When the U.S. Senate voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge this past March, a casual observer might have expected the leaders of the environmental movement to curl up into the fetal position and start making plans to build their own personal arks. Instead, within hours, e-mails from the leaders of the nation’s environmental groups quickly spread… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (96)Page 1 of 1 pagesA united Left? A single, optimistic rhetoric to appeal to American middle-class voters? What a marvelous idea.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 21, 2005 at 7:35 AM Having worked in state legislatures and also with lobbying groups, the main impediment I find to dealing adequately with issues in public life is not lack of good will (even from nutcase right-wingers), but lack of an adequate education about the world and how it actually works.
Authors and scholars have been accurately describing the deterioration of our civic culture and (also accurately) predicting further developments in detail for at least a couple of decades. A key factor in that deterioration is what is sometimes called “neoliberalism,” which I loosely call a “religious” interpretation of economics, in that it seems to rely more on faith in core principles like Adam Smith’s “hidden hand” than on the evident facts before us.
The book “McWorld vs. Jihad” (I think that’s the title) outlines the problems resulting from our current form of “globalization,” and suggests that even the ideas that make us “modern” are contributing to the atomization of our social organizations. We need a bigger view of our current situation than is currently being openly discussed in either the so-called progressive movement or the environmental movement.
A great many things are broken, not just the environmental movement, and I’m not sure they can be “fixed” in any direct fashion.
Posted by Clarke Fountain on Jun 21, 2005 at 10:35 AM You know, given the situation in the Middle East, maybe it is time to revive our nuclear power plants?
Let’s see - coal? Nope, too dirty. Oil, see above. Solar, good idea but not ready yet. Wind - not enough, plus it has significant environmental impacts. Geothermal, nope.
It seems we don’t have a lot of good options. Europe seems to have done a pretty good job utilizing nuclear power. . .
Posted by Beth on Jun 21, 2005 at 10:50 AM Beth is correct. We need nuclear power
now more than ever.
Environmentalism was always an anti-human,
anti-capitalism, anti-individual rights
movement. Since the environment is everything,
the whole purpose was/is to have the government
control everything.
Private property in everything is the quickest,
surest way to environmental purity.
Once everything is privatized, pollution becomes
a crime because it aggresses against the property
owners property including their lungs, etc.
See For A New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard
for details.
Thank god there will never a united left,
it would be like Cambodia under Pol Pot.
Thank god the left is decreasing anyway.
Do not confuse anti-Bush, anti-war sentiment
with advocacy of collectivism or statism.
They are not the same animal.
Posted by Jack Barnes on Jun 21, 2005 at 11:04 AM Are you serious Jack? If you are, the simplicity of your view does not hold up to much practical scrutiny. The most important flaw in this argument is that a single person or corporation can do far more damage than they can ever afford to repair. If I ruin your lungs, then you go ahead and sue me, pal. I hope you have a good lawyer who can spin gold from straw. I hope my jail sentence is comforting to you.
Free market folks like Jack hate regulation, but without informed standards coupled with periodic inspections or enforcement from some public advocate (ie the government), how do you stop the cheaters? One bad actor is all it takes to do irreversable harm.
If the law says I don’t *need* to use a double-hulled ship and I don’t have the cash for one right now, then I’ll run your material in my single-hulled ship and the consumer won’t even know the difference. If I have stock holders, I have to make my decisions based on on profit and loss. If you want to beat me in the market, then you have to do the same.
Posted by GrayArea on Jun 21, 2005 at 12:30 PM It was precisely public policy which failed
to deal with pollution from the beginning in
the 19th century by proclaiming a factory’s
owner right to emit pollutants was a public
good that superceded the individual farmer’s
right not to have his orchard poisoned.
The tort threat and the threat of criminal
prosecution after a crime has been committed
are the most reliable inhibitors of criminal aggression.
Regulatory agencies are set up to whitewash the
guilty parties by specifying that a noncrime
becomes a crime in advance. So say drinking
can be irresponsible but the solution is to
make alcohol induced accidents a first degree
murder charge if death results, not to regulate
drinking. Drinking is not the crime, the behavior
now excused by excess drinking is the crime.
If our lungs were regarded as part of our bodies
under the principle of self-ownership any person
would be leery of taking invasive action.
Regulatory agencies are a crock and a waste.
I dealt with them years ago in California on
everything from the Vet Board to the Judicial
Council to the BOP Board. Only one successful
experience with the former Corporation Counsel Board.
Periodic inspections, right ! Then the company
removes the water fountain as soon as the OSHA
inspector leaves.
Get a life, libtards, the age of big gov is
over as BillyBalls told us 10 years ago.
If we took seriously the prevention principle
to its logical reductio ad absurdum we would
lock up all black males between 14 and 45 because
that would most definitely reduce the crime rate.
Posted by Jack Barnes on Jun 21, 2005 at 12:44 PM GrayArea (and everyone else):
Please pay no attention to Mr. Barnes. He is a Holocaust-denying fruitcake. Responding to his postings will only encourage him.
I liked Clarke Fountain’s comment about neoliberalism. The dogmatic belief in the wisdom and providence of the free market, while not having the distinction of being borne out by the evidence, has one thing going for it: it provides a sweeping narrative concerning mankind’s potential and future. The Left, on the other hand, is handicapped by its political and ideological fragmentation. What we need is a meta-narrative of our own.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 21, 2005 at 12:52 PM When poluters are given the choice of 1)cleaning up their own messes, 2) pay to clean up their messes, or 3) suffer incarcaration, polution will stop quickly.
The question becomes, have the U.S. and state governments been too corrupted by corporate polluters to to muster the will to require corporate polluters to take responsibility for the mess they’ve made?
BTW, Michael Hardesty aka Jack(ass) Barnes, et al., is a schizoid, libertarian, LOOOOOOSER! Notice the frothing at the corners of his mouth, his eyes rolling back in their sockets and his head spinning around like the exorcist. Go finish your Cool-Aid Michael.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 21, 2005 at 1:03 PM As a professor of environmental leadership, I find that my students come to class already muted and confused by the hopelessly technical approach that characterizes environmental management in most organizations. They have lost their voice, and are unable to speak to power in a meaningful way. Part of what we do in class is to recover a bit of that voice, and to understand what guiding principles we, as citizens and ordinary people, hold as important.
I believe that what is needed for environmental leadership is a return to the core values and beliefs that are found in the U. S. Constitution and U. N. Declaration of Human Rights. These principles outline what type of world we want to create, not how to deal with isolated technical issues. Just as America was born out of speaking truth to power, environmental leaders will need to find their voices and speak from their deeply-help convictions about power - who holds it, how it is distributed in our society and what effects it has on our ecosystems. Until the core issues of the power and its impacts on the world are addressed, environmental leaders will continue their misplaced focus on singular activities and technical issues.
It is time to return to the big questions - who gets to decide what kind of society we live in, how are we to treat our natural world, and where are we to make changes that will result in truly sustainable civilization. Until these “big picture” questions are addressed and power in our society is made to respond to the answers, environmental leaders will continue to muck around in the morass of technical jargon and engineering fixes.
Posted by Anton Camarota on Jun 21, 2005 at 1:06 PM Your cynical view of corporate citizenship exceeds even mine. Seriously, installing a water fountain just long enough for the OSHA inspector to check off the box? What sort of heartless individual might do something like that? Oh yeah, a corporation, that’s who.
You are probably right, the water fountain probably shouldn’t be required in the first place. What a stupid idea.
