REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Personal responsibility is not political action. Dumpster diving wouldn't have stopped Hitler.

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, August 21, 2009 06:52
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5090
PAGE 1 of 3

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 8:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Are we taking the easy route? Dumpster diving wouldn't have stopped Hitler, and composting wouldn't have ended slavery.

Derrick Jensen, Orion Magazine. Posted July 13, 2009.
Quote:

Would any sane person think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?

Part of the problem is that we’ve been victims of a campaign of systematic misdirection. Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance. An Inconvenient Truth helped raise consciousness about global warming. But did you notice that all of the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption—changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much—and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet? Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide.

Or let’s talk water. We so often hear that the world is running out of water. People are dying from lack of water. Rivers are dewatered from lack of water. Because of this we need to take shorter showers. See the disconnect? Because I take showers, I’m responsible for drawing down aquifers? Well, no. More than 90 percent of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry. The remaining 10 percent is split between municipalities and actual living breathing individual humans. Collectively, municipal golf courses use as much water as municipal human beings. People (both human people and fish people) aren’t dying because the world is running out of water. They’re dying because the water is being stolen.

Or let’s talk energy. Kirkpatrick Sale summarized it well: “For the past 15 years the story has been the same every year: individual consumption—residential, by private car, and so on—is never more than about a quarter of all consumption; the vast majority is commercial, industrial, corporate, by agribusiness and government [he forgot military]. So, even if we all took up cycling and wood stoves it would have a negligible impact on energy use, global warming and atmospheric pollution.”

Or let’s talk waste. In 2005, per-capita municipal waste production (basically everything that’s put out at the curb) in the U.S. was about 1,660 pounds. Let’s say you’re a die-hard simple-living activist, and you reduce this to zero. You recycle everything. You bring cloth bags shopping. You fix your toaster. Your toes poke out of old tennis shoes. You’re not done yet, though. Since municipal waste includes not just residential waste, but also waste from government offices and businesses, you march to those offices, waste reduction pamphlets in hand, and convince them to cut down on their waste enough to eliminate your share of it. Uh, I’ve got some bad news. Municipal waste accounts for only 3 percent of total waste production in the United States.

I want to be clear. I’m not saying we shouldn’t live simply. I live reasonably simply myself, but I don’t pretend that not buying much (or not driving much, or not having kids) is a powerful political act, or that it’s deeply revolutionary. It’s not. Personal change doesn’t equal social change.

So how, then, and especially with all the world at stake, have we come to accept these utterly insufficient responses? I think part of it is that we’re in a double bind. A double bind is where you’re given multiple options, but no matter what option you choose, you lose, and withdrawal is not an option. At this point, it should be pretty easy to recognize that every action involving the industrial economy is destructive (and we shouldn’t pretend that solar photovoltaics, for example, exempt us from this: they still require mining and transportation infrastructures at every point in the production processes; the same can be said for every other so-called green technology). So if we choose option one—if we avidly participate in the industrial economy—we may in the short term think we win because we may accumulate wealth, the marker of “success” in this culture. But we lose, because in doing so we give up our empathy, our animal humanity. And we really lose because industrial civilization is killing the planet, which means everyone loses. If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to give up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone still loses. The third option, acting decisively to stop the industrial economy, is very scary for a number of reasons, including but not restricted to the fact that we’d lose some of the luxuries (like electricity) to which we’ve grown accustomed, and the fact that those in power might try to kill us if we seriously impede their ability to exploit the world—none of which alters the fact that it’s a better option than a dead planet. Any option is a better option than a dead planet.

Besides being ineffective at causing the sorts of changes necessary to stop this culture from killing the planet, there are at least four other problems with perceiving simple living as a political act (as opposed to living simply because that’s what you want to do). The first is that it’s predicated on the flawed notion that humans inevitably harm their landbase. Simple living as a political act consists solely of harm reduction, ignoring the fact that humans can help the Earth as well as harm it. We can rehabilitate streams, we can get rid of noxious invasives, we can remove dams, we can disrupt a political system tilted toward the rich as well as an extractive economic system, we can destroy the industrial economy that is destroying the real, physical world.

The second problem—and this is another big one—is that it incorrectly assigns blame to the individual (and most especially to individuals who are particularly powerless) instead of to those who actually wield power in this system and to the system itself. Kirkpatrick Sale again: “The whole individualist what-you-can-do-to-save-the-earth guilt trip is a myth. We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them.”

The third problem is that it accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming. Citizens have a much wider range of available resistance tactics, including voting, not voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting, and, when a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have the right to alter or abolish it.

The fourth problem is that the endpoint of the logic behind simple living as a political act is suicide. If every act within an industrial economy is destructive, and if we want to stop this destruction, and if we are unwilling (or unable) to question (much less destroy) the intellectual, moral, economic, and physical infrastructures that cause every act within an industrial economy to be destructive, then we can easily come to believe that we will cause the least destruction possible if we are dead.

The good news is that there are other options. We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned—Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States—who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.

Food for thought.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 8:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


In light of that, here are convenient links to pressure Eric Holder to investigate Cheney, to press for single payer health care, and other issues.
http://www.alternet.org/action/141289/press_attorney_general_eric_hold
er_to_bring_torture_architects_to_justice
/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 8:50 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Derrick Jensen, Orion Magazine. Posted July 13, 2009. Personal change doesn’t equal social change.

Indeed!

