From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #225 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, August 9 2000 Volume 09 : Number 225 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: eb all over the world [Terrence Marks ] Re: eb all over the world [nyquilathotep ] Re: eb all over the world [Eric Loehr ] Robyn - Moss Elixir demos [JEFFB7777@aol.com] Re: eb all over the world [nyquilathotep ] Re: fegmaniax.us.politics ["Yudt.Matthew" ] eb all over the underworld ["Ken Kenster" ] Re: eb all over the world [Eric Loehr ] Re: Nader reads "X Men," but only for the articles [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Gored, Bushwhacked, or Nader of the above? [steve ] Re: Gored, Bushwhacked, or Nader of the above? [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: reap ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Broxbourne-Waltham bash account (long, but 95% RH content) ["Stewart ] Re: Broxbourne-Waltham : From the other boat ["Stewart C. Russell" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:52:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence Marks Subject: Re: eb all over the world On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Proctology Now wrote: > personal record of being rather cold toward abortion rights back in the > 80s.> > > --It is conservatively estimated that one in five Medicaid-eligible women > who want an abortion cannot obtain one. > --In the U.S., 84% of all counties have no abortion services; of rural > counties, 95% have no services. > --Nine in ten abortion providers are located in metropolitan areas. [snip] So a vote for Keyes is really a vote for Gore, eh? And I recall Clinton doing some seriously unfriendly things to a child's right to life during the past eight years. This "problem" can't be blamed squarely on him. > (from .) You have anything like this from a less biased source? (and I'm really surprised Eddie hasn't said anything about the Droplift Project, at http://www.droplift.org. Covered in at a major paper or two, even.) Terrence Marks Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://www.unlikeminerva.com HCF (another comic strip) http://www.mpog.com/hcf normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 21:01:22 -0400 From: nyquilathotep Subject: Re: eb all over the world when we last left our heroes, Capuchin exclaimed: >PS. That wasn't sucking up to the Man. I really don't think woj >stinks. maybe you better ask someone who has met me. +w ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 21:58:15 -0400 From: Eric Loehr Subject: Re: eb all over the world At 09:01 PM 8/8/00 -0400, nyquilathotep wrote: >when we last left our heroes, Capuchin exclaimed: > >>PS. That wasn't sucking up to the Man. I really don't think woj >>stinks. > >maybe you better ask someone who has met me. > >+w > So *that's* what that smell was on Halloween... Eric ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:52:09 EDT From: JEFFB7777@aol.com Subject: Robyn - Moss Elixir demos I'd really like to hear RH's demos for the Moss Elixir album. Can anybody help? Thanks, JeffB ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 22:12:55 -0400 From: nyquilathotep Subject: Re: eb all over the world >So *that's* what that smell was on Halloween... no no no, that was eddie's hair gel. ;) +w ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 23:24:31 -0400 From: "Yudt.Matthew" Subject: Re: fegmaniax.us.politics > Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 12:39:01 PDT > From: "Proctology Now" > Subject: Re: eb all over the world > > > > you're really out to lunch, dude. big business couldn't even clean > up its > own ass without the protection of the state. > Hmmm. Let's read further... (Lots of tribbling deleted).... > i used to call myself a communist, > uisng marx's definition of communism. but i just got so sick of > having to > explain that just because the soviet union *claimed* to be communist > didn't > mean they really *were* that i grudgingly backed off. > Yeah, I'm out to lunch. But what about you, dude. Maybe you should eat something... > more > sensible in the above> > > "capitalism" isn't about free markets, really -- it's about > exploiting your > (stolen) capital and (stolen) labour to make a profit. > Bullocks! So my house is stolen? And as I work for myself, I am a slave to myself? Who's out to lunch?? rather than rant myself I'll borrow from http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~shadab/capit-2.html#1: Capitlism is the social system based upon private ownership of the means of production which entails a completely uncontrolled and unregulated economy where all land is privately owned. Capitalism is the only politico-economic system based on the doctrine of individual rights. This means that capitalism recognizes that each and every person is the owner of his own life, and has the right to live his life in any manner he chooses as long as he does not violate the rights of others. Do I bleieve all this? No. Do I think government has a role in this? Hell yes. I agree with many of you - there needs to be rules for all to follow, limited regulations, but I believe above all it is the corrupt political system which has created the problems we face. We're stuck in between a socialist and