Why should I have to disclose what I am releasing into the environment anyway? Who’s to say what is and isn’t harmful? Can you prove that a certain chemical caused your specific illness? After all, not everyone in the area became sick. Can you prove that my factory was the source? Clearly mean-spirited environmentalists are simply trying to deprive me of my rights.
Assuming, you can pin the blame on my organization, who, specifically, in my company should go to jail? The accountant? The guy who turns the valve but doesn’t know what’s in the vats? The guy who needed to reduce costs on the line and so ‘streamlined’ a few things that seemed reasonable at the time? The CEO who didn’t actually take part in any of these activities?
Jack, your solution solves nothing. Regulations didn’t emerge out of thin air. They emerge as scientists and public advocates learn about the effects of products like PCBs and asbestos. They emerged because if we are going to do business, we need to play by the same rules.
Posted by GrayArea on Jun 21, 2005 at 1:21 PM I just fed a troll, didn’t I? Thanks for trying to stop me.
Posted by GrayArea on Jun 21, 2005 at 1:23 PM You can always tell when liberals are losing
arguments, a string of personal attacks and
a studious avoidance of the issues.
Libertarians advocate the abolition of aggression,
not its regulation. Why not try reading the book
he was kind enough to recommend ?
Obviously, no argument can be settled on a forum
like this but merely the exchange of assertions
and if we’re lucky, we get refs, which I have noticed Barnes has supplied in detail in many
postings on the ITT site.
Just to repeat your arguable, unproven assertions,
GrayArea (an oxymoron in your case) resolves
nothing. Anyone who has seen American regulatory
agencies in action at all has only to
merely respond “ Your solution solves nothing.”
You can’t even read carefully or is that think carefully ? The water fountain example is relevant
because it is the type of thing sleazy companies
will do to get around regs. Where did Barnes write
that he was applauding that type of behavior ????
Matthew K, I read the whole exchange you had with
Barnes on the Howard Zinn thread and he caught you
in major Communist holocaust denial. A new 850
page work on Mao coming out in October in the UK
shows at least 70 million victims and possibly
double or triple that. Jon Halliday is one of
the co-authors. Your figures on Stalin were
similarly absurdly low, at least 35 million
he killed but it could easily be 100 million
as Solzhenitsyn claims, who by the way has quite
a bit more credibility than you do, Matt K.
You were mad for Barnes for doubting your
absurd contention that Hitler was responsible
for all WW2 deaths, when in fact the Allies did
kill many more people than he did and for having
the temerity to doubt the six million story
though he never denied massive Nazi atrocities.
You were reduced to a Portnoy like public beating
of your meat and extensive name-calling before
skulking off with your tail between your legs.
Lefty aka proud vet aka richard, even the lefties
here can’t stand you, your simply a foul mouthed
psychopath. With zero to say.
Posted by redstater on Jun 21, 2005 at 1:44 PM Thanks, redstater, for taking care of
the lightweights.
The President and owners of the company
are who should go to jail to answer one
of the questions above.
Posted by Jack Barnes on Jun 21, 2005 at 1:47 PM Redstater, I didn’t say that Jack approved of the removal of the water fountain. He clearly trying to make some sort of point about how ineffective OSHA is. What I don’t see is how removing the regulation solves the problem.
If I am making unarguable, unproven assertions, then so is Jack, who without any proof, or even evidence, implies that market forces along with the threat of incarceration will allow private ownership to solve all of our ecological and ethical problems. You will be hard pressed to explain how the practice of administering the death penalty has eliminated murder.
What sociology textbook did you guys read the introduction to anyway? You are making generalizations about human behavior that appeal only to your intuition. What evidence shows that your system which glorifies selfishness is going to provide a better alternative with fewer regulations than the current one. You have shown me nothing but assertions. To be more specific:
Q) How exactly will the removal of OSHA cause that water cooler to become permanently installed?
A) It won’t, but since nobody will be able to look for it anymore, it’s none of our business.
Posted by GrayArea on Jun 21, 2005 at 4:01 PM When it doesn’t take 18 years for someone
to be executed, you’d be surprised how it
deters some folks.
Are you seriously stating that the ultimate
penalty would have no deterrent effect ?
Removal of OSHA wouldn’t cause the water
fountain to be installed, only market pressure
wherein their workers have the mobility to go
elsewhere will improve conditions at such places.
Consumer pressure helps too.
Nothing like the bottom line to get one’s
focus.
Adam Smith’s two volume The Wealth of Nations
shows how the invisible hand operates in a free
society much better than altruistic intentions.
Von Mises Human Action is a more modern
work (1949) you might check out.
George Reisman’s Capitalism (1996) is as big
as a large dictionary almost and you might
want to check that out.
Don’t recall stating that Jack proved his view
either, he made an assertion and gave refs.
Thanks for writing.
Posted by redstater on Jun 21, 2005 at 4:24 PM (Is anyone actually fooled? It seems that our crypto-Nazi friend Jack Barnes is now holding dialogues with his other screen name, “redstater.” If Mr. Barnes cannot ignore the voices, we ought to encourage him by example.)
Stronger regulation of corporate polluters is, of course, the only way to get them to reduce pollution. Here is another example of the desirability of a broad ideology and language to combat the power of corporate America. We could involve national security in the energy debate; and in fact, many have. For example, the fuel-efficiency regulations voted down by the Republican Congress a few years ago would of themselves have displaced the entire value of all oil imported from the Middle East. In his memoirs, none other than George Kennan, the famed Cold War advisor-turned Cold War critic, advocated just such a policy to extricate the U.S. from Middle East politics. Energy policy has to be thought of in geopolitical as well as environmental terms—also making the arguments in its favor all the more forceful.
As regards the larger problem of renewable energy, I am confident that a nation with the wealth and technological sophistication of the United States can create a sort of Manhatten Project for clean energy. We might not be able to wean ourselves completely off fossil fuels, but I believe we may be able to reduce their consumption to levels that will adequately protect the environment and human health. As a long-term goal, we should also invest in fusion power. Though it isn’t anywhere near being cost-effective now, in 50-100 years it might very well be.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 21, 2005 at 5:13 PM Thanks again, redstater.
Matthew K is no profile in courage.
When you can’t argue the facts, then
simply go the ad hominem route.
Posted by Jack Barnes on Jun 21, 2005 at 5:24 PM I wonder if Matt K is also lefty ?
Several people I’ve introduced to ITT’s
forums have commented on how so much of
the ultra-left Communist Holocaust Denial
such as that practiced by Communists like
Matthew K all runs together as if written
by either the same person or a central
committee. People should check out the
Howard Zinn forum to see precisely how
Matthew K had his little tush spanked in public !
His polemics were hysterical as was his name-
calling. Matthew K is not a good loser but
he is a LOSER.
Posted by redstater on Jun 21, 2005 at 5:30 PM Did I miss something? Was your use of the terms “communist” and “loser” supposed to be ironic? Is an “ad hominem” attack defined by whether or not it is used by a so-called “lefty?”
Maybe you just aren’t very introspective.
I did notice that Mr. Barnes and redstater have the same 24-character-wide displays. If they aren’t the same guy, they might be taking turns on the same machine…
Posted by GrayArea on Jun 21, 2005 at 5:49 PM Maybe they’re in the same bunker together!
Seriously, ignore. You’re not going to have a civilized discussion, or even a rational argument, with some people. I find it interesting that we’ve actually got an activist and a professor on this thread. (OK, we don’t know for sure, but they at least have intelligent things to say, and good spelling and grammar, unlike some redstater who shall go unnamed.) I just hope the random wackos don’t scare them off.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 21, 2005 at 7:10 PM Mr. Camorota,
Thanks for contributing your learned perspective. In my opinion, talking power is simple - enforce criminal sanctions for violating environmental regulations.