The problem is when people enact personal change solutions, or give to charity, it allows them to continue their current lifestyle (more or less) while assuaging their guilt that they are making a difference in the world. Personal change is the modern day indulgence. It allows us to keep on sinning, as long as we "pay" for the sins.

To make a real dent in problems of environment, social justice, energy, water, food, etc, we not only need social change, but government change. Because for better or for worse, government controls it all. Nothing short of a political revolution will change anything.

But folks don't want revolutions. They want to go to their jobs, eat at Olive Garden, take their bubble baths, barbeque in their backyard, and go to Disneyworld. Nobody wants to FIGHT for the change they say they want.

I think that is why I love Firefly, in the end. It is about a group of people who were willing to fight for what they believed in. Not just in the War of the Independents, but also fight for survival to live outside the control of the Alliance. Not many who would do that.

Not many at all.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 8:59 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Food for thought.




And if we stop giving agriculture that water and energy it's "stealing" from the world, food for thought is about the only food we'll have.

But anyway, I've noticed that many of the people who take personal responsibility by making their small contributions to recycling, energy efficiency, water conservation, etc. are also the folk who are the most politically active.

Edit to add: And if you do feel active, here's links to join the NRA
http://membership.nrahq.org/
The Libertarian party
https://www.lp.org/membership
and Hunters for the Hungry
http://www.h4hungry.org/

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

And if we stop giving agriculture that water and energy it's "stealing" from the world, food for thought is about the only food we'll have
Agriculture wastes a lot of water. Simply irrigating by drip at night rather than spraying water into the air (sometimes during a windy 100 deg heatwave!) allows 50% more water to get to the plants. In addition, the infrastructure that transports the water leaks anywhere from 15-40%. No-till agriculture also saves water, an addition to building soil structure. So, there are many ways to save water. The problem is that the agriculture industry has done a good job of convincing various water boards that they "need" preferential rates. When rates are raised, its amazing how alternate technologies suddenly become desirable.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 12:31 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Well, one can start by not letting the opposition set the "rules" of the engagement.

Some other thoughts for you.

People talk about Community, and how important it is...

Tell me, what is the root of this word ?

But oh noes, that's *gasp* red flag commie socialism and it's so EEEVIL... right ?

"In existing States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it."
-P. Kropotkin.

You know, that's exactly the same dynamic as we apply to children who see the dystopic "future" of victimization were about to hand them, call us out on it, and we call it a "distorted worldview" or "psychiatric disorder" and try to medicate it, instead of admitting the truth that they have a point and working to change the reality they perceive, instead of their perception of it.

Also, one last bit...

In every discussion of Anarchism, comes up the thought - what about those folk who won't help the community, would use your yard as their waste dump, do this, do that, etc etc, and I got to pondering this a bit.

You know, I would not do that to you.
Would you do it to me ?

So, who are these people, where might these mythical roadblocks be found ?

Oh, yeah, that's right... GOVERNMENT, without the power of which, that being the primary thing that protects, coddles and encourages sociopathic behavior of that nature by removing proper consquence from it, said folk tend to receive proper comeuppance for that behavior in very short order, gee whiz, what a concept.

Hell, most decent folk have anarchist leanings to begin with, they just don't realize it.
http://www.anarchistresistance.org/abolishthebank/areyouananarchist.sh
tml


Anyhow, first things first, stop letting the other side frame the arguments and set the rules of engagement - that's every bit as ludicrous as begging "permission" for a *permit* to stage a fekkin protest, innit ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 1:41 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Agriculture wastes a lot of water. Simply irrigating by drip at night rather than spraying water into the air (sometimes during a windy 100 deg heatwave!) allows 50% more water to get to the plants.


And in small scale uses drip irrigation works well. I use it for my own veggie garden. Lots of small and medium commercial veggie farms use it. Try using it on a large wheat or corn (or most anything) crop, and you run up against a few problems. First, the amount of pipe, drip nozzles, etc. get pretty expensive when you're talking hundreds of acres. Second, drip works best when drippers can be placed right next to the plants. With the planting methods required for large grain fields, this can't work too well.
Third, the only way to harvest the amount of grains needed to feed us is with mechanized equipment. Doesn't work really well with all the paraphernalia sitting on the ground required for drip.
Quote:

In addition, the infrastructure that transports the water leaks anywhere from 15-40%.

And a good chunk of that infrastructure, especially in the West, is owned by the government. I'm not sure a private concern, having to make a profit, would be as wasteful.
Quote:

No-till agriculture also saves water, an addition to building soil structure.
It's not all positive. The farmers must replace their equipment with the new stuff needed for no-till. Yields may be lower for several years. It seems to be more climate-sensitive. See Wiki
Quote:

So, there are many ways to save water. The problem is that the agriculture industry has done a good job of convincing various water boards that they "need" preferential rates. When rates are raised, its amazing how alternate technologies suddenly become desirable.
So you're quite happy to see food prices go up?

This isn't to say that there can't be more efficient methods of farming, but I suspect your solution would be massive government control and collectivization. I'm not sure I'd support that, given the results of farm collectivization in Soviet Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, etc. I have no desire to starve for your dream.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:05 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

So, who are these people, where might these mythical roadblocks be found ? Oh, yeah, that's right... GOVERNMENT
Nope. 'Cause I KNOW entities which have literally tipped their hexavalent chromium waste into the schoolyard next door, and it wasn't government. It was BUSINESS. Yep. BUSINESS. I know you got this hobby-horse about government, but government is ammenable to popular pressure. Business, OTOH, is driven by profit. And PROFIT means shifting the cost to someone else.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:50 PM

FREMDFIRMA


For the purposes of the argument spelled out above, I consider corporations a "government", which in essence they are, simply in another form.

