On the town with GWB, AKA democracy in action

[nolanr]

About that whole ELF thing. Read some Ed Abbey. I'm not a member nor ever will be. I consider myself a pretty much law abiding citizen. But I'm GLAD somebody is out there putting their ass on the line throwing a monkeywrench in the machinery of "progress." Corporate rape of natural resources has gone on long enough. Writing letters to Congressmen or having peaceful demonstrations sometimes just doesn't get it done. The corporate rape continues. Sometimes the George Haydukes of the world have to fight back in a way that actually accomplishes something.

[nolanr]

I just have to add, congratulations to all of you on this and the related thread. Very thoughtful, intelligent discussion w/ plenty of difference of opinion but no resorts to name calling and potty mouthed tirades. Bravo!

[allthumbs]

Yup, it's gettin' downright cordial and sissified around here.

[Steamer]

Why don't all of you fuck off!

[sexual_chocolate]

And while you're at it, tell Mtngoat to fix his software. It keeps putting these little * things everywhere. I try to read his dang posts, but every third word has this little * on BOTH SIDES!

 

I've heard the latest LibertarianSpeak Software pack has done away with that, because it was deemed an imposition on the will of fellow internet users. And I say good riddance!

[Fairweather]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nolanr:

Fairweather,

 

I think all you're proving is that there is very little difference between Democrats and Republicans anymore, they're all dirty crooked ho's trading money for political favors. The Reps. have more practice at it, but the Dems. are making great strides.

---

Actually, I thought I was demonstrating the hypocricy of the left. Whenever you remind them of comparable Democrat/environmentalist/left wing transgressions they seem to want to "move on" rather quickly to another subject.

 

I'll grant that choices are limited in a two party system, but I'll take that system over that of some countries politics where a dozen candidates run for office and the winner is the one who got 15 or 16 percent of the vote.......thereby leaving over 80% of the population really pissed off!

[Fairweather]

www.activistcash.com

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

"cooperative can outcompete corporation - look at MEC in Canada dominating outdoor retail market..."

 

Great point!. They still have the structure of a buisness, after all, right? The key to me is MEC is a *voluntary* cooperative, using it's strengths to compete in a free market against others with differing techniques and aims. MEC is a great biz, and does great service with good prices. There's a place for all buisness models, let the consumer decide!

 

It may be cooperative models win out in many areas, and if that's the case that's how it goes. No one has a corner on how a buisness should be run, after all!

---

There is one important difference - they are non profit. No shareholders creaming $$$ off the top and hence no Enron/WorldCom/Martha shady dealings with shares or whatever.

[ryland_moore]

Peaceful protest or not, GW made a complete fool of himself to both sides of the spectrum by not doing his homework. He made a clear statement that he would "activate" and "put into practice" the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan by following the recs. in the Plan and create 100,000 new jobs. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush only read the Cliffs on the Plan and did not realize that the Plan only pertains to Federal lands and therefore only 10,000 new Federal jobs were to be created. He also didn't realize that since the 1994 Plan was accepted, and ammended when 10,000 new jobs was deemed an overestimation,over 6,000 new jobs have been created and very few areas are left to fill. He tried to back track once confronted by saying that the other 90,000 jobs would come from private timber lands and local businesses that benefit from timber industry. So which is it Mr. Bush? Follow the 1994 plan and try and create 10,000 federal jobs that already exist or focus your attentioan away from the NW Forest Plan and provide subsidies to private timber industries like Weyco? You are a loser marionette.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

"I can see corporate America doesn't do any good for you, running that PC supported by literally hundreds of nasty corporate engineers like myself who designed and tested it, who use parts from hundreds or thousands of other evil corporate drones.

 

Using the internet run by still more corporations and using fiberoptic and microwave backbones developed by other nasty corporations, network switches and servers developed by still more selfish capitalists, and running from the power derived by still other hundreds of other corporations for generation, instrumentation, troubleshooting, and all the infrastructure used there.

 

Yup, what's good for corporate America has never done a damned thing for anyone else. They make their money in a trade vacuum by offering nothing anybody wants or values, when you pay for something you get nothing you want."

 

It's not that all aspects of capitalism are bad, and of course corporations serve a purpose. The issue for the Doctor (and a few others like him), is gross corporate influence in the political arena. Huge corporations frequently flout the laws they are supposed to follow, and skip out on taxes they are supposed to pay. This results in government operating more in corporate interest than in the interest of most people (i.e. those people who are not in upper management at megacorporations, but those who get fucked when these corporations go belly up, their stock tanks, and the executives give themselves multi-million dollar bonuses). It's obvious that the corporate infrastructure of the nation serves a lot of needs, but the way in which it operates is frequently detrimental to people and the nation as a whole.