On an aside. One thing that I find amusing is when fellow conservationists declaim that the earth is being destroyed by industrial pollutants. I dispute that notion. There is nothing within the power of humans that can have a significant affect on the existence of the earth. Humans can only affect the earths ability to sustain human life. I predict that, if humans are continue on the current course, the human race will eventually perish from auto-immune disease.
One more thing. My understanding (based on a former biology professor’s doctoral dissertation) is that the leading contributing factor to atmospheric CO2 is wood fule burning in the Amazon rain forrest. In other words, the inhabitants of that region are using the wood for fule - cooking, heating, etc., thereby converting the largest source of atmospheric oxygen to the largest source of greenhouse gas.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 21, 2005 at 8:33 PM Gray, Michael Hardesty aka Jack(ass) Barnes, redstater, and a dozen other pseudonyms are all the same troll. Obviously he’s paid to troll liberal web sites (probably by Tom Delay) and by an a s s h o l e. Google his real name and have a good laugh. Anyone who spends that much time on liberal forums is either a liberal (ummm, no), an unemployed psychopath (he does like to have conversations with himself) or . . . he’s a paid troll.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 21, 2005 at 8:45 PM After discussing the phenomenon of ‘market fundamentalism’ (George Soros’ more descriptive term for ‘neoliberalism’), Fountain [June 21, 2005 at 12:35 PM] says: “We need a bigger view of our current situation than is currently being openly discussed in either the so-called progressive movement or the environmental movement.”
Camarota talks about [June 21, 2005 at 3:06 PM] “big issues”: “what type of world we want to create, not how to deal with isolated technical issues”; “core issues of…power and its impacts on the world”; and ” who gets to decide what kind of society we live in, how are we to treat our natural world, and where are we to make changes that will result in truly sustainable civilization”.
I find the arguments from the “death” spokespeople (environmentalism and liberalism) to be quite substantial, even visionary. Even more, they are thinking about next 30-40 years or so, which is a “bigger view” than the progressives currently focusing with great intensity on the electoral process. However, I think both are shortsighted and missing the #I “big issue”.
I am convinced that to think in these terms one has to work with a 100-year time frame (but not too literally). That what is essential is to build a mass democratic movement that can develop an electorate that has a rich understanding of
1) what a democracy is,
2) what it requires of ordinary peope, and
3) what the power dynamics of our country really are.Our electorate of ordinary people has to become an informed, responsive, and compassionate body of people, because only this dynamic can generate enough proactive political power to overpower the drive to concentrate wealth and political power in the hands of a privileged few. Anything else keeps us in the tug of war between democracy and the anti-democratic drive to keep concentrating power and wealth in the hands of a few, which keeps winning.
Posted by joncehart on Jun 22, 2005 at 4:33 AM Joncehart said:
“Our electorate of ordinary people has to become an informed, responsive, and compassionate body of people, because only this dynamic can generate enough proactive political power to overpower the drive to concentrate wealth and political power in the hands of a privileged few. Anything else keeps us in the tug of war between democracy and the anti-democratic drive to keep concentrating power and wealth in the hands of a few, which keeps winning.”
THAT, alone will take 100 years, then only if there is the will to do it. You know, the will to reject idiocy like “intelligent design.” Anyway the infrastructure is there - the public school system - despite the conservatives best efforts to dismantle it. But, an enlightened electorate - 100 year project, at least, if we start NOW . . . and assuming a significant majority of the population doesn’t get stupid again, and take their eyes off of the ball, each time a terrorist attacks some other irrelevant conservative institution, like wall street.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 22, 2005 at 5:28 AM REDSTATER IS JACK BARNES!A RIGHT-WING SHILL!!!
GO AWAY,YOU FREEPER!!!
Posted by wwoods on Jun 22, 2005 at 5:28 AM Yeah,Jack Barnes is an excellent debater.Yeah.
D-E-B-A-T-E-R.Of course,dad let’s me debate on
the driveway.Yeah.Let’s me debate real slow on
the driveway.D-R-I-V-E-W-A-Y.Of course,of course,Jack knows all about the
environment.E-N-V-I-R-O-N-M-E-N-T.Yeah most
redstaters do.Yeah.79.2% of redststers know
about the environment.Definitely 79.2%I like Jack.My main man.My main man Jack.Yeah.
Of course Jack writes real neat.Definitely
writes neat.Uh-Oh!Gotta go watch Wapner.Definitely time
for Wapner.Starts in 19 minutes.Yeah.Definitely
19 minutes.Of course that 1,140 seconds.Yeah.
Definitely 1,140.Definitely gonna vote for Bush again.B-U-S-H.
Definitely good ideas.Lot of good ideas about the
environment.
Posted by Raymond Babbitt on Jun 22, 2005 at 6:11 AM Lefty.
What makes you think that Michael Hardesty is even his real name?Has anything the man ever said
on this post ever been truthful or not laden with right-wing propaganda?By the way,Jack isn’t a TROLL.He’s a FREEPER.
Look on the Free Republic website for info.Scary.
They’re ten times worse.What you basically have is some paid beltway insider making rabidly fascist screeds from his portable every time the urge overcomes him.That’s why he posts in such a bizarre format.This one,based on his archaic references to unpracticed variations of Marxism,is probably in his 60’s.The other giveaway is his constant support of Ayn Rand,which every reputable scholar has disproven
as a crypto-fascist hack.He might have even known her personally.You know,birds of a feather…
Posted by wwoods on Jun 22, 2005 at 6:24 AM I think we do ourselves a disservice by talking too much about the random right-wing hacks and not enough about the issue at hand.
I think Jonce Hart is a little pessimistic. I don’t think it will take 100 years to achieve some kind of progress in this country. Progress seems to come and go in cycles. You had the Progressive Movement of the 1910s, followed by the conservative 20s. The New Deal, followed by the 50s. The 60s, followed by… all this. I’d like to think it can only improve from here.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 22, 2005 at 6:41 AM joncehart - any thoughts on what the power source will be in the next 100 years (and beyond)? Nuclear seems to be our only viable alternative.
Of course, fusion is on its way, but who knows if and when it may be viable. Not to mention it will have its own set of disadvantages. . .
Posted by Beth on Jun 22, 2005 at 7:09 AM Beth,
Solar,heard of it?Also,wind power has been found to work as well.As evidenced by all those windmills in California that millionaires invested in as a tax dodge and are now making them an unexpected profit.Of course,the only way other energy sources will actually be effective is to banish Darth Cheney an the rest of his oil Sith.
Posted by wwoods on Jun 22, 2005 at 8:11 AM Lefty says: “an enlightened electorate - 100 year project, at least, if we start NOW . . . and assuming a significant majority of the population doesn’t get stupid again”.
We neeed to understand that we are all stupid,and that’s okay. As to how to start now, the line I am thinking along at the moment involves building federated network of small groups committed to 1)exploring the practice of democracy and 2)actively working in their communities to provide the services and systems for developing informed, proactive, and compassionate voters.
Thanks for your response.
1)
Posted by joncehart on Jun 22, 2005 at 8:11 AM Ah, again, a total inability of the pathetic
left here to deal with arguments and they are
forced to resort to ad hominem attacks as well
as the paranoid pretense that only one person
disagrees with them ! One powerful mastermind
conspirator !
Give it a rest, you only succeed in looking
ever more like the fools that you are.
I only use my real name, Jack Barnes, unlike
the people here who make this red herring accusation to shift attention from their own multiple identities.
I did know Ayn personally. At last a true
statement ! I’m in shock !