One can certainly entertain the notion that a co-op run by folk who lived in that neighborhood would have a certain reluctance to engage in that behavior.

There's also the age-old argument that corporations would not have their way so easily were it not for the precedent of having the entire military might of that government at their beck and call to protect them from an outraged and exploited citizenry.

Far as I am concerned, ain't a dimes worth of difference between a Corp and any other type of coercive Govt.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:03 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer, have YOU ever thought of joining the Know Nothing Party? 'Cause your insistence on road-blocking even the most MINIMAL and DO-ABLE of improvements, based on... well, nothing at all really, except ideology... is just astounding. According to you, strong, energy efficient-cars can't be made. Water can't be conserved. Solar power's no good. So, with a minimum of googling, here's your answer:
Quote:

Cornell University study.... As a start, governments should end irrigation subsidies that encourage inefficient use of water and instead reward conservation, according the report, "Water Resources: Agriculture, the Environment and Society," published in the February 1997 issue of the journal, BioScience.

"Undercharging for irrigation water in the U.S. and other nations hides the true cost of food and encourages the planting of low-value crops," said David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, leader of the 10-researcher team that performed the water-resource analysis. "If farmers paid the full cost of water, they would manage irrigation water more efficiently. We should reward water conservation, not water use."

The study examined factors responsible for a worsening shortage of fresh water, including usage that is increasing out of proportion to population increases. While the world population increased from 3.8 billion to 5.4 billion during the recent two decades, water use worldwide increased three-fold, the analysts found.

... Overall, global warming could increase the world's irrigation needs by 26 percent while worsening deforestation, desertification and soil erosion -- all of which affect water resources.

Our taste for meat is costly in terms of water, Pimentel noted. Producing a pound of animal protein requires, on average, about 100 times more water than producing a pound of vegetable protein. But some animals are thriftier, he noted: Whereas growing the grain to feed cattle requires 12,000 gallons of water for every pound of beef, chicken can be produced for only 420 gallons of water per pound of meat. {So, there's one strategy}

Not only is irrigation becoming more costly, in terms of energy expenditures, as underground aquifers run dry and water has to be pumped from greater depths, but energy production is taking more water, according to the study. Oil shale, coal gasification or coal liquefaction -- the last of the fossil fuel sources as the world's supplies of oil and natural gas are depleted -- require 20 to 50 times more water to produce an equivalent amount of energy, compared to oil and gas. {Maybe solar and wind energy isn't such a bad deal after all?}

... To make matters worse, much of the water for irrigation never reaches the crops, the study reported, because of losses through pumping and transporting. Worldwide, irrigation efficiency is less than 40 percent, and U.S. growers don't do much better, losing more than 50 percent of irrigation water.{Not the gubmint, the growers} Among the technologies and practices suggested to improve efficiency are surge flow irrigation (to replace the traditional method of slow, continuous flooding) as well as night irrigation, low-pressure sprinklers, low-energy precision application and drip irrigation, all help reduce losses by evaporation.

An old agricultural practice -- planting trees as "shelter belts" along with food crops -- can reduce evaporation from soil and transpiration from crops while reducing wind erosion of soils by as much as 50 percent, the researchers suggested. In particular, they recommend intercropping crops with "hydraulic lifter" trees, such as eucalyptus, which draw moisture from deep in the soil at night and make it available to surrounding plants. Intercropping also reduces soil erosion, the study observed, noting that the loss of topsoil cuts rainwater infiltration by 93 percent and dramatically increases water runoff and loss. When water runs off farmed land, it carries with it not only sediments but nutrients and pesticides, making soil erosion the leading cause of non-point source pollution in the United States.

Some changes in practice will be involuntary, the water-resource study predicted: "In the future, in arid regions where ground water resources are the primary source of water, irrigation probably will have to be curtailed and types of crops and livestock maintained altered to meet the changing water situation." But policy changes can help, the researchers said: "To encourage conservation, subsidies for irrigation water should be phased out to increase overall efficiency. Irrigation technologies that make efficient use of water for crop production must be encouraged. In general, more effective use of water in agricultural production could be achieved by providing farmers incentives to conserve water and soil resources."

www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan97/water.hrs.html

"The truth is out there"... if you care to look.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:51 PM

HKCAVALIER


Few things here. First, sure sounds like we're replacing the "what-you-can-do-to-save-the-earth guilt trip" with the "what-you-can-do-to-fight-city-hall guilt trip."

The folks who fought against Nazi Germany and Slavery were heroes. I don't expect heroism of anyone. Having found myself in the kind of hell that required heroism from me, I don't wish that upon anyone. I've got nothing against heroism, I admire it enormously when I see it in others, but to expect it from people shows a real lack of empathy.

Have we really stopped Hitler, Signy? Or has he just taken another form? Many forms? The only real solution to evil is not political action. And what is political action, finally? Coercion? Domination of the few by the many? At what point does that all shade into evil itself? Go ahead, folks, risk your necks in that struggle, try to push people around for the "right" reasons, and good luck, but don't you dare use that to feel superior to the rest of us!