[erik]

what ever happend to "nuke baby whales for jesus" ?? i always thought that was kinda a good plan.....

 

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by erik:

what ever happend to "nuke baby whales for jesus" ?? i always thought that was kinda a good plan.....

 

---

Erik, that is soooooo irresponsible. We prefer to club the baby whales so we can recover more of the skin for cowboy boots!!

[iain]

A little late to the game, but someone mentioned the ELF. I thought it was a mistake to cut down the GMO poplars at Oregon State awhile back. I believe that poplar farming is the solution to many of our forest planning issues, particularly for paper production. Poplar is the ultimate "utility" for a great many environmental issues, from paper production to landfill stabilization.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Yeah, the ELF cuttin' down them farmed trees did seem like a bad move, given their potential end use.

 

Although the Doctor isn't necessarily against some of their other tactics, i.e. destruction of property. As long as lives are not harmed or endangered, certain things could stand to be smashed, trashed, burned, etc. Stick it to the bastards in the pocketbook.

 

And this shit about them being considered a terrorist organization? Give the Doctor a fucking break. The Unabomber was a terrorist; he killed people. But destroying property is not terrorism. In DFA's opinion, labeling even radical groups like the ELF as terrorists cheapens the fuck out of the damage that real terrorists do. Does ANYONE think firebombing log trucks and burning down McMansions comes even remotely close to leveling the WTC and slaughtering thousands?

 

Obviously the FBI and whoever pulls their strings is twisting the situation around to go after people for costing companies money. And sure, what they are doing is illegal, and if the cops come looking for them, fine. But branding them as terrorists and potentially locking these people up for life (or as traitors to America) is sick.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dru:

absolute freedom for individuals tends to diminish the freedom of others.

 

incidentally, where did you find the statistic about handgun crime increasing in Australia and Britain? i have seen nothing similar quoted anywhere. you aren't giving me the NRA party line, are you?

---

No one said "absolute freedom" for individuals. Natural rights states that you have the right to be free and exercise your freedom within the bounds that it DOES NOT infringe on the rights of other individuals.

 

I'll get you some statistics, with sources, soon (all my stuff's at home).

 

Greg W

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fairweather:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nolanr:

Fairweather,

 

I think all you're proving is that there is very little difference between Democrats and Republicans anymore, they're all dirty crooked ho's trading money for political favors. The Reps. have more practice at it, but the Dems. are making great strides.

---

Actually, I thought I was demonstrating the hypocricy of the left. Whenever you remind them of comparable Democrat/environmentalist/left wing transgressions they seem to want to "move on" rather quickly to another subject.

 

I'll grant that choices are limited in a two party system, but I'll take that system over that of some countries politics where a dozen candidates run for office and the winner is the one who got 15 or 16 percent of the vote.......thereby leaving over 80% of the population really pissed off!

---

or you could have a proportional representation system instead of a first-past-the-post sysatm giving the largest minority block all the power

 

or you could realize that party politics are the greatest deterrent to democracy in Western societies today, and we should ditch the whole concept...except that it works so well for moneyed interests to funnel funds to whoever is in power...

[Jim]

Fairweather -

 

I surprised this thread is still alive. Very good points. I hope I didn't mean to imply that the Republicans are the only elite, nope, Democrats are up there too, they just don't have as much practice. Basically the Reps don't care, the Dems throw a few crumbs to the masses, but they all scramble towards money.

 

We're such a rich country it's too bad we waste it on so much military and business handouts.

[mattp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim:

We're such a rich country it's too bad we waste it on so much military and business handouts.

---

But, by god, we're free!

[MtnGoat]

"We're such a rich country it's too bad we waste it on so much military and business handouts."

 

this is precisely why it's backwards to expect to give your money to someone else who then gives it to whoever has *their* ear. When you refuse to delegate the directives of your personal morals yourself, you cannot expect that the money you support spending will go anywhere but where the person you gave it to thinks it should go.

 

There is no way around this. No matter what the situation, either *you* retain the power to delegate your resources, or you give that power away to someone else. There are no other options.

 

If you do not want money going where you don't want it, stop demanding you hand your personal control over to someone else and then being upset they did what they wanted with it.

 

There is simply no shortcut, you either take responsibility for your morality and it's fiscal expression, or you hand it off and get what you get.

[mattp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

There is simply no shortcut, you either take responsibility for your morality and it's fiscal expression, or you hand it off and get what you get.

---

To hand it off, expect it to go where you want it to, and to fail to watch where it goes or to participate in our political system would be asking for the shortcut. To pay your taxes while participating in our political system (by voting, contributing to candidates, canvassing, and yes even protesting sometimes), to engage in community organization or to volunteer for service projects ... that is far from simply seeking a shortcut. Where might this fit in your black and white analysis.

[MtnGoat]

"To hand it off, expect it to go where you want it to, and to fail to watch where it goes or to participate in our political system would be asking for the shortcut. "

 

If you do not hand off control, you do not need to watch who else deals with the cash because there is no one but *you* delegating it. How will it not go where you intend, if you are the one directing it, directly?

 

"To pay your taxes while participating in our political system (by voting, contributing to candidates, canvassing, and yes even protesting sometimes),"

 

But this is what results in the end results you've already said you do not like! How one expects a third party to do what you want, when you hand power to them, is something I don't understand. By handing off power you are handing off control. Either you have it, or someone else does. This is the elemental, unavoidable problem with giving your control to someone else.

 

"to engage in community organization or to volunteer for service projects ... that is far from simply seeking a shortcut."

 

Engaging in either of these directly retains your power, and shows you are living and acting in concert with your stated morality.

 

I mispoke using shortcut as a description for turning overcontrol, I retract that particular word for this situation as you have shown me it was not a good description of this issue.

 

"Where might this fit in your black and white analysis."

 

Sometimes, some things are in fact black and white. This is one of those situations, to wit: Either you have total control of your resources, or you give it away. There is no partial total control.

 

This is the problem with the system as organized now. There simply isn't a way to hand off power, to concentrate it in someone elses hands, and then expect those who seek that power will not gravitate to where you placed it. Once you hand it off, the scramble for control of what you have given away continues without your direct input.

 

[ 08-28-2002, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[mattp]

Arrrgh!!! (I am so misunderstood here.) To put it simply, I see black and white and red choices here: pay your taxes and participate as best you can in our political system, pay your taxes and ignore your obligation to participate as a citizen, or refuse to pay your taxes. I bet there are a lot of things that this great nation of ours is doing with your money that you approve of, are there not? If you believe in public services, whether they be simply the basic utilities like water, sewer and police protection, or if you are "socialistic" as the term is being used here and believe in welfare and public healthcare, you have to pay for it. So it is not a choice of "give it away or not," but one of how much to give away. I have always advocated participation to the greatest extent that one can, and although I do not like everything that happens at the hands of our government, I nave never said that it is worse because people participate in our civil and political processes - at least if the participatns are good guys (you conservatives and libertarians cause all the trouble).

 

[ 08-28-2002, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: mattp ]

[mattp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

it is impossible for anyone to evaluate "good" for someone else regardless of how pure the actions and intents of someone making decisions for millions of others.

---

Huh? Are you saying that we may disagree on the results of our evaluation? I think that is eaually true of the software engineer, the highway contractor or the social worker. Evaluating the "good" of what anybody does is subjective, is it not?

[MtnGoat]

"That's part of the problem, yeah. But then there's the part wherein the company execs need to be able to afford gold toothbrushes and golf tees, and maybe it's cheaper to strip mine a mountain down to a molehill and skip out on cleaning up the toxic mine tailings, and hey, suddenly they're part of the problem, too!"

 

But none of their acts will be doable if they cannot pay for them, and they cannot pay for the mining or the gold toothbrushes if there is no demand, there will be no return on that strip mine, without demand.

 

Demand drives the *entire* system, from top to bottom! Blaming those who sell for those who buy, is putting the cart before the horse.

 

The *want* drives the train, because the want creates the value for something others will try to provide. IMO you cannot blame anyone but the consumer. You can blame the provider for doing things in a way you may not like, sure, but they can't do that without a market anyway.

 

************************************

 

"Evaluating the "good" of what anybody does is subjective, is it not?"

 

exactly, we agree. Thus my point. A well meaning govt employee cannot decide what is a "good" for someone else even if they are not bribed or bad.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

The previous point being that the obscenely wealthy bastards who are the big political pay 'n' players will basically sacrifice anything to make that buck, and frequently slide by regulations (or pay off some representatives and make up their own regs -- or lack thereof) meant to keep them in check.

 

There are companies out there who put responsible use of natural resources ahead of profit, so it's not like it can't be done. Consumers can try to influence them by bugging the company to change or shopping elsewhere if possible, but it's still sick that the big dollar fat cats can make so much dough but still need to make irresponsible use of resources to make more cash.