Never was on the Free Republic board, they
are neocon warmongers and statists of the
military socialist bent.
Matthew K, Communist Holocaust Apologist,
you wouldn’t know an intelligent conversation
or a well structured sentence if it bit you
on that big schnozz of yours ! You made a
complete hysterical womanish fool of yourself
on the Howard Zinn thread.
Posted by Jack Barnes on Jun 22, 2005 at 8:19 AM wwoods - Can solar really provide for the energy needs of the industrial north? Can we build enough wind farms to even generate 1% of our energy needs? I seem to recall that wind farms kill a significant number of birds (???), not to mention they require a great deal of space (as does solar, for that matter). . .
And it is not just the US that is hungry for power. . . as the world advances, the problem will only get more and more severe.
Posted by Beth on Jun 22, 2005 at 8:23 AM WWoods said:
“Lefty. What makes you think that Michael Hardesty is even his real name?Has anything the man ever said on this post ever been truthful or not laden with right-wing propaganda?”
Good point. I just think that Michael Hardesty sounds like a typical vanilla, midwest, cornfed, whitebread, brainwashed, moronic name that it isn’t likely someone would pull that one out of their a s s, like all of the other pseudonyms MH goes by. In any event, he’s been utterly exposed and discredited for the troll/freeper that he is.
Can you imagine how sad it must be for him to explain to his children what he does for a living.
By Hardesty: “You see Johnny, it’s like this, I get paid money to troll around liberal political discussion forums and do anything I can to try to disrupt the discourse, including lying, pretending I’m many different people and have discussions with myself to create the impression that others actually agree with me, hurle shrill ad hominum attacks at anyone who actually wants to discuss relevant topics, and then accuse everone else of being the schizoid a s s h o l e that I am (typical conservative/machiavellian tactics).”
By Hardesty: “Now, don’t you wanna be just like Daddy when you grow up, Johnny?”
By Johnny (in high pitched squeeky voice): “No way! Get away from me you freak! I wanna be smart, liberal, educated, honest and have an honorable profession. Not like you you creepy, crawly, bottom feeding, jerk. Go find a bridge to live under, you troll. God, I’m gonna have to change my name and move to a different town and hope no one knows I’m the son of the looser - MICHAEL HARDESTY.”
LMAO.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 22, 2005 at 9:01 AM SO WHY CAN’T YOU DEAL WITH BARNES’ ARGUMENTS, LOSER ? WHY ARE YOU ONLY ABLE TO MAKE UNDOCUMENTED
PERSONAL ATTACKS ? YOU TAKE UP A GREAT DEAL SPACE
TO SAY NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL, INTELLECTUAL, INTELLIGENT OR REMOTELY TRUE.
DEAL WITH THE ISSUES ! SPARE US YOUR STINKY PUBLIC
BOWEL MOVEMENTS.
Posted by Steve Hansen on Jun 22, 2005 at 9:47 AM Steve, ignore “lefty” loser. I personally
know him and he’s a lowlife of lowlifes.
He can’t think so that’s why he can’t argue.
You wouldn’t waste time cursing a rat for
having a dirty tail, would you ?
Same principle with this “guy.”
In five years there will not be any Left
left.
Posted by redstater on Jun 22, 2005 at 9:55 AM Beth,
I don’t if solar power can provide enough power.No one knows,really.We’ve not made the effort.In fact,we probably won’t as long as big oil has its way.Jack,
Why do you try to fool us?I hate it when you do that.It doesn’t work,you know.There are about fifty different rants you’ve posted under false names.All of them share your near trademark style of roughly forty characters per line.Look at this site from a real computer,one you didn’t get when you bought the adjustable bed,and you’ll see what I’m talking about.Your continual denial makes you look all the more ridiculous,like a cross between Rain Man and Sean Hannity.Mastermind conspirator?
I don’t think that about you.I couldn’t.Not after reading your posts.If you’re going to show off your wit,show more than half.By the way,who cares if you knew Ayn Rand?All that does is further tell me that your support of her is biased and not based on any sort of literary merit.Of course,your inabilty to write and your taste in literature also indicates a lack of any literary base,to say nothing of prowess.Also,the writing in your 9:19a.m. post looks like you submitted it while behind the wheel waiting for the light to change?
One more thing,if you’re not a freeper are you a wannabe freeper?.Never heard of somebody being an apprentice crank before.
Posted by wwoods on Jun 22, 2005 at 10:00 AM His mama had an abortion but it
failed. Defective hanger.
Result:defective son (?)
Waste no time on him, he trolls
on many sites.
No one pays him because his information
is always wrong and thus worth nothing.
Even the other libtards complain about
him. Ignore him. He can’t stand it !
Posted by Jack Barnes on Jun 22, 2005 at 10:02 AM He also posts as “wwoods” and “Liz.”
Same illiterate scrawl.
Posted by Jack Barnes on Jun 22, 2005 at 10:05 AM woods is an agent provocateur.
He has been expelled from at least six forums
that I know of. Under his real name he may be
a registered offender.
If you do not engage him he will sit in his massive pile of shiit and die.
Let ‘em croak.
Posted by Marv on Jun 22, 2005 at 10:09 AM Could we all please stop baiting the neo-Nazi? I find the discussion of alternative energies and political strategy much more stimulating.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 22, 2005 at 10:14 AM I had to stop reading this article around the point when it says the environmental movement has been thinking too narrowly. Scanning down through the comments, I could find nobody disagreeing. This may be because comments are focused on the large operations mentioned in the article, organizations that have long been run by individuals intent on compromising with industry. When I think “environmentalism” I think of Earth First! and the blossoming organization of anti-trade policy demonstrations, which look well beyond the interests of clean air, and which draw on young people and the vision that has long been missing in Washington lobby efforts. Am I reading the wrong publication?
Posted by Bernie Roddy on Jun 22, 2005 at 10:39 AM Jack,
I’ve been cruising around on this site.
GOD ALMIGHTY!YOU ARE SUCH A GIGANTIC LIAR!Seriously,my fellow posters,I must have found about twenty different names this freeper has used since March.The scary thing is I only had to hit about six other threads I remembered to find that many.Several of them are even conversations he’s had with himself,like he’s Norman Bates talking to to his mother/self.Kind of like he did when he thanked redstater earlier for handling his light work.
No one pays me because my information is wrong?Are you admitting that you are paid to do this?Way to slip up,freeper.I hope the only dishes and cups you have at home are plastic.
Jeepers,Creepers
Where’d they get this freeper?
Jeepers,Creepers
Why do freepers lie?
Honestly,Jack,is there something wrong with you?Beyond,of course,lack of attention as a child,or realizing that the bullied can also bully?You know,on weekends lots of places feature Karaoke.Better still some places feature open mike poetry AND serve alcohol as well as coffee.Surely there’s a place like that in the D.C. area.You could go there read some of your posts and,since alcohol is served,people would think you’re drunk and your ranting wouldn’t sound as scary.Who knows,you might even get a laugh.
I should really put together a list of aliases this guy(Jack Barnes/Michael Hardesty/Big Al,yada,yada,yada...)has used.seriuosly,it’s really unbelieveable,almost pathological.
Posted by wwoods on Jun 22, 2005 at 10:47 AM Uh oh ! Do we have liberals losing arguments ?
From the postings of Matthew K, wwoods this
is what it lookslike !
Posted by Liz on Jun 22, 2005 at 11:17 AM Jack, Omigod ! Woodsy has just unleashed
some pure diarrhea.
Ignore the object ?