And, I'm sorry, though we humans can be plenty destructive, no doubt about it, the planet is not going to DIE because of us. What an ego we humans have! What a desperate need to feel big, and bad, and powerful! WE may die, yes. But this CRAPOLA about how, ooooh, dangerous we tiny mites are to the planet herself is just way too grandiose. If need be, she'll just shrug us off like a gnat in her sleep, wake from us like a bad dream.

There's gotta be some push and shove in the world, I can see that. But healing, actual healing, actual diminishment of evil, is an inside job. It is personal. And it's social. It is--and I mean this very seriously--an art. It's really about education and expanding one's awareness and the awareness of others (and I'm not talking about enlightenment). Reducing the violence in one's life DOES make a difference, and it reduces the violence in the lives of others. Sorry it's just not big enough for some people to notice, or care about.

It may not be enough, ultimately, to save our skins, but after all your political pushing and shoving, you may fail to save us as well. We all gotta do our part, but it's up to each of us to decide what that part is.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:24 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
According to you, strong, energy efficient-cars can't be made. Water can't be conserved. Solar power's no good.



Wrongo.

I don't say it can't be done. I just say that it isn't as simple as you think it is.

Energy efficient cars are being made, but not everyone in the U.S. - or even a majority - want them. Water can be conserved, but there's a price in higher food costs. Solar power is OK, but it'll be more expensive that other sources for quite a while.

I also say that these issues won't be resolved - at least not efficiently - by government decree.

You seem to think that if we just had a "whatever" government, everyone would fall in line, all problems would disappear, everything would be cheap an available to everyone, and wonderfulness would rule forever.

Of course, to get to this wonderful place, anyone who disagrees with your program has to be censored, since they aren't telling "the truth". They have to be re-educated to fit with your world-view, since you've got the simple solution to all the world's complex problems.

I'm sure you'd have no compunction about sending the stubborn holdouts against your wonderful plan for everyone's happiness to the wall, since it'd be a cheap price for making a better world for those who buy your line of bullshit.

You really scare me, because you would happily allow folk to lose whichever of their individual freedoms conflict with your worldview if it meant things would turn out like you want. What's really funny is that if you got want you want, you'd be next in line for the wall.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I also say that these issues won't be resolved - at least not efficiently - by government decree.
So how about we just stop subsidizing water?

More later.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:32 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

I also say that these issues won't be resolved - at least not efficiently - by government decree.
So how about we just stop subsidizing water?

More later.



Maybe we can stop subsidizing large SUVs, too. You DO realize that truck-based SUVs - anything you can get categorized as a "truck", up to and including the Chrysler PT Cruiser, which somehow qualifies as a "light truck" under EPA guidelines - don't have to meet the more stringent CAFE standards that CARS have to meet, right?

Also, they don't have to pass as rigorous a battery of crash tests, either. If you can get your vehicle listed as a "truck" for whatever reason, you get all sorts of exemptions and loopholes - or in other words, you get subsidized by legal mandate NOT to meet the standards that every passenger car must meet.

Yesterday, right in front of my workplace, I got to witness an offset-head-on collision between a Chevrolet Dual-Cab Duallie pickup towing a flatbed trailer, and a Toyota Matrix. You'd've thought the Matrix would get the shitty end of that stick, but you'd be wrong. The Matrix driver popped out, going "What the fuck just happened?", while the pickup driver dragged his ass out of his truck through the passenger-side door, holding his shoulder, and with his forearm obviously broken. His truck was mangled - the driver's door wouldn't open, the passenger cell was misshapen; the Matrix, on the other hand, had a passenger cell that looked untouched.

Maybe it's time we make all vehicles that aren't registered to actual businesses or farms meet the same standards of fuel efficiency and safety. After all, if you're buying a truck, but using it as your CAR, you need it to be as safe as a car. Here in Texas, it's rare to see anyone use their monster-truck 4x4s for anything remotely "off-road" - unless you call cutting across the median at the mall "off-roading"!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:34 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


You seem to think that if we just had a "whatever" government, everyone would fall in line, all problems would disappear, everything would be cheap an available to everyone, and wonderfulness would rule forever.



I'd say Signy isn't the only one who thinks that way. You seem more than a little guilty of it yourself. If only we had no regulation, if only we had unfettered free markets, if only we could turn over the water supply to corporations like Enron, because there's NO chance they're going to screw anything up, right?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Thank Kwicko, my point exactly. To beat this dead horse even further:
Quote:

Wrongo. I don't say it can't be done. I just say that it isn't as simple as you think it is. Energy efficient cars are being made, but not everyone in the U.S. - or even a majority - want them.
They're not being sold at the current price. And who's gonna bring the price down through mass production? GM? Chrysler?
Quote:

Water can be conserved, but there's a price in higher food costs.
Big users should be charged at the same rate as little user, no subsidies.
Quote:

Solar power is OK, but it'll be more expensive that other sources for quite a while.
And who's investing in making it cheaper? Exxon??? Shell???