capitlist state - and both sides are tugging and the shit keeps piling skyward. Nothing is fixed only written over and over, depending on who is elected and who donates the most money. I blame the government (really, I mean our political system) - fix it, and we can go on and address the real issues and make governemtn work the way it was constitutionally intended. Yes - we need to protect our natural resources, we need to TAX polluters on a fair and equitalbe system. We need to save and protect our national parks - I thoroughly enjoy visitng them. Does that mean I'm not libertarian? No, I don't think so, I may not follow the strict laisse faire capitalism quoted above - BUT I think it is FAR closer to ideal than socialism. I am apaulled that socialists wouild expect me to work for others. No way man, not me. Force me, and I will never work as hard as I could. I want to work for myself and my family. I want to donate to the charity of my choice. I want to help the less fortunate as I choose to. Any form of forced labor to do those things (Ie. income taxes or communism) is slavery. Personal freedom and individual rights. That's the bottom line. marxism/communism - throws that out the window to start - right? Who the hell is supposed to determine what my needs are? the government? Even worse, what my abilities are? government? This country is too big for that. Yes, some forms of socialism actually seem to work quite nicely (the Netherlands, Sweden..) but our country is 10-20 times larger. It wouldn't work here - not in the next 20 years. > > > a violation of market principles? centralisation. > > This makes no sense. I think you're argument gets to the point of > ridiculousness here. > > >And its not the corporations fault. It > >didn't happen overnight, but the companies are trying to do what > >nearly everyone else is - survive, comfortably. > > oh yeah, the poor, misunderstood corporations. just trying to > survive with > their huge profit margins and corporate non-accountablity. > "comfortably"? > i think i'm gonna be sick. > Why does everyone on this list seem to think that every business is a huge multinational corporation out to take over the world? What I like most about Nader is his favoritism of small business. Most businesses are small and private. You want to change that? > >Environmentalism isn't "lefty" as much as it's realistic and > >practical and just being sensible about resources (a very > capitalistic > >thing, if you ask me) > > capitalistic environmentalism? i don't see this. i see companies > squandering resources for a profit with no thought for the long term > effects or even the short term. > Come on! You need glasses then. Show me one business in the country (particularly one with "huge profit margins" as you said above) which doesn't have a 5 or 10 or 20 year (or more) plan. THis is partly how I feel (tonight, anyway). Let me just say, before I wait for the "attacks" , I am enjoying this debate, learning quite a bit and reevaluating my postitions always. I am not an expert on any of this, just enjoying the discourse brought by the election-year and boldly offereing my quite dissenting opinions. In some cases I am changing my opinions, in others, as the post from "Ken Kenster" to which I am replying, they are becoming more solid. And please, I know there is that nasty ".gov" in my address. I could very easily use one of many available free accounts. Please don't make me do this by attacking that issue. It will just waste my time. I am free to use this account on my own time (and since I'm not a government employee, that means just about always), as long as I obey the same laws and respect as everyone else does. Although trashing the political system probably wouldn't go over too well... It's just a Robyn Hitchcock news group, right? As always, Cheers. Y (I'm gonna be crucified for this tomorrow) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 21:23:52 PDT From: "Ken Kenster" Subject: eb all over the underworld his stance on immigration *derives* from his racism. i mean, if we're going to kick out everyone *except* the native americans, i guess you could make an argument. otherwise, buchanan should go fuck himself. "give me your hungry, your tired, your poor: i'll piss on 'em", eh vince? ugh. can you imagine having more bombs dropped on your country than were dropped in all of world war ii? can you imagine three million people killed, and fifty percent of the population made into refugees? can you imagine being blown sky-high -- to this very day -- by unexploded bombs left behind by mccain and friends? can you imagine a twenty year embargo? can you imagine no reparations after this onslaught because "the destruction was mutual"? i don't follow your reasoning. but, yes, essentially. the democrats and republicans are all more less interchangeable. i have no idea what this means. perhaps just 'cause it's late at night, and i have a headache. < > (from .) You have anything like this from a less biased source?> sorry if i didn't make myself clear. only the facts are from this source. i take full responsibility for the conclusions i've drawn from them. <(and I'm really surprised Eddie hasn't said anything about the Droplift Project, at http://www.droplift.org. Covered in at a major paper or two, even.)> er, what would you like me to say? i think it's cool. saw the rerelease of Discreet Charm Of The Bourgoisie the other night, by the way. the print is marvelous! "property", in this sense, is generally considered the means of productions - -- land and factories kind of thing (as is stated in the passage you quoted). very few people work for themselves. the term "wage slavery" didn't come out of soviet russia, last i heard. check. whoops. we've already learnt today that capitalism couldn't survive longer than the time it takes to squeeze out a medium-lengthed fart if not for state intervention. check. maybe we should take a field trip to a maquiladora some time. or the silicon valley. or a factory farm in north carolina. or a prison. nice guy. good. then please don't attempt to benefit from the work of others. in other words, please don't send your kids to taxpayer-funded schools. please don't drive on taxpayer-funded roads. please don't send e-mails over taxpayer-developed networks. please don't fly in taxpayer-developed planes. please don't ingest taxpayer-developed pharmaceuticals. please don't consume taxpayer-supported agricultural products. please don't eat taxpayer-subsidised beef. please don't, please don't, please don't. so your needs are to be taken care of first, and after that the other six billion people on the planet can pick up the crumbs. gotcha. many of the largest multinationals have bigger "economies" than most countries. they are huge, powerful, and everlasting; yet are accorded the "rights" of human beings. you've completely sidestepped his point, of course. but as i recall, bill gates didn't want to have anything to do with the "internet" as late as 1996. so there's one example. you could probably come up with dozens of examples for each and every corporation -- that's why the drive to concentration. they don't innovate. they don't plan ahead. they don't ever consider what will happen when all the trees have been sold, or all the oil has been pumped. but rather than doing so when confronted with the reality -- let alone 5 or 10 or 20 years in advance -- that capitalism fucks up profits too, they simply buy up the competition. and when that doesn't work -- and it usually doesn't -- they just turn to the taxpayers to keep them running in the black. great little scam they've got going, don't you think? KEN "This is a milk and coffee bar, man" THE KENSTER ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 01:11:52 -0400 From: Eric Loehr Subject: Re: eb all over the world At 10:12 PM 8/8/00 -0400, woj wrote: >>So *that's* what that smell was on Halloween... > >no no no, that was eddie's hair gel. ;) > >+w > Hmm... I thought it had a sort of proctological smell ;-} Eric "what the hell are they talking about now?" "the Ericster" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:35:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Nader reads "X Men," but only for the articles steve wrote: > Eb: >>I'll say this much: I'm not brimming over with alternate >>suggestions, to replace the ones which VH1 included -- especially >>since I'm just not old enough to know all the seminal, pre-'70s >>scenes. > You'd have to give a good look to the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour. > The Beatles, The Who, The Doors, Jefferson Airplane and plenty of > others. TSBCH was one of the moments unto itself, and the who appearance also was on the list. i suspect the ultimate problem is that, especially with all the most relevant shows getting a slot unto themselves, is that really there aren't 100 moments worthy of mention. especially with all that goddamned cher on the list..... ===== "Life is just a series of dogs." -- George Carlin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:46:43 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: eb all over the underworld Ken Kenster: >many of the largest multinationals have bigger "economies" than most >countries. they are huge, powerful, and everlasting; yet are accorded the >"rights" of human beings. Damn, I agree with Eddie. Granting corporations the status of "artificial persons" was a very very bad idea. - - Steve ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:46:45 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: Gored, Bushwhacked, or Nader of the above? >>My other Republican friend insists that she has to vote for >>Bush or she "won't be allowed to come home." Vivien Lyon: >That's just pathetic. Damn, what's this country coming to when you can't lie about how you voted. - - Steve __________ "He's probably the least qualified person ever to be nominated by a major party ... What is his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk? - Ron Reagan on George W. Bush ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:54:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Gored, Bushwhacked, or Nader of the above? Vivien Lyon wrote: > Bayard wrote: > > My other Republican friend insists that she has to vote for > > Bush or she "won't be allowed to come home." > That's just pathetic. not to mention cowardly. > > It seems the Democrats are evil and insincere and the > > Republicans are evil > > and crazy. Nader, I fear, is just not cut out for the job. > > What is Joe Voter to do? > > Explain why you fear Nader is