[Biofuel] Democracy at Work
I'd like to recommend to the list a book I recently finished reading: Democracy at Work by Richard Wolff. Challenges from farm labor rights to externalized environmental costs could be addressed eloquently by Wolff's Workers' Self-Directed Enterprises; and at the heart of his proposal is a way of thinking called “surplus analysis” a concept any framework for sustainable agriculture cannot do without. Whether state or private, capitalism tends to externalize long term costs for short term efficiencies and concentrate wealth into the hands of a few. This is exactly what WSDEs are designed to prevent. The inequitable distribution of power lies at the heart of many challenges in sustainability, we are often prevented from addressing other problems until this issue is resolved. Though Wolff generalizes his WSDEs to apply to any enterprise, I think their greatest potential lies in changing the face of agricultural industries. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Democracy and the Ecology of Transportation
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/11-5
Published on Tuesday, December 11, 2012 by Common Dreams
Democracy and the Ecology of Transportation
by John Buell
There is no question as to whether New York City and the surrounding
coastal communities of the tri-state area will be rebuilt. But will
these communities be reconstructed to serve the vast majority of
working people or the interests of the economic and cultural elites
that have dominated city life? Not surprisingly, those largely
responsible for the current crisis are once again eager to take
advantage of that crisis. Nonetheless, in the aftermath both of
Occupy Wall Street and Sandy citizens not only in the New York area
but also in many urban communities may not be as easily cowed and
manipulated as after 9/11. Transit will be an especially vital
concern.
In a recent article in Waging Nonviolence, Yotam Marom reports: The
city government is already thinking about how it is going to spend
the enormous sumsthat will be poured into redevelopment in the near
future The disaster-capitalist developers are already out there
doing everything they can to ensure that they're the ones who get the
contracts. The fossil fuel companies, meanwhile, are hoping none of
us will put two and two together and hold them rightfully responsible
for the climate crisis; they are probably doing all the lobbying they
can to make sure the city rebuilds in a way that is as dependent on
fossil fuels as before.
Nonetheless, Sandy still has put the climate science deniers on the
defensive. The combination of continuing, deep recession and the
storm's vast destruction has opened up possibilities of
worker/environmental alliances that might reshape both our economy
and urban space.
Sandy raises questions of the role that urban land use and
transportation planning can play in reducing the incidence and
severity of monster storms and mitigating their effects. More
ecologically oriented planning has become a survival necessity.
Forty years ago Andre Gorz pointed out: The automobile is the
paradoxical example of a luxury object that has been devalued by its
own spread. But this practical devaluation has not yet been followed
by an ideological devaluation. The myth of the pleasure and benefit
of the car persists, though if mass transportation were widespread,
its superiority would be striking.
Unfortunately the ongoing economic crisis is being used as an
occasion not only to reduce transit subsidies but also to privatize
many public systems.
The ecological case for making public transit more accessible to more
communities is overwhelming. York University environmental studies
professor Stefan Kipfer reminds us: Public mass transportation
produces five to 10 per cent of the greenhouse gases emitted by
automobile transportation. The latter is responsible for about a
quarter of global carbon emissions. In addition, public transit
consumes a fraction of the land used by individualized car
transportation (roads and parking space consume a third or more of
the land in North American urban regions). Not even counting other
negative effects of automobilization (congestion, pollution,
accidents, road kill, cancer, asthma, obesity, and so on), shifting
to transit will markedly reduce the social costs of economic and
urban development. It would also make a substantial contribution
toward global climate justice.
But the case for public transit is not only ecological. A compelling
case also must include more than critiques of the auto. Sandy can
become an occasion to promote and build modes of mobility, housing
and working, shopping and relating to our peers that are more humane
and satisfying. The harms and the risks attendant on global climate
change are real enough, but too little is made of the human costs of
our acquisitive, workaholic, auto-dependent society or of the kind of
satisfactions more sustainable alternatives might offer.
Kipfer argues that capitalism as a world system imposes both mobility
and immobility on the poor and working classes. Many poor in the
developing world are displaced and forced to migrate to first world
cities where they often then find themselves confined to urban
ghettoes with only marginal job prospects. Even the working and
middle class finds itself trapped in traffic jams and spending larger
sums on the auto. Road rage and various forms of scapegoating of
these urban minorities grow out of and intensify the travails of our
highways.
Are there ways to change this pathological dynamic? One way is to
make mass transportation more widespread by making it free. Free mass
transit would increase ridership among current users and add some new
ones. To those who would complain about the budgetary implications
Kipfer points out: {T}he overall budgetary cost of transit budget
expansion can be measured against the typically much higher cost of
underwriting car-dominated
[Biofuel] Democracy, From the Ground Up
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11037-democracy-from-the-ground-up Democracy, From the Ground Up Wednesday, 22 August 2012 00:00 By Gar Alperovitz, Democracy Collaborative Press | Serialized Book This is part seven of an exclusive Truthout series from political economist and author Gar Alperovitz. We are publishing weekly installments of the new edition of America Beyond Capitalism, a visionary book, first published in 2005, whose time has come. This installment comes from chapter 3 of the book. Donate to Truthout and receive a free copy. What of the central question of democracy itself? Many have noted the trends of failing belief, the radical decline in voting, the massive role of money and corporate influence in lobbying, media, and elections- and in general, the large numbers who surveys show feel that our national experiment in self-government is faltering. That millions of Americans believe people like me have almost no say in the political system has been a wake-up call for many on the left, right, and center. Several lines of reassessment have become increasingly important as the crisis has deepened. The first, directed to foundational grassroots community issues, has come into ever more sharply defined focus in recent years. The work of Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam kicked off a major debate on one aspect of the problem. Putnam probed well beneath such surface-level issues as the fall-off in voting to focus instead on local citizen associations, networks, formal and informal clubs, neighborhood groups, unions, and the like. Large numbers of Americans, he suggested, were now both actually and metaphorically bowling alone rather than in association with others. Putnam suggested that a decline in associational activity, in turn, had produced a decline in trust and social capital foundational requirements of democracy in general. His response was straightforward: the nation should develop as many ways as possible to encourage local involvement the only way, he held, Americans could hope to renew the basis of democracy throughout the larger system. Quite apart from Putnam's studies, general analysis, and recommendations (many of which were challenged by scholars), of particular interest was the explosive reaction to his argument) and the reorientation of strategic concern it represented. The outpouring of interest his first rather academic article on the subject produced revealed that Putnam had struck a powerful nerve. Seldom has a thesis moved so quickly from scholarly obscurity to conventional wisdom, observed former White House aide and political scientist William Galston. Especially important was what was not at the center of attention: Putnam and many who responded to him did not focus on national parties, national interest groups, national lobbying, national campaign finance laws, or national political phenomena in general. What he and they focused on was the micro level of citizen groups and citizen involvement. Here, at the very local level, was now the place to begin to look for democratic renewal. The heart of the larger foundational argument (and this is a critical emphasis) might be put thus: Is it possible to have Democracy with a Big D in the system as a whole if you do not have real democracy with a small d at the level where people live, work, and raise families in their local communities? If the answer is no, then a necessary if not sufficient condition of rebuilding democracy in general is to get to work locally. Putnam essentially put into modern form Tocqueville's contention that in democratic countries knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all other forms of knowledge. There is also clearly a close connection between Nisbet-style intermediate association arguments for liberty and neo-Tocquevillian associational arguments for democracy. But Tocqueville, in fact, had gone beyond associations to take up the deeper question of how and whether democratic practice is reflected not only in civil society, but in actual local government. Municipal institutions, he stressed, constitute the strength of free nations. Town meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it within the people's reach, they teach men how to use and enjoy it. John Stuart Mill similarly held that direct experience with local governance was essential to the peculiar training of a citizen, the practical part of the political education of a free people. Mill pointed out that we do not learn to read or write, to ride or swim, by being merely told how to do it, but by doing it, so it is only by practicing popular government on a limited scale, that the people will ever learn how to exercise it on a larger. Understood in this broader framework, Putnam's thesis is only one of a group of arguments that focus primary attention on what goes on in local communities. Indeed, an important and expanding
[Biofuel] Democracy Born in Chains: South Africa's Constricted Freedom
And so the ANC's smallness-friendly platform at the '94 elections became the RDP, which was replaced by GEAR, which was abandoned with a shrug in favour of a culture of populist big-man posturing. The separation of democratic principle and technical regulation is, however, a worldwide problem. There is a bland failure to see that our lives are constrained not by ideals espoused in policy but by concrete, discrete laws governing technical minutiae. No cohesive understanding of right or liberty governs these, but only the covert interests of industry. Regards Dawie Coetzee From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wed, 16 February, 2011 13:53:35 Subject: [Biofuel] Democracy Born in Chains: South Africa's Constricted Freedom Ms Klein has a point, as usual. - K http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2011/02/democracy-born-chains Published on Monday, February 14, 2011 by Picador Democracy Born in Chains: South Africa's Constricted Freedom by Naomi Klein -- The inspiring overthrow of Hosni Mubarak is only the first stage of the Egyptian struggle for full liberation. As earlier pro-democracy movements have learned the hard way, much can be lost in the key months and years of transition from one regime to another. In The Shock Doctrine, I investigated how, in the case of post-apartheid South Africa, key demands for economic justice were sacrificed in the name of a smooth transition. Here is that chapter. -- snip -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110216/fba021e3/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Democracy in chains
Hey, the repugs won't need to purge any voters here in Pennsylvania. Incredibly the PA legislature banned the use of voting machines that keep a paper trail of vote counts. We will be using touch screen voting machines that are easily hacked. There will be no recounts, just people scratching their heads wondering why exit polls don't match up with the election results. Ken --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/greg_palast/2006/06/voting_rights_ act_nailed_to_bu.html Democracy in chains US Republicans are planning to change the law to stop black, Hispanic and Native American voters going to the polls in 2008. Greg Palast June 23, 2006 05:03 PM Don't kid yourself: the Republican party's decision yesterday to delay the renewal of the Voting Rights Act has not a darn thing to do with objections of the Republican's white sheets caucus. Complaints by a couple of good ol' boys to legislation have never stopped the GOP leadership from rolling over dissenters. This is a strategic stall that is meant to decriminalise the Republican party's new game of challenging voters of colour by the hundreds of thousands. In the 2004 presidential race, the GOP ran a massive, multi-state, multimillion-dollar operation to challenge the legitimacy of black, Hispanic and Native American voters. The methods used breached the Voting Rights Act, and while the Bush administration's civil rights division grinned and looked the other way, civil rights lawyers began circling, preparing to sue to stop the violations of the act before the 2008 race. So Republicans have promised to no longer break the law - not by going legit but by eliminating the law. The act was passed in 1965 after the Ku Klux Klan and other upright citizens found they could use procedural tricks - literacy tests, poll taxes and more - to block citizens of colour from casting ballots. Here is what happened in 2004, and what's in store for 2008. In the 2004 election, more than 3 million voters were challenged at the polls. No one had seen anything like it since the era of Jim Crow and burning crosses. In 2004, voters were told their registrations had been purged or that their addresses were suspect. Denied the right to the regular voting booths, these challenged voters were given provisional ballots. More than 1m of these provisional ballots (1,090,729 of them) were tossed in the electoral dumpster uncounted. A funny thing about those ballots: about 88% were cast by minority voters. This isn't a number dropped on me from a black helicopter: they come from the raw data of the US election assistance commission in Washington DC. At the heart of the GOP's mass challenge of voters was what the party's top brass called caging lists - secret files of hundreds of thousands of voters, almost every one from a black-majority voting precinct. When our investigations team, working for BBC TV, got our hands on these confidential files in October 2004, the Republicans told us the voters listed were their potential donors. Really? The sheets included pages of men from homeless shelters in Florida. Donor lists, my ass. Every expert told us, these were challenge lists meant to stop these black voters from casting ballots. When these caged voters arrived at the polls in November 2004, they found their registrations missing, their right to vote blocked or their absentee ballots rejected because their addresses were supposedly fraudulent. Why didn't the GOP honchos fess up to challenging these allegedly illegal voters? Because targeting voters of colour is against the law. The law in question is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The act says you can't go after groups of voters if you choose your targets based on race. Given that almost all the voters on the GOP hit list are black, the illegal racial profiling is beyond even Karl Rove's ability to come up with an alibi. The Republicans target black folk not because they don't like the colour of their skin; they don't like the colour of their vote: Democrat. For that reason, the GOP included on its hit list Jewish retirement homes in Florida. Apparently, the GOP was also gunning for the Elderly of Zion. These so-called fraudulent voters, in fact, were not fraudulent at all. Page after page, as we have previously reported, are black soldiers sent overseas. The Bush campaign used their absence from their US homes to accuse them of voting from false addresses. Now that the GOP has been caught breaking the voting rights law, it has found a way to keep using its expensively obtained caging lists: let the law expire next year. If the Voting Rights Act dies in 2007, the 2008 race will be open season on dark-skinned voters. Only the renewal of the Voting Rights Act can prevent the
[Biofuel] Democracy in chains
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/greg_palast/2006/06/voting_rights_ act_nailed_to_bu.html Democracy in chains US Republicans are planning to change the law to stop black, Hispanic and Native American voters going to the polls in 2008. Greg Palast June 23, 2006 05:03 PM Don't kid yourself: the Republican party's decision yesterday to delay the renewal of the Voting Rights Act has not a darn thing to do with objections of the Republican's white sheets caucus. Complaints by a couple of good ol' boys to legislation have never stopped the GOP leadership from rolling over dissenters. This is a strategic stall that is meant to decriminalise the Republican party's new game of challenging voters of colour by the hundreds of thousands. In the 2004 presidential race, the GOP ran a massive, multi-state, multimillion-dollar operation to challenge the legitimacy of black, Hispanic and Native American voters. The methods used breached the Voting Rights Act, and while the Bush administration's civil rights division grinned and looked the other way, civil rights lawyers began circling, preparing to sue to stop the violations of the act before the 2008 race. So Republicans have promised to no longer break the law - not by going legit but by eliminating the law. The act was passed in 1965 after the Ku Klux Klan and other upright citizens found they could use procedural tricks - literacy tests, poll taxes and more - to block citizens of colour from casting ballots. Here is what happened in 2004, and what's in store for 2008. In the 2004 election, more than 3 million voters were challenged at the polls. No one had seen anything like it since the era of Jim Crow and burning crosses. In 2004, voters were told their registrations had been purged or that their addresses were suspect. Denied the right to the regular voting booths, these challenged voters were given provisional ballots. More than 1m of these provisional ballots (1,090,729 of them) were tossed in the electoral dumpster uncounted. A funny thing about those ballots: about 88% were cast by minority voters. This isn't a number dropped on me from a black helicopter: they come from the raw data of the US election assistance commission in Washington DC. At the heart of the GOP's mass challenge of voters was what the party's top brass called caging lists - secret files of hundreds of thousands of voters, almost every one from a black-majority voting precinct. When our investigations team, working for BBC TV, got our hands on these confidential files in October 2004, the Republicans told us the voters listed were their potential donors. Really? The sheets included pages of men from homeless shelters in Florida. Donor lists, my ass. Every expert told us, these were challenge lists meant to stop these black voters from casting ballots. When these caged voters arrived at the polls in November 2004, they found their registrations missing, their right to vote blocked or their absentee ballots rejected because their addresses were supposedly fraudulent. Why didn't the GOP honchos fess up to challenging these allegedly illegal voters? Because targeting voters of colour is against the law. The law in question is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The act says you can't go after groups of voters if you choose your targets based on race. Given that almost all the voters on the GOP hit list are black, the illegal racial profiling is beyond even Karl Rove's ability to come up with an alibi. The Republicans target black folk not because they don't like the colour of their skin; they don't like the colour of their vote: Democrat. For that reason, the GOP included on its hit list Jewish retirement homes in Florida. Apparently, the GOP was also gunning for the Elderly of Zion. These so-called fraudulent voters, in fact, were not fraudulent at all. Page after page, as we have previously reported, are black soldiers sent overseas. The Bush campaign used their absence from their US homes to accuse them of voting from false addresses. Now that the GOP has been caught breaking the voting rights law, it has found a way to keep using its expensively obtained caging lists: let the law expire next year. If the Voting Rights Act dies in 2007, the 2008 race will be open season on dark-skinned voters. Only the renewal of the Voting Rights Act can prevent the planned racial wrecking of democracy. Before the 2000 presidential ballot, then Jeb Bush purged thousands of Black citizens' registrations on the grounds that they were felons not entitled to vote. Our review of the files determined that the crime of most people on the list was nothing more than VWB -- Voting While Black. That felon scrub, as the state called it, had to be pre-cleared under the Voting Rights Act. That is, the US justice department must approve scrubs and other changes in procedures. The Florida felon scrub slipped through this pre-clearance
Re: [Biofuel] democracy now: chavez to give the us cheap oil topoorfolks
We here in the US have been giving away our treasure for 3 years now, not to mention spending billions abroad on oil. Jason and Katie wrote: We need a class struggle here in the bad old USA, i doubt it would do any good to Venezuela, sapping the energy like that, but the class gap needs to be either closed or become so rampantly obvious that someone will do something about it. - Original Message - From: francisco j burgos [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] democracy now: chavez to give the us cheap oil topoorfolks Dear sir: if I were a poor american I would agree 100% with you, but I am a venezuelan and Mr. Chavez is giving away our wealth with out even consulting the venezuelan congress... besides he is planting the seed of class hate and class strugle in USA. --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] democracy now: chavez to give the us cheap oil to poorfolks
Dear sir: if I were a poor american I would agree 100% with you, but I am a venezuelan and Mr. Chavez is giving away our wealth with out even consulting the venezuelan congress... besides he is planting the seed of class hate and class strugle in USA. Yours truly, F. - Original Message - From: Kenji James Fuse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 5:31 PM Subject: [Biofuel] democracy now: chavez to give the us cheap oil to poorfolks Did you all hear today's Democracy Now? Looks like the US is letting Chavez sell heating oil at a 40% reduction to poor-er folk in Brooklyn and Boston. I imagine the petro boys and the corporate world are squirming right now: this is the first time a major corporation (Citgo?) has VOLUNTARILY taken a profit cut! This is, in my view, a major accomplishment and may signal the beginning of the end for corporate-America... I really hope Chavez is around next year. KF ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] democracy now: chavez to give the us cheap oil topoorfolks
We need a class struggle here in the bad old USA, i doubt it would do any good to Venezuela, sapping the energy like that, but the class gap needs to be either closed or become so rampantly obvious that someone will do something about it. - Original Message - From: francisco j burgos [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] democracy now: chavez to give the us cheap oil topoorfolks Dear sir: if I were a poor american I would agree 100% with you, but I am a venezuelan and Mr. Chavez is giving away our wealth with out even consulting the venezuelan congress... besides he is planting the seed of class hate and class strugle in USA. --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] democracy now: chavez to give the us cheap oil to poor folks
Did you all hear today's Democracy Now? Looks like the US is letting Chavez sell heating oil at a 40% reduction to poor-er folk in Brooklyn and Boston. I imagine the petro boys and the corporate world are squirming right now: this is the first time a major corporation (Citgo?) has VOLUNTARILY taken a profit cut! This is, in my view, a major accomplishment and may signal the beginning of the end for corporate-America... I really hope Chavez is around next year. KF ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] democracy now: chavez to give the us cheap oil to poorfolks
The top 5 petro boys (3 are HQ'd in USA, he other two are BP amd RD Shell) own 50 % or more of refining, discovery and gas station (distribution) operations. They own it all and aren't worried about a little thing like Congress. Rad -- Original Message -- From: Kenji James Fuse [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:31:11 -0800 (PST) Did you all hear today's Democracy Now? Looks like the US is letting Chavez sell heating oil at a 40% reduction to poor-er folk in Brooklyn and Boston. I imagine the petro boys and the corporate world are squirming right now: this is the first time a major corporation (Citgo?) has VOLUNTARILY taken a profit cut! This is, in my view, a major accomplishment and may signal the beginning of the end for corporate-America... I really hope Chavez is around next year. KF ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Democracy
But are you saying that a dictatorship is better than a democracy, if the majority of the people don't agree with us? Nope. What I'm saying is: When the gods want to punish us, they answer our prayers. Zeke Yewdall wrote: viz straight represetative democracy - be careful what you wish for. If Saudi Arabia had a pure representational system they'd wind up with a far more radical Wahab state. Well, that would not be so good for the US I agree. But are you saying that a dictatorship is better than a democracy, if the majority of the people don't agree with us? That is exactly what Muslims have learned: democracy means will of the people, as long as that will isn't to become a religious state. Back in Algeria in the 60's, and continuing on till today. I've talked to a number of arabs who hate the US and Europe promoting democracy, because they know that we don't really mean it. Perhaps why the wahabists enjoy such support in Saudi Arabia now? Besides, the religious fundamentalists are succeeding in taking power just as well here as in the middle east. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Democracy
Nope. What I'm saying is: When the gods want to punish us, they answer our prayers. Touche... ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Democracy
ahhh .. Mr. Rogers w/attitude .. can I be your neighbor? I live in W's brother's fiefdom now .. don't mind the sound of an axe, want a garden - and a field of switchgrass, maybe .. be glad to share the produce! room for a wind turbine, andsome PV technology would be nice, too :-) --- Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: viz straight represetative democracy - be careful what you wish for. If Saudi Arabia had a pure representational system they'd wind up with a far more radical Wahab state. Look at California's referendum system - it's out of control. It's created an ungovernable state. Looks at Arizona's you pay no school taxes if you're over a certain age measure. Great - I got my free education the hell with you. Just keep paying my social security. Presumably we elect leaders to make decision in the best interest of the governed. I don't know that the founders ever expected the voters to be so apathetic and so easily fooled. And no, I don't think ANY of my neighbors would give up ANYTHING so that others might have a bit more. In fact, I'm amazed at the lengths they will go to to try to make me comply with their notion of what's proper. No woodstoves No older cars (yes, it looks fine, it's just an '89) Quotes: That garden really looks out of place - you're not going to do that every year, are you? Yes, I am. I wish you'd get rid of that woodpile, and it's noisy when you split wood. Awww the list goes on... Zeke Yewdall wrote: What if we had a voting sytem like American Idol, where people can text message their votes every night Sort of scary. But is it scarier to think of a democracy where the average person could vote on each issue, or one where as many people follow TV shows as care about their actual government On 10/27/05, Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well time for a new thread I guess cause we are a long way off topic. I think you are right Zeke it's hard not to draw certain conclusions about the people who put these monsters in office. The problem is it's like going shopping. You think you have choice but then you find out your money goes to the same people at the top regardless of the choices you thought you made. The real problem is that the american lifestyle is not negotiable. How many here would willingly give up a bunch of affluence and convenience so that things might be a little more even in the world? Most of them are too busy trying to catch the carrot on a stick. Even when the government gives aid don't the farmers and shipping companies expect to be paid handsomley in the deal? So what really is the will of it's people that the government should reflect? Or is it really already doing that but in a way that upsets people but is really the only way left to maintain it? The oil is necessary to maintain the american lifestyle. Control of world economy is ideal to this plan even if it means doing dirty things that aren't right. People are told they have democracy and they believe it but as you said voting once every four years is hardly democratic. Representative governance works for the rich and hopefully they can take everyone along for the ride (because they need them). Boy they must have some real belly laughs in private when they think about the common man and the illusion of freedom and democracy. I wonder what things would look like if we had a real democratic system. If every important decision was put to a vote, sure it would slow things down but hell a lot of people I talk to seem to think things are 'progressing' -and I hate to use that term, too quickly anyways. Surely electronic voting could make a system of national (and god forbid should I be so bold as to suggestinternational) referendum possible. I know that only a tiny fraction of the world is on the web in terms of it's population but that does not mean that people could not have acces to a voting terminal. That must be a very scary thought. Joe Zeke Yewdall wrote: Sometimes I wonder if the rest of the world understands that all americans don't support GW and his policies though... After all, we claim to be a democracy, so therefore, shouldn't the government by nature reflect the will of it's people. In reality, only my congressional representative actualy represents me, but neither of my senators does, nor my president or vice president. I actually voted, but I effectively have almost no vote in our government. Our system is set up for rule by a very narrow majority with no effective minority voice. But if you listen to our rhetoric abroad, it's easy to forget this. Zeke On 10/26/05, Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems you are intent on grouping all Americans as one. Yes, It looks that way, doesn't it? So, I will explain. Usually, I try not to generalize because it
Re: [Biofuel] Democracy
We touched on this once before. We discussed other examples of democracy and one thatI mentioned,which includes referendums on almost everything, is Switzerland. You can't even build or add to a house without the community's approval. Although some individual freedom is sacrificed, it certainly works for them. City planning is amazingly well organized. By the way, although the nomenclature changes, Switzerland has the equivalent of SEVEN presidents in what we might call it's executive branch. Mike Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An interesting case in point is the small town that I'm moving to. Back in the 70's they set up their own participatory democracy (not arepresentative democracy), and basically succeeded from countycontrol. They have their own building department, water board, etc. Only 60 some people live there full time. However now, 30 yearslater, the biggest problem they have is apathy. They can't even get15% of the town to regularly show up for community meetings, which iswhere they're supposed to decide stuff. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Democracy
I'm putting on my gardening sweater now. Some of my neighbors are fine - one guy across the street ran into the local Gestapo when he built an addition. He prevailed, but they all whined and carried on. He's always quite pleasant, if fact, if he's having an outdoor shindig he'll politely ask he if I can chainsaw later, and I always do. HE gets fresh vegetables from my garden, AND gets use of all my tools. In fact, I went and dropped a tree for him - no charge. Next door neighbor (with an illegal business out of her house) came over to order me to stop running the woodstove. I did re-do the chimney with a professional sweep so that there's virtually no fly ash, but no, she doesn't like the smell. I don't much care for the smell of her 8 limo's idling but not much I can do about it. I downloaded and read the municipal code. I built my shed to fit the specs - it's actually quite large, and legal. It just doesn't have poured footings - I used concrete blocks sunk in the ground. Perfectly sturdy. They complain all the time, but the code enforcement guy just rolls his eyes at them and sends back his report no violations found. The parking person usually just calls and I tell him everything is fine. There's one in every crowd! E. C. wrote: ahhh .. Mr. Rogers w/attitude .. can I be your neighbor? I live in W's brother's fiefdom now .. don't mind the sound of an axe, want a garden - and a field of switchgrass, maybe .. be glad to share the produce! room for a wind turbine, andsome PV technology would be nice, too :-) --- Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: viz straight represetative democracy - be careful what you wish for. If Saudi Arabia had a pure representational system they'd wind up with a far more radical Wahab state. Look at California's referendum system - it's out of control. It's created an ungovernable state. Looks at Arizona's you pay no school taxes if you're over a certain age measure. Great - I got my free education the hell with you. Just keep paying my social security. Presumably we elect leaders to make decision in the best interest of the governed. I don't know that the founders ever expected the voters to be so apathetic and so easily fooled. And no, I don't think ANY of my neighbors would give up ANYTHING so that others might have a bit more. In fact, I'm amazed at the lengths they will go to to try to make me comply with their notion of what's proper. No woodstoves No older cars (yes, it looks fine, it's just an '89) Quotes: That garden really looks out of place - you're not going to do that every year, are you? Yes, I am. I wish you'd get rid of that woodpile, and it's noisy when you split wood. Awww the list goes on... Zeke Yewdall wrote: What if we had a voting sytem like American Idol, where people can text message their votes every night Sort of scary. But is it scarier to think of a democracy where the average person could vote on each issue, or one where as many people follow TV shows as care about their actual government On 10/27/05, Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well time for a new thread I guess cause we are a long way off topic. I think you are right Zeke it's hard not to draw certain conclusions about the people who put these monsters in office. The problem is it's like going shopping. You think you have choice but then you find out your money goes to the same people at the top regardless of the choices you thought you made. The real problem is that the american lifestyle is not negotiable. How many here would willingly give up a bunch of affluence and convenience so that things might be a little more even in the world? Most of them are too busy trying to catch the carrot on a stick. Even when the government gives aid don't the farmers and shipping companies expect to be paid handsomley in the deal? So what really is the will of it's people that the government should reflect? Or is it really already doing that but in a way that upsets people but is really the only way left to maintain it? The oil is necessary to maintain the american lifestyle. Control of world economy is ideal to this plan even if it means doing dirty things that aren't right. People are told they have democracy and they believe it but as you said voting once every four years is hardly democratic. Representative governance works for the rich and hopefully they can take everyone along for the ride (because they need them). Boy they must have some real belly laughs in private when they think about the common man and the illusion of freedom and democracy. I wonder what things would look like if we had a real democratic system. If every important decision was put to a vote, sure it would slow things down but hell a lot of people I talk to seem to think things are 'progressing' -and I hate to use that term, too quickly anyways. Surely electronic voting
[Biofuel] Democracy
viz straight represetative democracy - be careful what you wish for. If Saudi Arabia had a pure representational system they'd wind up with a far more radical Wahab state. Look at California's referendum system - it's out of control. It's created an ungovernable state. Looks at Arizona's you pay no school taxes if you're over a certain age measure. Great - I got my free education the hell with you. Just keep paying my social security. Presumably we elect leaders to make decision in the best interest of the governed. I don't know that the founders ever expected the voters to be so apathetic and so easily fooled. And no, I don't think ANY of my neighbors would give up ANYTHING so that others might have a bit more. In fact, I'm amazed at the lengths they will go to to try to make me comply with their notion of what's proper. No woodstoves No older cars (yes, it looks fine, it's just an '89) Quotes: That garden really looks out of place - you're not going to do that every year, are you? Yes, I am. I wish you'd get rid of that woodpile, and it's noisy when you split wood. Awww the list goes on... Zeke Yewdall wrote: What if we had a voting sytem like American Idol, where people can text message their votes every night Sort of scary. But is it scarier to think of a democracy where the average person could vote on each issue, or one where as many people follow TV shows as care about their actual government On 10/27/05, Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well time for a new thread I guess cause we are a long way off topic. I think you are right Zeke it's hard not to draw certain conclusions about the people who put these monsters in office. The problem is it's like going shopping. You think you have choice but then you find out your money goes to the same people at the top regardless of the choices you thought you made. The real problem is that the american lifestyle is not negotiable. How many here would willingly give up a bunch of affluence and convenience so that things might be a little more even in the world? Most of them are too busy trying to catch the carrot on a stick. Even when the government gives aid don't the farmers and shipping companies expect to be paid handsomley in the deal? So what really is the will of it's people that the government should reflect? Or is it really already doing that but in a way that upsets people but is really the only way left to maintain it? The oil is necessary to maintain the american lifestyle. Control of world economy is ideal to this plan even if it means doing dirty things that aren't right. People are told they have democracy and they believe it but as you said voting once every four years is hardly democratic. Representative governance works for the rich and hopefully they can take everyone along for the ride (because they need them). Boy they must have some real belly laughs in private when they think about the common man and the illusion of freedom and democracy. I wonder what things would look like if we had a real democratic system. If every important decision was put to a vote, sure it would slow things down but hell a lot of people I talk to seem to think things are 'progressing' -and I hate to use that term, too quickly anyways. Surely electronic voting could make a system of national (and god forbid should I be so bold as to suggestinternational) referendum possible. I know that only a tiny fraction of the world is on the web in terms of it's population but that does not mean that people could not have acces to a voting terminal. That must be a very scary thought. Joe Zeke Yewdall wrote: Sometimes I wonder if the rest of the world understands that all americans don't support GW and his policies though... After all, we claim to be a democracy, so therefore, shouldn't the government by nature reflect the will of it's people. In reality, only my congressional representative actualy represents me, but neither of my senators does, nor my president or vice president. I actually voted, but I effectively have almost no vote in our government. Our system is set up for rule by a very narrow majority with no effective minority voice. But if you listen to our rhetoric abroad, it's easy to forget this. Zeke On 10/26/05, Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems you are intent on grouping all Americans as one. Yes, It looks that way, doesn't it? So, I will explain. Usually, I try not to generalize because it leaves out a lot of information and can be manipulated to align itself with a particular agenda. However, on those occasions when I say Americans (my apologies to Canadians and others living on this hemisphere) or US citizens in general, I'm pointing toward a trend. The references I give below, are what I use to at least partly back up my position on those trends. Now, although the argument I give is my own, I find others who agree (some of them are my neighbors). ...I went
Re: [Biofuel] Democracy
Mike Weaver wrote: viz straight represetative democracy - be careful what you wish for. If Saudi Arabia had a pure representational system they'd wind up with a far more radical Wahab state. Look at California's referendum system - it's out of control. It's created an ungovernable state. Looks at Arizona's you pay no school taxes if you're over a certain age measure. Great - I got my free education the hell with you. Just keep paying my social security. Yes because it was referendum taken at too local a level. The more you shrink the voting pool the more radical and crazy it becomes. The more you broaden it the more even (and slow) it becomes. Presumably we elect leaders to make decision in the best interest of the governed. I don't know that the founders ever expected the voters to be so apathetic and so easily fooled. A dangerous and foolishly naive presumption it has turned out to be don't you think? Aren't we all dumb for letting the charade go on! Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Democracy
An interesting case in point is the small town that I'm moving to. Back in the 70's they set up their own participatory democracy (not a representative democracy), and basically succeeded from county control. They have their own building department, water board, etc. Only 60 some people live there full time. However now, 30 years later, the biggest problem they have is apathy. They can't even get 15% of the town to regularly show up for community meetings, which is where they're supposed to decide stuff. On 10/27/05, Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Weaver wrote: viz straight represetative democracy - be careful what you wish for. If Saudi Arabia had a pure representational system they'd wind up with a far more radical Wahab state. Look at California's referendum system - it's out of control. It's created an ungovernable state. Looks at Arizona's you pay no school taxes if you're over a certain age measure. Great - I got my free education the hell with you. Just keep paying my social security. Yes because it was referendum taken at too local a level. The more you shrink the voting pool the more radical and crazy it becomes. The more you broaden it the more even (and slow) it becomes. Presumably we elect leaders to make decision in the best interest of the governed. I don't know that the founders ever expected the voters to be so apathetic and so easily fooled. A dangerous and foolishly naive presumption it has turned out to be don't you think? Aren't we all dumb for letting the charade go on! Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Democracy
viz straight represetative democracy - be careful what you wish for. If Saudi Arabia had a pure representational system they'd wind up with a far more radical Wahab state. Well, that would not be so good for the US I agree. But are you saying that a dictatorship is better than a democracy, if the majority of the people don't agree with us? That is exactly what Muslims have learned: democracy means will of the people, as long as that will isn't to become a religious state. Back in Algeria in the 60's, and continuing on till today. I've talked to a number of arabs who hate the US and Europe promoting democracy, because they know that we don't really mean it. Perhaps why the wahabists enjoy such support in Saudi Arabia now? Besides, the religious fundamentalists are succeeding in taking power just as well here as in the middle east. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
RE: [biofuel] Democracy--Nazi Germany was Democratic!???
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10562 The Election Story Never Told Greg Palast, MediaChannel.org March 6, 2001 Here's how the president of the United States was elected: In the months leading up to the November balloting, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, ordered local elections supervisors to purge 64,000 voters from voter lists on the grounds that they were felons who were not entitled to vote in Florida. As it turns out, these voters weren't felons, or at least, only a very few were. However, the voters on this scrub list were, notably, African-American (about 54 percent), while most of the others wrongly barred from voting were white and Hispanic Democrats. Beginning in November, this extraordinary news ran, as it should, on Page 1 of the country's leading paper. Unfortunately, it was in the wrong country: Britain. In the United States, it ran on page zero -- that is, the story was not covered on the news pages. The theft of the presidential race in Florida also was given big television network coverage. But again, it was on the wrong continent: on BBC television, London. Was this some off-the-wall story that the Brits misreported? A lawyer for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission called it the first hard evidence of a systematic attempt to disenfranchise black voters; the commission held dramatic hearings on the evidence. While the story was absent from America's news pages (except, I grant, a story in the Orlando Sentinel and another on C-Span), columnists for The New York Times, Boston Globe and Washington Post cited the story after seeing a U.S. version on the Internet magazine Salon.com. As the reporter on the story for Britain's Guardian newspaper (and its Sunday edition, The Observer) and for BBC television, I was interviewed on several American radio programs, generally alternative stations on the left side of the dial. Interviewers invariably asked the same two questions, Why was this story uncovered by a British reporter? And, Why was it published in and broadcast from Europe? I'd like to know the answer myself. That way I could understand why I had to move my family to Europe in order to print and broadcast this and other crucial stories about the American body politic in mainstream media. The bigger question is not about the putative brilliance of the British press. I'd rather ask how a hundred thousand U.S. journos failed to get the vote theft story and print it (and preferably before the election). Think about investigative reporting. The best investigative stories are expensive to produce, risky and upset the wisdom of the established order. Do profit-conscious enterprises, whether media companies or widget firms, seek extra costs, extra risk and the opportunity to be attacked? Not in any business text I've ever read. I can't help but note that the Guardian and Observer is the world's only leading newspaper owned by a not-for-profit corporation, as is BBC television. But if profit-lust is the ultimate problem blocking significant investigative reportage, the more immediate cause of comatose coverage of the election and other issues is what is laughably called America's journalistic culture. If the Rupert Murdochs of the globe are shepherds of the new world order, they owe their success to breeding a flock of docile sheep, the editors and reporters snoozy and content with munching on, digesting, then reprinting a diet of press releases and canned stories provided by officials and corporation public relations operations. Take this story of the list of Florida's faux felons that cost Al Gore the election. Shortly after the UK and Salon stories hit the worldwide web, I was contacted by a CBS network news producer ready to run their own version of the story. The CBS hotshot was happy to pump me for information: names, phone numbers, all the items one needs for a quickie TV story. I also freely offered up to CBS this information: The office of the governor of Florida, brother of the Republican presidential candidate, had illegally ordered the removal of the names of felons from voter rolls -- real felons, but with the right to vote under Florida law. As a result, thousands of these legal voters, almost all Democrats, would not be allowed to vote. One problem: I had not quite completed my own investigation on this matter. Therefore CBS would have to do some actual work, reviewing documents and law, and obtaining statements. The next day I received a call from the producer, who said, I'm sorry, but your story didn't hold up. Well, how did the multibillion-dollar CBS network determine this? Why, we called Jeb Bush's office. Oh. And that was it. I wasn't surprised by this type of investigation. It is, in fact, standard operating procedure for the little lambs of American journalism. One good, slick explanation from a politician or corporate chieftain and it's case closed,
RE: [biofuel] Democracy--Nazi Germany was Democratic!???
I think it would be safe for all of us to agree that it was not Nazi Germany was Democratic but that Nazi Germany came into being in a democratic system? I think you and Thor both have some valid points. I don't, however, agree with you on your comparison to Today's Us president and the fiasco in Florida. Like it or not, it is a republic and thats the way it works. People can cry all they want about how it isn't fair that their guy won by a slim margin, but the rules ...are the rules ...are the rules. It is designed so a knowing few could better make desisions for the whole they represent than a mob of people, many of whom could be easily led and influenced. Its not even fair to say that it was a greater number anyway, since in the margin of 'victory' of the popular vote was even less than required in districts to require a recount. Using a popular number isn't really accurate anyway, as persons from one state where there is a lock for their choice may not even show up to vote. Ie: if their candidate has a 75-25% victory.. some just won't go, since it won't matter. another reason not to report results early A better comparison will be to compare a current state where you are told that if you vote for the opposing party, harm will come to you, or better yet, if you run against the current party, you'd better have your affairs in order. kind of dismantling the opposition. I think we can all think of a few good candidates. ..and last time i checked.. no one was threatened with their lives to vote or not vote in Florida,.. besides.. Bush wasn't even the incumbent. Speaking of history.. I personally think the French haven't learned from theirs... and are about to try to negotiate negotiate negotiate it away. .. but thats just my opinion. I hope you don't think I am attacking any view in any way. thanks Message: 16 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 04:02:13 +0100 From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: Re: Democracy--Nazi Germany was Democratic!??? Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