Quote:

I also say that these issues won't be resolved - at least not efficiently - by industry action, given their history so far. You seem to think that if we just had a "whatever" market everyone would fall in line, all problems would disappear, everything would be cheap an available to everyone, and wonderfulness would rule forever. Of course, to get to this wonderful place, anyone who disagrees with your program has to be censored, since they aren't telling "the truth". They have to believe the commercials on TV to be re-educated to fit with your world-view, since you've got the simple solution to all the world's complex problems: capitalism

I'm sure you'd have no compunction about kicking stubborn holdouts against your wonderful plan for everyone's happiness to the curb, since it'd be a cheap price for making a better world for those who buy your line of bullshit. You really scare me, because you would happily allow folk to lose whichever of their individual freedoms conflict with corporations if it meant things would turn out like you want. What's really funny is that if you got want you want, you'd be next in line for the curb



"Keep the blinders on"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:43 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Strange how little faith Geezer has in democracy - that thing which allows people to guide and run their own society for their own benefit. And how much he has in corporations.

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

Banana republic, anyone ? ( - not the clothing - that thing with armed camps for the workers who must be made to enjoy the benefits of benevolent capitalism - for their own good, of course.)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

And how much he has in corporations
Which have nothing but our best interests at heart.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:04 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Strange how little faith Geezer has in democracy - that thing which allows people to guide and run their own society for their own benefit. And how much he has in corporations.

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

Banana republic, anyone ? ( - not the sunscreen - that thing with armed camps for the workers who must be made to enjoy the benefits of benevolent capitalism - for their own good, of course.)



Well, in fairness, Geezer IS a big fan of "democracy" - as long as that's what they call it when strong-arm dictators friendly to western and corporate interests take over smaller countries with our support and backing! He's just not much of a fan of democracy HERE, where we allegedly have such a thing (although in truth, it's NOT a democracy any more than it's a "capitalist" system; it's a more-or-less democratic republic with hints of corporatism and oligarchism, and a touch of socialism and fascism tossed in for good measure.)

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:18 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
So how about we just stop subsidizing water?


Fine with me. Doubt it'll happen.

I was listening to the Diane Rehm show today http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/07/15.php#26912 about the crisis in dairy farming. Seems that there is so much overproduction that it costs farmers $16.00 to produce a hundredweight (cwt) of milk that they can only sell for $10.00, there being so much surplus.

The proposed solution, of course, was to set a government-mandated price floor of $18.00 per cwt. No one on the show (that I heard. I missed a few minutes) dared suggest that maybe there were too many dairy farmers.

Does that sound right to you?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:40 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
They're (energy-efficient cars)not being sold at the current price. And who's gonna bring the price down through mass production? GM? Chrysler?


You can buy subcompacts for under $10,000.00. GM and Ford manufacture sub-compacts that go for $12-14,000.00 after rebates and get 35+ mpg. Strangely enough, folks still pay two or three times that for minivans and SUVs.

Did you know that Toyota loses money on every Prius they sell? They subsidize Prius for its Green cred using the profit on sales of their trucks and SUVs.
Quote:

Big users should be charged at the same rate as little user, no subsidies.
Fine with me. Expect to pay more at the market, though.
Quote:

And who's investing in making it (solar power)cheaper? Exxon??? Shell???
Nope, and neither are Toyota or Disney. It's not their market. Outfits like Tetra Tech and BlueFire Ethanol are carrying on the alternative energy research.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:42 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Not too many dairy farmers - too much agribusiness dairy factories competing with the mom and pop dairy farms.

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


But Signy, I forgot to ask you to provide your simple solution for the agricultural water problem. Stopping subsidies is fine, even if consumer prices go up. Drip irrigation and no-till farming have some utility, and are being used now, but they also raise prices to the consumer and have limitations relating to terrain and type of crop. What's that obvious thing that everyone's been missing that'll save us? The world needs to know.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I forgot to ask you to provide your simple solution for the agricultural water problem... What's that obvious thing that everyone's been missing that'll save us?
I have no idea what you're talking about. Why are you pressing for one (only one!) obvious solution? That's like saying we should invest in high-efficiency home furnaces in Los Angeles, solar energy in Seattle, and cool-roof technology in Barrow.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:09 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Not too many dairy farmers - too much agribusiness dairy factories competing with the mom and pop dairy farms.



Yep. We could do away with all the big efficient farms and let the mom & pop farms feed us. Except there aren't enough mom & pop farms to feed us, and not that many folk who want to start farming from scratch. Of course, we could just assign people to the farms...

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Mom-and-pop farms HATE being beholden to Cargill, Monsanto or whomever, from whom they must buy their (GMO) seeds, fertilizers, chicks, turkeys etc. and feed them the standard mix that Monsanto requires. Many of these farmers feel like nothing more than sub-contractors to larger firms.

Whatsamatta, Geezer? Have you no feeling for individualism and individual freedom? Or do you LIKE smaller producers being swallowed by big corporations? (Something which you have vociferously denied ever happens in many previous posts!)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:57 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


Did you know that Toyota loses money on every Prius they sell? They subsidize Prius for its Green cred using the profit on sales of their trucks and SUVs.



Cites? According to Toyota, the current generation of the Prius, AND the previous generation - the one that really got noticed - are both profitable on their own.

"Expect to pay more at the market..."

Well, maybe a little more, at first. I don't *always* buy organic produce, but if the prices are anywhere close, I absolutely will. I'll support organic farms with my wallet, just as long as it's not going to break me to do it. Same with farms that put an emphasis on water conservation. While I may not pay DOUBLE to get that produce, I WILL pay more, and I'll make the choice to do it.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:59 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
But Signy, I forgot to ask you to provide your simple solution for the agricultural water problem. Stopping subsidies is fine, even if consumer prices go up. Drip irrigation and no-till farming have some utility, and are being used now, but they also raise prices to the consumer and have limitations relating to terrain and type of crop. What's that obvious thing that everyone's been missing that'll save us? The world needs to know.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



I take it you're firmly AGAINST closing our borders and stemming the flow of illegal aliens into the country, then? After all, if you want to secure the borders and deport the 12 million or so illegals, I hope you're ready to pay more for your produce!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:22 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I have no idea what you're talking about. Why are you pressing for one (only one!) obvious solution?