not 'cut out' for the job, please- > and why Gore or Bush is (presumably). it should be noted that this really only applies to the party leadership. i suspect in their hearts, even most bush (or gore) fans in the actual country are more gore (or bush) detractors if they're honest. it's voting against the other guy rather than for your own. > > Nader is not Perot, but how will/would Nader getting 15% change > > anything? > > Matching funds for the Green Party? I know that doesn't thrill > many of you, but I would be ecstatic to see that happen. > Remember- success draws you closer to the center. If the Greens > came just a bit closer in, I think they'd have a platform that > even Chris G might find compelling. actually, getting nader 5% gets matching funds, and he's at 4%!! the 15% is what is allegedly required for the formal debates. but if the issue can be forced, bushgore could be shamed into letting him anyways. especially if they try to let buchanan in first, since he's at a mere 2%. ===== "Life is just a series of dogs." -- George Carlin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 00:16:07 -0700 From: " Brian Hoare" Subject: Re: where's wangbo? hell, where's the democracy? On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 17:32:50 Ken Ostrander wrote: >>What happened to Wangbo? > >ok, where's wangbo now? > I believe he is in Gloucester. In the early nineties he did a stint in Bristol based Jazz fusion band "Five Flights Up", or at least had an association with it's leader (Tim Gunnell). But left before they got their CD together. I used to work with Tim and he would lend me the demo tapes. I found this recently: http://www.lindyhop.demon.co.uk/five-flights-up.html However there is no mention of Alan and the email for Tim is a work email address and will only earn him grief if used :). In fact when I mailed Tim he was suprised to learn that the web site existed. The impression I got from Tim was that Alan had no fond memories of Robyn or the Soft Boys. I only mention the site because it has a couple of mp3's that remind me of how they sounded when Mr Davies was there. Brian - --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Before you buy. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 08:48:59 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Proctology Now brian nupp wrote: > > Proctology Now to the tune of Victorian Squid. That's what I hear every time > I see the words: Proctology Now. I think I'm insane. I see the placard "Technocracy Now" as held by one of the students in "The Reproductive System". > I think I'm insane. I thought I was until I read Jarry. Now everything makes sense. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 08:54:22 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: reap > You'll be happy to hear that NPR hardly mentioned SW, except to say that > he didn't like the mumbo jumbo and asked to be killed off. Go NPR! I'd make a donation, but I suspect they'd have to return it, or face investigation for accepting money from foreign labor unions. I got voted father of the local NUJ chapel yesterday. Hmm. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:03:11 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Broxbourne-Waltham bash account (long, but 95% RH content) Michael R Godwin wrote: > > Kimberley was soon spotted, carrying (oddly) an electric guitar case. It's salutary to consider that, K Rew being a guitar hero and all, he drives a modest Peugeot 206, and not even current model. Let that be a lesson to all the kides with stars in their eyes... > About this time the sun came out, and beat down fairly relentlessly for the > next six or seven hours. has the sunburn calmed down? > I was lavishly fed and wined by Tony and friends. Cheers too to the twice-catered Tony, who provided me with hummus and rolls while Catherine and Carlyle were off foraging. > Cream teas were served on the way back (the cream was distinctly iffy) I think it was Cool Whip, or similar. Not too bad. I do have some pictures, which I shall put on a website sometime. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:05:27 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Broxbourne-Waltham : From the other boat Brian Hoare wrote: > > So it _was_ Mark Ellen, I was chatting to him > when he took mine and Sarah's picture. Brian and Sarah are to be congratulated for being the best-dressed people on the boats. Very smart; we scruffs were put to shame. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 04:33:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: fegmaniax.us.politics I originally wrote this to Matthew alone, but decided to send it to the list. Apologies in advance to all of you who are sick of this. Please delete now. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I just wanted to say one or two things. Very brief. On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Yudt.Matthew wrote: > Bullocks! So my house is stolen? And as I work for myself, I am a > slave to myself? Who's out to lunch?? Some people would argue that your land is stolen... and that your monopoly on that land inhibits a potential better use for it. I think that's a strong argument even though I'm not sure where I come down on that particular issue. > rather than rant myself I'll borrow from > http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~shadab/capit-2.html#1: Capitlism is the > social system based upon private ownership of the means of production This first part of the sentence is exactly what eddie's talking about. The means of production are Land, Labor and Capital according to Adam Smith. If those means of production are OWNED by some private entity, then that entity OWNS the labor of others. And capitalism is entirely about exploiting what you own. > Do I bleieve all this? No. Then it doesn't really help as an alternative view of capitalism. I mean, if you don't believe it, we can't really see how your view differs from eddie's. > Yes - we need to protect our natural resources, we need to TAX > polluters on a fair and equitalbe system. This doesn't mean much. I mean, for one, it says that polluting is OK if you can afford it... it says that if your profit margins are high enough and there's enough potential to make a buck, then it might be worth dumping millions of tons of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, ocean, and forest. So what is your fair and equitable system? Usually this phrase is used when a person wants to say "a system in which I can still get away with what I'm doing". > I may not follow the strict laisse faire capitalism quoted above - BUT > I think it is FAR closer to ideal than socialism. I am apaulled that > socialists wouild expect me to work for others. No way man, not me. > Force me, and I will never work as hard as I could. I want to work > for myself and my family. Yourself and your family are members of society. Hopefully the work you do benefits more than just your self and family. > I want to donate to the charity of my choice. I want to help the less > fortunate as I choose to. Any form of forced labor to do those things > (Ie. income taxes or communism) is slavery. > Personal freedom and individual rights. That's the bottom line. > marxism/communism - throws that out the window to start - right? Wrong wrong wrong. Soviet style communism does, sure. But Marxism (in the truest sense... as in the writings of Karl Marx) reflects something very different. First, Marxism is just a way of interpreting historical sociological changes based on economic perspectives. Marx looked at the various parts of the production model and who controlled production and who was actually doing the producing and made some notes about how, historically, things had shaped up in his day... then he went on to make some pretty reasonable predictions. His end state, which he called communism or utopia interchangeably, was a state in which every person produced what he could in the manner in which he was comfortable and the needs of society as a whole were met without improper controls on the means of production. Marx had an intermediary state between the capitalism of his day and the communism of his future that he called socialism. Socialism was a world in which the lowest level worker had rebelled and seized the means of production from the merchant (middle) class and the richie riches and twisted it all around to benefit themselves the most. Marx called this somewhat more desirable because more people were served by society than before, but he also called it the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and really didn't think it was a good thing. If you want to speak sensibly on the subject, you have to divorce Marx from Stalin and Castro and everyone who came later and twisted his ideas to meet their individual needs. Marx was a philosopher and historian who just tried to put a new spin on history that didn't imply that everything is always in control of the highest class and that there were forces other than military and the ego of the leader shaping nations and altering the course of human events. (Think about how some of history is presented... "Why did Rome fall?" "Well, the caesars were all inbred and insane, so the people fell into terrible debauchery..." Huh?!? The people are not simply extensions of caesar, but this is the way much of history is taught.) It is possible to work for yourself and do what makes you happy and benefit society. The utopian world is the one in which all people do what makes them happy and society is enhanced by that work and there is growth and prosperity. It is a mistake to say that this must be done through legislation and dictatorial control. It's a societal change... it's a change each individual makes in himself and fosters in his children. I am one of the very lucky people in this world that has a job he loves and believes benefits society. I believe in the work I do and if I had other means of maintaining my standard of living outside the paycheck I receive from my employer, I'd still do exactly what I'm doing now. I'm helping the world be a better place and I'm learning and growing personally. It's easy for someone in my position to say that this utopia is attainable. I understand how a country in which nearly everyone hates their job and is just in it for the money can be hostile to a view of the world that includes doing a job without a paycheck. But you know what? We do work that benefits others for no pay all the time. We talk to our neighbors and we work in our gardens and we make music and we share information and we write treatise upon treatise to internet mailing lists. We do these things not because we are paid, but because we think there is some benefit to others AND we enjoy them and find them personally satisfying. > Who the hell is supposed to determine what my needs are? the > government? No, you. > Even worse, what my abilities are? government? No, you again. > This country is too big for that. Yes, some forms of socialism > actually seem to work quite nicely (the Netherlands, Sweden..) but our > country is 10-20 times larger. It wouldn't work here - not in the > next 20 years. I don't think anyone's talking about that kind of social state... where a monolithic government dispenses the good will in plain brown envelopes. We're talking about something much more abstract and ideological... and something you can start doing today and actually makes you feel like a better person. > Why does everyone on this list seem to think that every business is a > huge multinational corporation out to take over the world? What I > like most about Nader is his favoritism of small business. Most > businesses are small and private. You want to change that? "Most businesses" in what sense? Let's assume you mean by "small business" sole proprietorships or limited partnerships... small businesses where a person or small group of people are personally invested in the day to day operations of the organization and whose livelihoods are directly tied to the success or failure of that organization commercially. Surely there are more businesses of this sort than there are businesses on an every stock exchange combined.... oh, but wait... about half of thoes businesses on the stock exchange are clearly majority held by other companies on that or another exchange... so really, there's fewer individual businesses than we thought. So there are even MORE small businesses compared to large businesses. Also remember that 80% of all small businesses fail in the first two years. So we're not talking about greatly influencial companies. Now, let's compare small business to large business in terms of gross product. Oh, what? You're saying that a few of the largest businesses are responsible for a larger section of the economy than all the small businesses combined? Is that so? Yeah... that's so. Well, in that sense, then, there is more big business than small business. That is to say, most of the business done is big business... by a large margin. For any given dollar in this world's gross product, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor that a big business moved that dollar into position. [eddie talking about business seeing nothing but short term profits] > Come on! You need glasses then. Show me one business in the country > (particularly one with "huge profit margins" as you said above) which > doesn't have a 5 or 10 or 20 year (or more) plan. [first, a direct answer to your challenge: Microsoft. They have probably the biggest profit margins around and they don't have a plan for eighteen months from now (or at least they didn't have eighteen month plans when I was close to their top brass).] Talk about a need for glasses! Five, ten and twenty years is nothing in environmental time. I mean, yeah... Spirit lake has some fish in it twenty years after Mt. St. Helens erupted, but it's nothing like the lake it was. A twenty year plan simply can't account for forest regeneration, watershed degradation or simple smog, let alone massive effects of these short term plans like extinction, demolition of rainforests (both the temperate of the Pacific northwest and the tropical of Brazil and more central America), the creation of superbacteria (by the drug companies and medical establishment in their pimping of magic antibiotics), or the crippling cancer rate (cell phones are a great example of this sort of short term thinking). > THis is partly how I feel (tonight, anyway). Let me just say, before > I wait for the "attacks" , I am enjoying this debate, learning quite a > bit and reevaluating my postitions always. I think we all are (enjoying and learning). I'd like to point out that your argument style is a bit like mine in that you present your view fervently as though it is fact and wait to be rebutted, then incorporate that rebuttal or demolish it depending on how well it stands against your standing beliefs. This comes off to some people as arrogance, pig-headedness, and all kinds of other bad things. I guess I just want to say that I think I see where you're coming from and don't begrudge you personally for any of the more hostile tones. > I am not an expert on any of this, just enjoying the discourse brought > by the election-year and boldly offereing my quite dissenting > opinions. In some cases I am changing my opinions, in others, as the > post from "Ken Kenster" to which I am replying, they are becoming more > solid. Just a quick note, eddie puts 'Ken "some quip here" The Kenster" on his posts as an homage to the real Kenster on our list. Please do not confuse Ken and eddie. > Y (I'm gonna be crucified for this tomorrow) Yeah? I hear some pretty radical thinking folks were crucified... and some of them made a whole lot of people rich! J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #225 *******************************