

from respected insurance companies. Save money with

the automotive coverage you need at a good price

, all from the comfort of your own home or office.

Article Source:

The History of the Renault}