Well, earlier, you suggested that the farmers all go to drip irrigation and no-till farming, seeming to think that those were panaceas. You obviously believe you have some sort of answer, but when asked what it is you don't seem to be able to provide a clear description. Sort like when you were asked who'd decide which "truth" the media should be allowed to broadcast, you went silent.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:36 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


So, Geezer, what's YOUR one solution? Give control of all water to corporations, as you suggested earlier? Let 'em charge whatever they want for it, and put your faith in the free market that your prices won't go up?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:45 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Whatsamatta, Geezer? Have you no feeling for individualism and individual freedom? Or do you LIKE smaller producers being swallowed by big corporations? (Something which you have vociferously denied ever happens in many previous posts!)



If I didn't have to eat, I'd like to see the countryside dotted with little farms for all the mom & pop farmers who wanted them. However, there wouldn't be enough of them to feed everybody. I appreciate handmade cabinetry, but if we had to depend on individual cabinet-makers for all our furniture, we'd be sitting on the floor a lot.

The future of the mom & pop farm is most likely in niche markets where they can sell quality produce - probably organic - at a higher price. Lots are going that way sucessfully. Individual freedom includes the freedom to fail if you don't change with the times and the market. Would you have banned the auto in the early 20th century because it put buggy-whip makers out of business?


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:49 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So, Geezer, what's YOUR one solution?



Simple. Quit trying to come up with simple solutions. People who say 'if we only do this', 'if we only do that', 'it's all (fill in the blank)'s fault' are talking out their ass and have no idea how complex things really are. Above all, quit trying to make everything about your political agenda.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:52 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Above all, quit trying to make everything about your political agenda."

Think I'm going to make this my tag-line every time I post to you.


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

"Above all, quit trying to make everything about your political agenda."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:55 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
...I hope you're ready to pay more for your produce!




Actually, I am. When possible, I buy from mom & pop farmers at local farmers markets, and don't mind paying more for better produce. I also grow and dry my own herbs and chiles, and raise my own hierloom tomatoes. Oh, and we bake most all our own bread, too.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:06 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


Simple. Quit trying to come up with simple solutions. People who say 'if we only do this', 'if we only do that', 'it's all (fill in the blank)'s fault' are talking out their ass and have no idea how complex things really are. Above all, quit trying to make everything about your political agenda.



But aren't YOU also trying to make everything about YOUR political agenda? Isn't saying "Do nothing; stay the course; maintain the status quo!" promoting your political agenda?

Telling people who say "if we only do this" and "if we only do that" to instead DO NOTHING is its own form of promoting a political agenda.

During the campaign, we had Barrack Obama telling us that "if we only checked our tire pressures and kept our tires properly inflated, we'd cut our gasoline use by 4 percent." Those in favor of never doing anything or trying anything roundly criticized him for that remark, saying "if only we drill here at home, we'd get about 4 percent more oil out of the ground". (Of course, they were neglecting to mention the more than 68,000,000 acres of land that the oil companies already HAVE drilling rights on, which they haven't even explored...)

When you look at a problem like water or oil, there ARE no giant simple solutions; you're right about that. But what there are are simple things that more of us can do, things that will add up to make a real difference.

I don't think I saw Signy advocating that ALL farmers must use one single method. What she seemed to be advocating was that if MORE farmers would use MORE of these methods, it would have a net cumulative effect that would be rather large.

If *I* switch my yard to xeriscaping, it's not going to have an effect on the city's water usage. It will impact MY personal water usage a bit, but the city won't notice. But if the whole city went to xeriscaping, you'd see one hell of a drop in water usage. I note that that is not THE solution, but merely one little thing that more people could do. But before you can get ANYONE to do that or anything else that will use less water, you have to make them aware that there ARE alternatives to what they're currently doing.





Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:12 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
...I hope you're ready to pay more for your produce!




Actually, I am. When possible, I buy from mom & pop farmers at local farmers markets, and don't mind paying more for better produce. I also grow and dry my own herbs and chiles, and raise my own hierloom tomatoes. Oh, and we bake most all our own bread, too.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Actually, so do I.

So when you keep saying "I hope you're ready to pay more for your food", are you just trying to be alarmist?

Let's put it this way: In your life, have prices generally gone up, or down? Saying "I hope you're ready to pay more for your food" is like arguing against better mileage or auto safety by saying, "I hope you're ready to pay more for your cars." OF COURSE car prices are going up - and oddly enough, they've been going up consistently with no regard whatsoever for the fuel economy standards. So trying to link those is pretty much pure BS.

Prices are going to go up. The only thing that changes is what those price increases are blamed on.



Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Well, earlier, you suggested that the farmers all go to drip irrigation and no-till farming, seeming to think that those were panaceas. You obviously believe you have some sort of answer but when asked what it is you don't seem to be able to provide a clear description
I posted an article from Cornell University which had about six or seven "answers". I even underlined them for you. Try reading it. And I made the point that was just one site out of many.
Quote:

Sort like when you were asked who'd decide which "truth" the media should be allowed to broadcast, you went silent.
If you recall, I gave you two pathways: either allow everyone free access to the media and let the audience sort it all out, or require that the media be held to some form of truthfulness. It seems to me that allowing lawsuits to be filed on the basis of non-factuality might be the way to go.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 3:11 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
But aren't YOU also trying to make everything about YOUR political agenda? Isn't saying "Do nothing; stay the course; maintain the status quo!" promoting your political agenda?



No. And I've never said the "Do nothing..." line. I'm just trying to point out that it isn't as simple as you, or SignyM, or Rue try to make it. People who have a lot more expertise than you or I are working on the problems related to efficient food production. Somehow I don't think folks who have read a few articles on websites that cater to their political viewpoint have the depth of knowledge about several different diciplines to propose a solution.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 3:21 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I posted an article from Cornell University which had about six or seven "answers".

Yep. They have six or seven "answers". Other folks got answers that contradict the Cornell ones. Should we just pick a few at random, apply them nationwide, and hope that not too many folks starve if we're wrong?
Quote:

If you recall, I gave you two pathways: either allow everyone free access to the media and let the audience sort it all out,
As the internet does. Internet Neutrality. Yay!
Quote:

...or require that the media be held to some form of truthfulness.

And for the umpteenth time, WHO THE FUCK decides what the standard of truthfulness is? You consistantly refuse to answer this question. I'm expecting you'll refuse to answer it again.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 16, 2009 2:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Yep. They have six or seven "answers". Other folks got answers that contradict the Cornell ones. Should we just pick a few at random, apply them nationwide, and hope that not too many folks starve if we're wrong?
Cites please?

Other studies present other OPTIONS, which add to the armamentarium, not subtract from it. Saying that they "contradict" the Cornell study is like saying that hand-washing contradicts antibiotic use. Other studies cite drip irrigation, crop replacement, low-pressure low-elevation sprinkling, laser-leveling, tailwater (runoff) re-use, and soil moisture monitoring. In some places they reiterate Cornell, in other places they overlap, and still others they complement. None of them "contradict".
www.pacinst.org/reports/more_with_less_delta/index.htm
www.twdb.state.tx.us/.../conservation/ConservationPublications/AgBroch
ure.pdf

What this all means is that farmers have a large number of options to choose from, which they can use in singly or combination to maximize irrigation efficiency.
Quote:

As the internet does. Internet Neutrality. Yay!
Ah, so now you're FOR internet neutrality? Good! Say- do you know what that is???? It's a regulation which "interferes" with the telecom's ability to charge different customers different rates. In other words, net neutrality is a gubmint function which interferes with business. Still for it?
Quote:

And for the umpteenth time, WHO THE FUCK decides what the standard of truthfulness is? You consistantly refuse to answer this question. I'm expecting you'll refuse to answer it again.

I answered it: Allow lawsuits to be brought against the media for lack of factuality. That way "everyone" decides.

I feel like I'm talking to a dolt who's got his head buried up his ass.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 16, 2009 2:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
For the purposes of the argument spelled out above, I consider corporations a "government", which in essence they are, simply in another form.

One can certainly entertain the notion that a co-op run by folk who lived in that neighborhood would have a certain reluctance to engage in that behavior.

There's also the age-old argument that corporations would not have their way so easily were it not for the precedent of having the entire military might of that government at their beck and call to protect them from an outraged and exploited citizenry.

Far as I am concerned, ain't a dimes worth of difference between a Corp and any other type of coercive Govt.

-F

OTOH Frem.... the reason why the chrome plater tipped their waste into the schoolyard was because their sewer line had been blocked by the sanitation district for dumping toxic waste down the drain. Then ANOTHER function of the government .... the air pollution agency- stepped in and found out they were blowing it out their stack too. The extremely high "background" levels that we took indicated widespread contamination- which brought in the dept of toxic substances for soil testing. Eventually, the place was shut down, the owners went to jail, and the site was cleaned up. Seeing as hexchrome is odorless and an extremely potent carcinogen even at low levels, NONE of the neighbors complained at first. They didn't even KNOW there was a problem until testing showed otherwise.

You forget, Frem, that I work for the gubmint enforcing rules that very few businesses like. I've gone toe-to-toe with bad actors across the board: refineries, platers, illegal toxic waste dumps which caught fire, superfund sites, drum recyclers, lead refiners, aluminum smelters, cement makers, coke calcining operations, paint manufacturers. Businesses which knowingly traded human health for profit, which fought us tooth and nail. I hear every day how they feel pressured by business in China.

It's good old capitalism which drives everyone to the bottom of the barrel. Don't ever forget that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 16, 2009 3:33 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I answered it: Allow lawsuits to be brought against the media for lack of factuality. That way "everyone" decides.



You mean in here?

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=39077

Nope.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 16, 2009 6:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


No, I answered it here. TWICE.

You're stooping pretty low, Geezer. Must mean you have nothing to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
No, I answered it here. TWICE.

You're stooping pretty low, Geezer. Must mean you have nothing to say.



This from the person who goes back and edits prior posts to create an answer. An example of your version of "truthfulness" no doubt.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

This from the person who goes back and edits prior posts to create an answer. An example of your version of "truthfulness" no doubt.
Geezer, when I edit it's within about 1-3 mins of my original post, to correct spelling or format errors, add a sentence or change a word -or, in this case, add your quote for clarification (which I just did). But I don't recall any exchanges in this thread that were so lightening-fast that a minute or two lag would have made any difference. You replied about two hours after my original post- well past my "edit window". I can't help it if you read slow.