Posted by redstater on Jun 22, 2005 at 11:21 AM Michael Hardesty, aka redstater, Jack Barnes Steve Hansen, etc., etc., says he personally knows me. Really, who am I Mikey? What is my gender? Where do I live?
MORE CONSERVATIVE LIES BY A MULTI-PERSONALITY, SCHIZOID WHO POLUTES SERIOUS DISCOURSE ON WITH PSYCHOPOATHIC CONVERSATIONS WITH HIMSELF!
CONSERVATISM - THE CULTURE OF LIES (AND POLLUTION TOO).
Posted by Lefty on Jun 22, 2005 at 11:29 AM “Each of liberalism’s special interests has its own experts, its own professionals, its own lobbyists, its own lawyers, its own funders, its own mailing lists and its journalistic beat. The more that each fights to establish itself as “above politics,” the more each reinforces its special-interest status. In seeking to distinguish the interest categories, each group looks askance at the other, as though any association--any interconnectedness--with other progressives would diminish their special powers.”
This is a little off topic, but, some of you may be familiar with my comments about tribalism. IMHO, the above is an observation of a classic manifestation of tribalism. Groups who should understand that clean air is no more important that clean water or clean food compete against each other, rather than work together out of a tribalistic instinct that manifests itself as irrational loyalty to “my tribe” however contrived that tribe may be.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 22, 2005 at 11:41 AM WWoods, yes there is something wrong with Michael Hardesty aka Jack(ass) Barnes - HE’S A CONSERVATIVE.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 22, 2005 at 11:45 AM Lefty is right on the money: “irrational loyalty to ‘my tribe’ is the core issue. And it runs deep in our cultural conditioning. Democracy moves against this tide in that it calls for open ears, open minds, and open hearts.
Posted by joncehart on Jun 22, 2005 at 12:08 PM wwoods - well we may not be able to guess the future, but we do know *some* things.
For instance, we know peak solar irradiation is about 1000 Watts/meter**2 (http://www.self.org/shs_tech.asp). We also know that the total US energy budget is about 2.5 million megawatts. Finally we know that solar conversion efficiencies stand at about 15% now (but could go up higher later - it is already 30% in laboratories).
What does this all mean? At 15% efficiency solar could provide ALL the US energy needs IF we had a farm of 15000 square kilometers (and around 3 hours a day of peak sun hours). This area is about 10% of the entire state of Alabama. So it is not *entirely* inconcievable.
But this also means we have to store massive amounts of energy for non-peak hours - no technology for that, yet. It also means we have to cover a very large land area with solar panels, undoubtedly with significant environmental effects (my estimate above is pretty much a best case estimate). Not to mention the cost of the land and the panels and maintaining them.
Is it feasible? Perhaps, but not in my lifetime (i am middle aged). I do think we should fund solar much more robustly, along with geothermal, wind and fusion.
But right now, this year, this decade, i would like to become MUCH less dependent on oil (sending huge amounts money to savages in the middle east is at least as crazy as having a US led war there!). Nuclear seems the ONLY way to accomplish this on a reasonable time scale.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/rea2002/rea2002.html
Posted by Beth on Jun 22, 2005 at 12:11 PM Maybe, Beth, though again, fuel efficiency standards would alone displace the entire value of oil imported from the Middle East. Nuclear scares me, though, because of that pesky “human error” thing. We’ve seen the consequences of little boo-boos at Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl. Have you heard anything about the new “pebble-bed” reactor design? I hear the Chinese are busy building some.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 22, 2005 at 12:24 PM Hey, Libtards, get off this board. The rest of us
are tired of having these forums hijacked so you
buttbuddies can spew your mindless vitriol.
You folks can go “69” each other and leave the
psychobabble to the professionals.
Woods and Lefty, yeah I’m talking to you !
Posted by Merlin on Jun 22, 2005 at 12:25 PM How can you compare TMI and Chernobyl ?
Even a Communist Holocaust like you, Matthew
K, should be able to grasp that distinction !
Nuclear is a very good option.
We are always going to need oil too.
Posted by Jack Barnes on Jun 22, 2005 at 12:28 PM I recall that three mile island had some sort of mishap way back (in the 70’s perhaps?). Were there any human consequences to it? I cannot even recall if any radiation (or how much) was released, so any info on that would be appreciated.
BTW - where did you get the statistic that “fuel efficiency standards would alone displace the entire value of oil imported from the Middle East”? I am basically in favor of anything that keeps dollars from flowing to the middle east, both for our sake and theirs.
Posted by Beth on Jun 22, 2005 at 12:46 PM In my response to Matthew K, I left
out “denier” right after “Communist Holocaust.”
Matthew K is a Communist Holocaust denier.
Sorry for any confusion.
Posted by Jack Barnes on Jun 22, 2005 at 1:01 PM Beth, you are absolutely right. Three Mile Island, according to a government report on the incident, produced no deaths or serious injuries. Although the facility “suffered a severe core meltdown, the most dangerous kind of nuclear power accident, it did not produce the worst-case consequences that reactor experts had long feared. In a worst-case accident, the melting of nuclear fuel would lead to a breach of the walls of the containment building and release massive quantities of radiation to the environment.” More info can be found at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html. At any rate, however, potential for a Chernobyl-like disaster was there, and only narrowly averted. Hence my interest in pebble-bed reactors, for which a meltdown is supposedly physically impossible (though this same claim was made for the old-style reactors as well). There is still, of course, a problem with radioactive waste.
The statistic about Middle East oil can be found in a variety of places. I suggest you look at George Kennan’s memoirs, some recent Thomas Friedman columns on the subject, and a report by Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins in the February 2002 American Prospect. The article also contains a number of salubrious alternative energy and regulatory proposals. Enjoy!
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 22, 2005 at 1:56 PM Has anyone read the book: The Oil Age Is Over ?
It sheds a lot of light on these issues. Written by Matt Savinar. Additional information can be found at: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
Posted by Robyne on Jun 22, 2005 at 2:17 PM joncehart said:
“Lefty is right on the money: “irrational loyalty to ‘my tribe’ is the core issue. And it runs deep in our cultural conditioning. Democracy moves against this tide in that it calls for open ears, open minds, and open hearts.” Posted by joncehart on June 22, 2005 at 1:08 PM
One correction, and I’ve irritated some of my liberal supporters for this, but, IMHO, tribalism is primarily a primative, vestigial, genetic survival instinct, inherent in all of us. It is the underlying factor in things like nationalism, racism, and all other NOW irrational loyalties. It wasn’t so irrational at a time when survival depended on it.
It is inherent in all of us, to one degree or another. No matter how enlightened we think we are, we are all genetically programed to have fear and suspicion about those different from us. (Michael Hardesty aka Jack Barnes is particularly smitten). The variable of culture is what can extend fear and suspicion into hate and bigotry. How we deal with it, and our cultural influences (ie: recognize it’s manifestations in our behavior and adjust accordingly), is what separates . . . among other things, liberals from conservatives.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 22, 2005 at 2:36 PM The stupidity was entirely on Matthew K’s
part because TMI is a much better built
facility than Chernobyl and never came
close to the kind of meltdown that destroyed Chernobyl.
Carter himself visited TMI right after
the incident to reassure the public which
had been misled by hysterical anti-nuclear
power propaganda for years prior to TMI.
See the 1970s work The Health Hazards of
NOT Going Nuclear by Dr. Petr Beckman.
The left has waged an unremitting war of
ignorance against nuclear power and I’m
glad the President spoke out so forcefully
today.
Posted by Jack Barnes on Jun 22, 2005 at 2:39 PM Ignore all postings of “lefty” aka Proud
Vet aka Liz aka wwoods aka Margaret aka
Matthew K and god knows who else.
Everything he writes is projection, he
posts under different aliases so he tries
to take the offensive by accusing others of
same.
We know who it is.
Posted by redstater on Jun 22, 2005 at 2:44 PM Re: Nuclear seems to be our only viable alternative.
and
Of course, fusion is on its way, but who knows if and when it may be viable. Not to mention it will have its own set of disadvantages.
and
Can solar really provide for the energy needs of the industrial north? Can we build enough wind farms to even generate 1% of our energy needs?Denmark gets 20% of its energy from wind power, and the goal is to work up to getting 50%. Germany also gets a significant amount of energy from wind power. I don’t have figures off the top of my head for the energy potential of each alternative source. The major factor here that isn’t being discussed is conservation. All of Europe and Scandinavia is SO MUCH MORE conscious of conservation than we are. And finding alternative sources of energy is good, but not enough, considering that we are reaching the end of cheap oil right about now or within the next few years (the peak production apex can’t be precisely located until a few years after the fact, but note the steady increase of late in the wholesale oil prices). Even getting nuclear power plants built and running well is at least 10 years off, and the cost is prohibitive. Practical applications of fusion are even further off.
I agree that we need to address these issues within our communities, and bring in the citizens whose lives are directly and visibly affected by the coming crunch. The whole environmental-social-political-economical condition is far too great for one book or one group to cope with. We’re all in this together, whether left or right, capitalist or socialist, name-callers or name-makers, religious or not.
Posted by Diana on Jun 22, 2005 at 3:14 PM Jack,
Still playing you game?Ridiculous.I’m looking over the site for your postings under
bogus names.Too many ,both names and posts to list at once--8,000 character limlit and all.Seriously,this is one sick puppy.Jack,go away,you chat-room hustler.Diana,
Nuclear is not our only option,though it is an option.Again,big energy has kept a strangle hold not only on production,but also on R&D;.Some people want to do things the way that benefits only them and not take a risk.Free marketers,my foot!We won’t know until we try something new.
Posted by wwoods on Jun 23, 2005 at 5:29 AM Nuclear power is clean (for now) but still, after all these years, no one has figured out what to do with spent nuclear fuel. It’s a biohazard of unknown scope that may haunt us for thousands of years. Nuclear power is too risky. Renewable, wind, solar and plant based energy is cheap, clean and over time will completely userp oil, coal, and nuclear energy. The only question is - when will the American public muster the will to force their corrupt government to get their hands out of the pockets of their conservative corporate corruptors.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 23, 2005 at 5:55 AM Beth,
Something else to consider regarding solar power:
what about setting up power centers in our deserts?
What do you need for solar power?Lots of space and sunshine.Deserts,what do they have?DING! DING! DING!That’s right!Let’s tell her what she’s won ,Bob!Even if we STILL must have mineral fuels,for whatever reason,there’s always another not too way out theory,if we wanted to try it.What about mining or"harvesting"the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter?It sounds extreme,yet we do have the technology to make it a reality.We just lack drive.It is even possible,given judicious use of nuclear explosives,to bring the asteroids closerto Earth.Rocket science,I admit,but,then again,we do have lots of rocket scientists.Right-wingers scoff,yet fail to realize the R&D;funding,to say nothing of the contracts for production,would make them richer than than their avarice could conceive.
“I work in the energy business and helped create asteroid belt-mining.Now I have a Ferrari for each day of the year.”
Liz,
No liberals losing arguments here,just swatting a few pests.Namely,this Troll-fly that keeps buzzing around the post.If you notice,Jack’s lies are becoming more pronounced,if they are not a catalog of his own crimes.He does tend to accuse others of things he does."Been expelled from six other forums"Jeeezzus!Then again,what does it matter.Jack’s only talking to himself.Now he’s Merlin.Next,he’ll be Morgana Le Fay.Jack,
Has it never occured to you that your posting style can be easily duplicated?I wonder how much fun it would be to be you for a while?Not much,I’ll bet,but it would have humor value.“why don’t you libtards go get a life and stop
pestering thinking people with obscure political
philosophies?don’t you see that liberalism is
really nazism and the chinese are beaming secret
messages into our heads?that’s why i don’t watch
fox news,because of the secret deal rupert murdoch made with the trotskyists and the roswell survivors.”See how easy that is?Just remember to hit the return key at the end the comment screen each
and every time,and speak like a FREEPER KOOK who
puts tinfoil in his hat to block out those
secret transmissions that renegade Menshevists are supposedly sending,and you too can sound like… JACK BARNES:International Man Of Mystery!That is,if you can tolerate sounding like an incontrovertible wack-job.
Posted by wwoods on Jun 23, 2005 at 6:50 AM I have a strange idea. Not being a biologist, I have no idea if this is even remotely feasible, but might it be possible to genetically engineer some sort of bacteria that feeds off of coal or organic waste, and produces, say, hydrogen as a by-product? Burning hydrogen just produces steam. But I doubt it’s possible.
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 23, 2005 at 8:17 AM Barnes is the only one making sense on this board.
You tired old lefties just repeat your same old failed socialist nonsolutions over and over again.
That is when you even make a semblance of an argument and it is not pure psychotic ranting as
in the case of woods, lefty and other criminal losers. Which is 75% of the time.
Posted by Ingrid on Jun 23, 2005 at 8:53 AM Now Jack Barnes is Ingrid.
Jack,no matter how you try.No matter how you attempt,and fail,I might add,to deceive others,you still give yourself away.You would think that as much money as the right has,they would spend more to better train its freepers.Jack,your vocabulary is distinct and will continue to give you away.
I see that you finally fixed your problem,compulsion really,with spacing.No matter,you’ve submitted enough posts that we’ll still be able to identify your socioeconomically and politically retarded schtick.
Post Poll!
Jack Barnes is really:
A)Sean Hannity
B)Robert Novak
C)Michael Savage
D)Ann Coulter
E)Rush Limbaugh
You make your decision as to whom this freeper hack troll really is.
Posted by wwoods on Jun 23, 2005 at 9:22 AM Beth,
You mentioned Three Mile Island earlier.That whole situation comprises one of the main dangers of nuclear power.Had the core burnt through,there would have been a disaster--literally.
You know I’ve always found the term"China Syndrome"amusing.The nuclear core won’t burn its way to China,or even to the center of the earth.Nope.Instead,it burns its way down to the water table and then...KA-BLOOEY!!!You have a radioactive steam explosion that makes the Bikini Atoll test look like a firecracker,and forming a radioactive cloud that would make a “dirty bomb” look inconsequential.The Chinese aren’t harmed,unless they live within a fifty mile radius of the now defunct plant.However,the five million or so who live around Three Mile Island…
That’s what’s always frightened me about nuclear energy.Something that potentially deadly should be heavily regulated.Yet,you have politicians willing to compromise standards to help ouit their big-business pals.
Posted by wwoods on Jun 23, 2005 at 10:15 AM Beth,
One more thing.If you want to ask the Chinese about the China Syndrome,ask Jack.He knows how to call them.He’s mastered the time zones!That is,when he isn’t pretending to be one on this site.Right,Lin Biao?
Posted by wwoods on Jun 23, 2005 at 10:22 AM Google ‘Jack Barnes SWP’ and find out what a lifetime total loooser this assjack is. I for one am totally glad it’s gone over to the dark side. Maybe it can do as much damage to the right-libertarian cause as it’s done to left-statism. I don’t wish it to go away. It’s so amusing in its psychotic, projective fashion.
It’s undeniably true, though, we can’t rely on the fed’l gov’t. or the big environmental organizations for help. Person to person networking may soon be the only avenue open as the asshats consolidate their power over the next few years.
It’s a well kept secret that solar panels on one’s home combined with conservation, state subsidies and co-generation contracts with utility companies can amortise one’s investment in ten years.
http://www.realgoods.com/renew/index.cfm
There’s probably a solar contractor near you. It’s also a prospectively good business opportunity as utilities become more expensive and the mortgage market begins to crush home-owners.
Hybridized vehicles are a good intermediate and increasingly practical alternative that can reduce CO2 emissions and dependence on petroleum. Not much help for the ugly phenomenom of suburban sprawl, though.
Local political support for urban village and co-housing development as well as creating worker co-operative businesses may be useful.There is an unknown potential for participatory democracy in this country, if we can overcome our self-interested narcissism enough to actually work together. The impending melt-down of global capitalism should be an assist. However, we need to be aware that the esqualidos who run this country understand very well what is happening and are positioning themselves in a very nasty way to maintain their power.
Myself, I’m watching South America as the most hopeful emerging potential of what Kropotkin referred to as Mutual Aid, the natural mechanism of our moral evolution.
To those with a ‘new-age’ bent (or not), check out the Integral Institute and the writings of Ken Wilbur, et. al. for a hopeful vision of the human future.
We really can’t wait for our badly corrupted political system to cleanse itself. Each of us has to individually make the commitment to do what she/he can do.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jun 23, 2005 at 10:52 AM Matthew K said:
“I have a strange idea. Not being a biologist, I have no idea if this is even remotely feasible, but might it be possible to genetically engineer some sort of bacteria that feeds off of coal or organic waste, and produces, say, hydrogen as a by-product? Burning hydrogen just produces steam. But I doubt it’s possible.” Posted by Matthew K. on June 23, 2005 at 9:17 AM
I have a better idea. Let’s genetically engineer a flesh eating bacteria that feeds on conservatives. It should be simple, we only have to engineer it to seek out and destroy all organisms with the conservative, idiot and/or crook, gene.
Within a few months, all conservatives will suffer slow, horrible, painful, grievous deaths, while the rest of the world dances in the streets.
Whataya think? Sound like-a-plan!
Posted by Lefty on Jun 23, 2005 at 1:14 PM Well, global capitalism may or may not collapse, and associationist anarchism of the sort propounded by Romanticist Russian political activists may or may not be a viable alternative. My own tendency is to think that, in addition to its obvious organizational problems, anarchism suffers the same basic defect that Communism did: its utopian character. I don’t think that human nature can be changed overnight. The day after the Revolution, there will still be problems (as we have seen).
More to the point, even if a Second Great Depression does sweep the Earth, social conditions in advanced industrialized societies will likely still not permit the overthrow of the social order, though something like this may transpire in the developing world. In fact, given the tarnished history of social revolutions, we should probably be a little leery of such a development. Most likely, faced with a crisis (of whatever dimensions), the voting public will respond by electing pragmatic reformers, as it has in the past.
The problem with gradualist, pragmatic approaches, of course, is that they come and go, and cannot ever achieve all of their goals due to political opposition from Capital. What is the solution?
Interestingly (on the subject of decentralized, participatory economic organization) Gar Alperovitz has recently published a book, “America Beyond Capitalism,” in which he describes how public investment funds, employee-owned corporations, community development projects, and other vehicles for ownership diversification may be used as an alternative to the command economy. In fact, he shows that, on a state and local level, such projects are already becoming fashionable.
What do you think of projects of this sort, luminous? Do you think they might have consequences for the environmental movement?
Posted by Matthew K. on Jun 23, 2005 at 1:42 PM I repudiate ALL of my previous psychotic
wordsalads on the ITT board.
Sorry, folks.
Posted by wwoods on Jun 23, 2005 at 1:58 PM Matthew K on Gar Alperovitz’s type projects:
I have written several posts advocating a long, long-term devlopment of meaningful democracy. Gar’s book is very related to that idea, and it is full of nitty-gritty, on-the-ground, getting-things-done stuff. Three other books tie in with his ‘Beyond Capitalism’: ‘Making a Place for Community’ by Gar and two other guys; ‘Diminished Democracy’ by Theda Skocpol; and ‘Bowling Alone’ by Putnam. All together they give us mucho to chew on. I am a little different in that I tend to laser beam the need to develop a democratic culture that develops and supports thoughtful and compassinate voters.
Posted by joncehart on Jun 23, 2005 at 2:44 PM Folks,
Now Jack is imitating me.Pathetic.This freeper can’t stand to be bested.I gave him a talking to on another post and he had a fit.I guess he can’t deal with critical introspection.Nonethe less,his weird vocabulary and odd printing format give him away.Jack,I offered you a bit of constructive criticism,and you still act like a childish fool.You must be trying to get yourself banned from this post,aren’t you?
Posted by wwoods on Jun 24, 2005 at 5:36 AM Come to think of it,I’d probably better come up with a new tag name.I hate to have to do it.Then again,Jack does it all the time ,so I guess it must be O.K.
Jack,I’m sorry you got jilted by Ayn Rand.Then again,if you didn’t measure up,that’s not our fault.
Remember,folks,Jack’s paid to do this.In some ways his job is rather enviable.I mean,what other job allows you to behave like a crank,be utterly obnoxious,and still get paid for it?
Posted by wwoods on Jun 24, 2005 at 5:47 AM “I mean,what other job allows you to behave like a crank,be utterly obnoxious,and still get paid for it?”
Head of the DNC? No that’s true, but not fair. I really meant to say the more gereral “politician”. :)
Posted by easy on Jun 24, 2005 at 8:37 AM Opps, forgot “journallist” (think of Coulter, Moore, Riley, Frankin, etc - lots on BOTH sides!!!).
I could go on and on, but i guess the question was rhetorical.
Posted by easy on Jun 24, 2005 at 8:39 AM Matthew K;
Yes, the future’s not ours to see, que sera, que sera. Peak Oil and Water, Global Warming, and degradation of the natural environment and how they will impact macro-economics may be moot in their particulars, but waiting for the horse to leave the barn before closing the door isn’t much of a solution. The question I have is; given the likelihood of impending crises, will we work together to solve these problems or turn on each other? What can we do now to lay a foundation for maximizing the former and minimizing the latter?
I was thinking of Kropotkin in his professional capacity as a naturalist, not necessarily for his historical political views. Anarchism has progressed as a natural philosophy far beyond the 19th Century. It is better understood as a progressive tendency than an utopian vision. Pushkin is much more contemporary and dealt in his public life with particular environmental problems more than ideological political organizing, it seems to me.
Mutual Aid is a simple expression of principle/value, which is one of the things Werbach is calling for in his essay. It’s not a revolutionary change of human nature, but an evolutionary principle describing the actual behavior of social animals from ants to humans. It also takes into account the desire for individual liberty, unlike the current normative term of us Greenies, inter-dependence, which carries the unpopular connotation of hive-like collectivism. It’s implicit in most ecological and sociological studies, but unlike the products of modern scholarship is fairly free from specialized jargon and therefore an idea easily understood by ordinary folks.
Ordinary folks need an ontological frame of an easily graspable sort upon which to support their moral cohesiveness. Thus, in this uncertain and narcissistic era, Ayn Rand appeals to many with the simple concept of ‘enlightened self-interest’ and others retreat to the comfort of traditional religion. Others cling blindly to their present status and station, even if meager, and the soothing siren’s song of Established Authority. Many are just sullenly and stubbornly cynical. What does liberalism offer but pragmatism? Whoopee! Doesn’t that just thrill ya to the core of your being?
I do find Alperovitz’s ideas compelling and especially the idea that people can and are putting them into practice without having to take political power. That is Mutual Aid. Muy anarchismo. Also see; Seymour Melman’s “After Capitalism” and Micheal Albert’s “Parecon”. There really is much to be optimistic about. Remember, it’s always darkest just before the dawn.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jun 24, 2005 at 10:23 AM LEFTY,LIZ,MARGARET!!!
I’ve got a little project that will keep me off the posts for a while,at least a few weeks.
Our favorite troll has been posting B.S.under my name.Still,he gives himself away.I’ve given up using that name.I’ll devise another one.
NONETHELESS,IGNORE ANYTHING POSTED BY"wwoods"FOR THE NEXT FEW WEEKS.IT’LL BE JACK;TRYING TO STIR THINGS UP!
Posted by wwoods on Jun 24, 2005 at 12:03 PM wwoods,
Yeah, I just came back from a business trip to Chicago. Have fun, wherever you go.
Not to worry, Jack Barnes is always transparent. No fear that we’ll ever believe he is anyone other than his psychotic little self, no matter what name he posts under. I wonder if he was one of those kids locked in a cellar until freed by the police in his 20’s. A complete social retard.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 24, 2005 at 4:39 PM I have a confession to make. I have been
posting under wwoods,Liz, Lefty and Matthew
K.
When I wrote the above libel against Barnes
I was experiencing a severe psychotic episode.
I totally apologize to Gentleman Jack.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 30, 2005 at 12:08 PM I’m serving the sixth day of a 50 year
sentence for multiple pedophilia.
So I can only use the prison computer
at limited times.
Apologies to Jack Barnes again, every
nasty thing I posted about him I retract.
Posted by wwoods on Jun 30, 2005 at 12:12 PM Until we once again understand the value of taking on most pollution problems at a local level, the value of boycotts and the dollar value of green space not to mention doing more old fashion rallies things may remain quiet.
Yes green space is beautiful and worth money because humans love nature. Once in a while we need to step in the way of so called progress to save green space. There are people in most all communities who want to save green space and are willing to donate to local organized opposition.
Donations help cover legal fees we all know that… donations from $5-whatever will get the job done.Depending on Washington DC is hopeless because of the greedy neocons who do not give a damn. Some are not too damn smart.
Rallies need to be done in conjunction with a barrage of emails...emails are out of the public eye however emails and rallies make good partners. Rallies make the news and embarrass some retail polluters as they depend a great deal
on image. For instance why would anyone support Wal-Mart
and their plan to destroy public education?
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/717/P40/Currently our community is involved in stopping
a trafficway from going through a wetlands...25 years later it’s still not built and the local battle continues. Small and large donations keep good environmental lawyers finding laws that stop
the process. Developers keep drumming up different angles then we go back. Yeah we know sooner or later somethings got to give and we’re not giving up. Once again beautiful green space has dollar value. Every now then economics wins environmental battles.Economics stopped a nuclear power plant in Tulsa. Oklahoma. The electricity is not cheap(heavily subsidized)and are too costly to build...promoters usually lie about construction costs. Who needs more carcinogenic,poisonous and radioactive waste that lasts forever.
Posted by merrill on Jun 30, 2005 at 6:53 PM Why would anyone support Wal-Mart?
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/717/P40/
Posted by merrill on Jun 30, 2005 at 7:11 PM We are constantly being given information that is suppose to make us feel good about the high cost of gasoline. The higher the cost of oil the more oil companies profits surge upward.
Because we are making more per hour etc. the actual cost of gaoline is no different than back in the 80’s? This sounds like Phillips 66/Conoco propaganda.
Consumers continue to buy gas hogs as if they have more expendable income. Oil giants take notice and decide that gouging consumers is OK. Maybe too many consumers do not give a damn so
why should Exxon-Mobil( the darling of Iraq)?The more money we make the higher the cost of living as corporate retailers in general want more from us. Isn’t there
something wrong with this picture? Corporate retailers pay very close attention as to how we spend our money. Their commercials make us feel good about purchasing their polluting products.The more energy efficient our HVAC units become the more utility companies want for electricity and natural gas? Ever get the feeling we are being screwed?
Posted by merrill on Jul 4, 2005 at 3:21 AM We do need people working on all fronts, including working the current political machinery and writing articles in progressive publications. People expend a lot of energy doing these things and they deserve some support and some thanks. But the idea that the U.S. government controls whether any serious environmental effort will see the light of day is absurd. That’s falling into the capital trap. The capitalists want you helpless and dependent. In fact, they NEED you helpless and dependent. But actually, the U.S. government controls nothing. The fact is YOU control everything. So start controlling the rampant plundering of the environment by altering your lifestyle to fit your principles. Sell all your assets and buy two or three acres off the grid. Build your house from local materials, build it to last. Install a renewable energy system. Do your own repairs or support the local craftsmen. Stay out of debt. Grow your own food. Minimize your taxes. Walk and bike instead of drive. Keep your car forever. Learn to maintain it well. Stop trading with the polluters. If you do these things the power seekers will listen to what you say because they will be groveling at your feet. At this point you will be in full control, economic, political, social. At this point, you will choose how much pollution is too much, or not enough. At this point you can build a government bureaucracy that listens to the people. When it stops listening again, you disengage again and let it shrivel back into irrelevancy and then rebuild it again, from scratch. If you’re not prepared to do that, then be prepared to become enslaved bcause there are plenty of people out there who want to be your master.
Posted by rtdrury on Jul 4, 2005 at 2:34 PM What we need is for a substantial number of conservative politicians (and officers and directors of chemical companies) and their families and friends so suffer and die from horrible diseases associated with environmental hazards, like cancer, birth defects and auto-immune disease. That’s when you will see real environmental reform.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 5, 2005 at 11:07 AM Lefty, thanks again for verifying what a
total psychotic you are. I have noticed
that you frequently express murderous rage
towards all those, and there are many, who disagree with you.
Of course in real life, you are the proverbial
97 lb weaking who bends over daily for a cig.
You’d never have the guts to say these things
to someone’s face, like all cowards you prefer
to conduct your libels anonymously.
No wonder women give you the bum’s rush, you
are as ugly on the inside as you are on the out.
Posted by Martin on Jul 5, 2005 at 12:59 PM Let’s designate clean districts and publicize them. This raises awareneness so that those with a conscience may raise market demand for clean districts. There will be pressure form the stigma for unclean districts to change and there will be more competition to live in clean districts and their areas will expand. While this does not force polluters to live next to their factories it does give the people a toehold for applying further pressures on the polluting establishment. Eventually, the capitalists learn that they live amongst human beings and they grudgingly adjust their behavior.
Posted by rtdrury on Jul 5, 2005 at 2:32 PM Thanks for another stimulating article
Regarding a “United Left” I would like to direct readers to “FALL OF THE HOUSE OF MARX” at www.gnostics.com
Regards,
Suzanne Radford
Posted by Gnostic Communications on Jul 6, 2005 at 9:19 AM http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/jul/03/chemical_use_root_yard_debate/?city_ _local
Posted by merrill on Jul 8, 2005 at 4:51 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Adam Werbach
- No More of the Same
- Environmentalism is dead. Whats next?
- A Dangerous Legacy
Bush’s “ownership society” champions a hyper-individualism that threatens the commons. - Be a Good Steward
Using Bush’s playbook, Kerry could employ executive orders to create a sustainable century - Hostile Takeover
Anti-immigration coalition seeks control of Sierra Club - Bridging the Labor-Environment Gap
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