BTW- are you still for net neutrality?

Shall I go back further? You pressed me for a "simple" solution for water management, THEN you said it wasn't a "simple" problem. When I kindly pointed out there were at least a half-dozen options available, you objected to their multiplicity by saying they "contradicted" eachother!


Vehicles. I wasn't going to go back and stick your nose in your illogic, but what the hell. YOU said that energy efficient econoboxes were available, but that many people still preferred minivans and SUVs. That's an apples to oranges comparison. Why don't we have ENERGY EFFICIENT minivans and SUVs at affordable prices? Is that "not the market" of vehicle manufacturers?

You have argued with me many times in many threads that monopolization due to economies of scale doesn't happen. Then you cite it in this very thread and even trace out its mechanism:
Quote:

Yep. We could do away with all the big efficient farms...Individual freedom includes the freedom to fail if you don't change with the times
What are you saying Geezer? You've pulled un-cited facts out of your ass time and time again, and contradicted yourself at least a half-dozen times in this thread. You seem to be tripping over yourself repeatedly.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


HK- You are, as always, insightful.

But.

I don't think that personal change necessarily leads to social change. After all, MOST of the people in this world are pretty decent. They work hard, take care of their kids, generally don't go around punching people out for no reason (except male chauvinists), but that hasn't remade the world into a better place.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:56 AM

FREMDFIRMA


But it can.

All it takes is one simply solitary thing.
Stop "taking orders" from the bad guys.

Enough folk do that, and they are finished.

My issue is dealin with those who take those orders not out of fear or ignorance, but out of pure fekkin malice for their fellow man.

Payin evil unto evil, because for those with malice in their hearts - what better way to feed it to satisfaction then upon those who prey upon the decent ?

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Frem, we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Interactions among a million people don't follow monkeysphere-size politics.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:30 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
HK- You are, as always, insightful.

But.

I don't think that personal change necessarily leads to social change. After all, MOST of the people in this world are pretty decent. They work hard, take care of their kids, generally don't go around punching people out for no reason (except male chauvinists), but that hasn't remade the world into a better place.

Quote:

Interactions among a million people don't follow monkeysphere-size politics.
Hey, Signy, thanks a lot for your reply. It means a lot to me. I'd kinda figured my post had been long forgotten in the push and shove between you and Geez.

I grant you that it's singularly hard to make social change out of personal change, but isn't that why we admire the likes of Gandhi, Dr. King and Malcolm X so much? That they bridged that seeming chasm? Isn't it precisely that powerful conjunction that fuels the assassination of such men? These men were feared because of who they WERE, not how many bombs or guns they had backing them up. These men were able to expand their "monkey spheres" to include whole nations of people.

What if real transformation and evolution only happens in the monkey-sphere?

What if action in your "larger" political sphere always ends up with one faction simply beating down another?

I don't think anti-corporate political action will really work until you can reach the CEOs with your message. Corporate culture is what needs to change, otherwise you're just getting rid of one corporate "bad actor" and making room for another to take its place.

That's why Frem and I are always harping about child development--'cause that's where it starts and that's where it can be prevented. But are all the CEOs of the world beyond hope? Gandhi succeeded because the British Raj realized that they valued their humanity more than their control. The British realized that there was a limit to how evil they were willing to be to maintain control. I believe such limits exist in every human being and it is a matter of education, and the expansion of awareness in the form of true empathy to find that limit.

It seems to me what needs to happen is that we--someone--needs to inspire monkey-sphere evolution in the corporatists. Awareness of the planetary crisis seems to have inspired a lot of change in the corporate sphere, already.

Too little, too late, you may say, but that's the amazing thing about healing. Disease often gets worse before it gets better. So often healing becomes visible only in the proverbial eleventh hour--until a critical moment, it just looks like degradation.

There's the story about the North Sea, fished to near extinction before the Second World War, but with the war, all fishing stopped up there and after the war, the fish hadn't simply begun to return, but in that short time, they'd made up what had been lost over half a century or more.

The reason for this is the phenomenon of homeostasis. There is a healthy equilibrium that nature will always return to if we just lay off for a while. This is true of planets, ecosystems and children. Sure, there are diseases that need special therapy, but in the main, if you just back off, respect other living beings, it's amazing what can happen.

So I promote communication, I promote therapy, I promote empathy. I promote the expansion of your monkey-sphere to include not only the entire human family, but the natural world as well. None of us can be perfect, we're bound to let some folks, some species, some systems down; but on balance, if we do the work to clean up our own mess, work to expand our definition of "our own mess," that's gonna lead to real, lasting change for the human species. That's the movement I've seen in our history. That's what I've seen in the intellectual history of the last century with the discovery of developmental psychology. We really are learning, as a species, what's real and what isn't.

I guess, what it boils down to for me, is that real education cannot be forced. Force and education are mutually exclusive powers. The one diminishes the other automatically. The more education, the less force need be exerted, and the less force looks like a solution. The more force exerted, the less time there is for education and the less value "mere" education seems to hold.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 17, 2009 5:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

What if real transformation and evolution only happens in the monkey-sphere?
Good question.

Needs much thought.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:56 - 2076 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:20 - 6156 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:18 - 57 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL