Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-22 Thread John I


Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:20:41 -0500From: Garth  Kim Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgMessage-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowedGreetings,If you can tell me how to educate people who do not want to learn, I will do so. I was extremely active in Literacy Volunteers of America for 12 years. I worked as a trainer in the Brazos Valley and I tried to run a literacy council in Bedias, where the illiterate rate is over 40%. We had free tutors available to anyone who wanted one, guess what? No students! The bank and the post office were telling people that free lessons were available, but still no students!We live our philosophy, in big letters and out front. We are trying very hard for a truly sustainable life and hope that as our place comes
 together, people will ask how we are accomplishing this, but you can not make people with no interest learn. We are slowly getting questions about the health of our animals and grass, but when we explain, they laugh and tell us that won't work. The evidence is in front of them, but we must be lying or something.I am on-line, and although I haven't had time lately, I do regular rants about sustainable living, especially about sustainable farming on this list. Look in the archives. I own and run 2 yahoo lists, both of around 400 people. One on sustainable building and one on renewable energy. Plus the 20 other lists that I am on and active, sharing what I know and have learned and learning from others. If that is not being out there trying to teach, I don't know what you want.Bright Blessings,KimHello all and Kim,
If the sustainable building list is open I would be interested in joining. Please send along more info.
Thanks,
John__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-19 Thread capt3d
i don't think there's anything about the context which implicitly leans 
toward either legitimate government involvement from any number of agencies, 
or 
downright censorship.  it was simply stated that the game had been banned on 
ebay.  most people would probably read that as suggesting that there is 
something fishy about ebay's position vis-a-vis the game( it's not an 
unreasonable 
assumption that this was marilyn's intent).  whether that something be 
political 
bias on the part of ebay management, or some sort of broader conspiracy, or 
even the goernment itself, whichever way it  leads is entirely up to the 
reader's imagination (not to imply that any of those conclusions would be 
entirely 
imaginary).

cheers,

-chris

___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-19 Thread capt3d
i think you need to check your facts.  :^)

-chris

Heck,



most Americans don't even know the proverbial Franklin stove (round 

and made of steel) has nothing to do with Ben Franklin.

___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-19 Thread Chris Lloyd
According to the judgment of history and of their contemporaries, the
two foremost geniuses among the founding fathers were Thomas Jefferson
and Benjamin Franklin. But even geniuses make mistakes, and Franklin
made a lulu with the stove he invented.  It just plain did not work. 
 In one of those examples of being too clever by half, Franklin
designed it so that the smoke came out the bottom.   His idea was that
the stove would produce more heat, but in fact the fire went out if you
looked the other way for ten seconds.   
The basic idea was a good one: to build a freestanding cast-iron
fireplace that could be situated away from the wall, thus radiating more
heat around the room.  But Franklin did not really grasp that heat
rises, and that the smoke would have to be removed through a pipe with
access to the outside placed above the stove. 
Eventually the stove was redesigned by David R. Rittenhouse and was in
wide use by the 1790s.  Quite reasonably, he called it a Rittenhouse
stove.  But legend has its prerogatives; the device is known to this day
as the Franklin stove.



 


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.12/77 - Release Date:
18/08/2005
 


___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-19 Thread bob allen
Chris, please add quotes, and provide a link when copying text from a 
website.  Not doing so implies you wrote the material.  (If you wrote 
the stuff on the website, my apologies)


http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story034.htm


give credit where credit is due. it's the right thing to do


Chris Lloyd wrote:

According to the judgment of history and of their contemporaries, the
two foremost geniuses among the founding fathers were Thomas Jefferson
and Benjamin Franklin. But even geniuses make mistakes, and Franklin
made a lulu with the stove he invented.  It just plain did not work. 
 In one of those examples of being too clever by half, Franklin

designed it so that the smoke came out the bottom.   His idea was that
the stove would produce more heat, but in fact the fire went out if you
looked the other way for ten seconds.   
The basic idea was a good one: to build a freestanding cast-iron

fireplace that could be situated away from the wall, thus radiating more
heat around the room.  But Franklin did not really grasp that heat
rises, and that the smoke would have to be removed through a pipe with
access to the outside placed above the stove. 
Eventually the stove was redesigned by David R. Rittenhouse and was in

wide use by the 1790s.  Quite reasonably, he called it a Rittenhouse
stove.  But legend has its prerogatives; the device is known to this day
as the Franklin stove.



 






--
Bob Allen
http://ozarker.org/bob

Science is what we have learned about how to keep
from fooling ourselves — Richard Feynman

___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-19 Thread Chris Lloyd
 Chris, please add quotes, and provide a link when copying text from a 
website.  Not doing so implies you wrote the material. 

Sorry will do in future, It should have had the header, photo and
credits but they went when it converted to plain text Chris.

Wessex Ferret Club  (http://www.wessexferretclub.co.uk)

 


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.12/77 - Release Date:
18/08/2005
 


___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-19 Thread Keith Addison

 Chris, please add quotes, and provide a link when copying text from a
website.  Not doing so implies you wrote the material. 

Sorry will do in future, It should have had the header, photo and
credits but they went when it converted to plain text Chris.


Please send all messages in plain text in the first place. No html 
code or attachments.


Thanks.

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
KYOTO Pref., Japan
http://journeytoforever.org/
Biofuel list owner




Wessex Ferret Club  (http://www.wessexferretclub.co.uk)



___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-18 Thread Tim Schlueter
Keith,

Yikes!  I didn't mean to say conspiracy theory groups and Bush-bashers
are one in the same.  I'm not saying Bush or any other politician hasn't
lied.  I don't know.  Whether or not a person believes what they say
does not make them a conspiracy theorist.  Corporations do not love
anybody.  Their purpose is to make money.  A person has got to
understand that any corporation does not have their customers' best
interests in mind and those customers need to keep that in mind when
buying their products.

The danger with propaganda such as this card game is that it feeds on a
person's innate desire to believe what they want to believe regardless
of the level of truth.  Looking at those cards, I can't separate truth
from fiction.  Can you honestly say those cards tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth?  Look at what is not there: I found this quote at
http://www.monsantosucks.com/Newsnviews/revolvedoor.htm Jack Watson. .
.former chief of staff to the President of the United States, Jimmy
Carter, . . .now a staff lawyer with Monsanto Corporation in Washington,
D.C.  He doesn't have a card.  I wonder what he has to day about
Monsanto.  I noticed as well that many of the corporations, such as
Caterpillar, that have cards are well represented by labor unions.  Is
the UAW in cahoots with building these killer bulldozers? See
http://www.ruckus.org/warprofiteers/cards/diamonds/five.html  It becomes
problematic when a person buys into these cards as solid evidence and
thus propagates even more lies.

I really think Hakan asked a rhetorical question.  Marilyn's attempt to
answer with this card game served more to inflame the issue than answer
a question.

I am working on reviewing your suggested readings with an eye toward
trying to separate fact from fiction and propaganda from sound evidence.

Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:50 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Chris,

Given the context the statement leaned toward either legitimate
government involvement from any number of agencies, or downright
censorship.  That card game is quite derogatory toward many gov't
officials and business leaders.  It spins a grain of truth to whip up
frenzy within conspiracy theory groups and other anti-government/big
business, Bush-bashing circles.

ROFL!!! Conspiracy theory groups and **other** anti-government/big 
business, Bush-bashing circles??? Now, once we've fought our way 
through this confetti of labellings, does that mean that if you don't 
swallow the Bushies' lies over the Iraq invasion and just about 
everything else you're just a conspiracy theorist? And that if you 
don't believe Monsanto Loves You And So Does Haliburton you're just a 
conspiracy theorist?

No card game can reflect reality.

Images can though, especially well-annotated ones. There can be a lot 
more than a grain of truth in the proverbial thousand words, 
especially in a whole suite of them.

A
person's objectivity can be compromised by this sort of stuff.

I don't think we can put a lot of trust in statements about what can 
compromise a person's objectivity from someone who apparently thinks 
Bush-bashing is a conspiracy theory.

The game
may be banned on Ebay because nobody will claim ownership.

Clutching at straws, aren't you? What indication do you have that it 
has anything to do with ownership, let alone that nobody will claim 
it? eBay would not be the first Internet resource in the US to 
indulge in this sort of squeaky-clean self-censorship, and IIRC it 
may not be the first time for eBay either.

Marilyn
brought it to our attention.  Perhaps she would care to defend her
statement.

No need at all for her to do that, but I suspect you're going to have 
a hard time defending yours.

Why no need for Marilyn to defend her statement? Because, far from 
the dread cards being used to whip up a frenzy within conspiracy 
theory groups etc etc, Marilyn used them as a direct and economical 
answer to a question from Hakan: Wonder from which industries they 
[US leaders] are coming? That's what the cards tell you. Whether 
it's derogatory or not is irrelevant. Unless you can demonstrate that 
what they say is inaccurate, and intentionally so, your current 
(conspiracy?) theory falls at least as flat as the original copyright 
one did.

More than one list member has told you to go and do some homework but 
it's clear that you haven't. Conspiracy Bush-bashing aside, have you 
read these yet?

Go to http://globalissues.org/ (for instance) and do some studying. 
You can start with these:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg39994.html
Re: [Biofuel] US Foreign aid

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg51848.html
[Biofuel] Inequality in wealth

Or these?

http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200 
5-August

RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-18 Thread Keith Addison
 it's what I've been 
trained for (LOL!) and I have long years of professional 
experience at it. Devinder Sharma and Anup Shah also know how to tell 
the difference, solid, well-referenced stuff. None of us makes it any 
easier to protect cherished notions with no basis in reality, and 
this place is kind of rigorous about that, as it has to be.


Best

Keith



Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:50 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Chris,

Given the context the statement leaned toward either legitimate
government involvement from any number of agencies, or downright
censorship.  That card game is quite derogatory toward many gov't
officials and business leaders.  It spins a grain of truth to whip up
frenzy within conspiracy theory groups and other anti-government/big
business, Bush-bashing circles.

ROFL!!! Conspiracy theory groups and **other** anti-government/big
business, Bush-bashing circles??? Now, once we've fought our way
through this confetti of labellings, does that mean that if you don't
swallow the Bushies' lies over the Iraq invasion and just about
everything else you're just a conspiracy theorist? And that if you
don't believe Monsanto Loves You And So Does Haliburton you're just a
conspiracy theorist?

No card game can reflect reality.

Images can though, especially well-annotated ones. There can be a lot
more than a grain of truth in the proverbial thousand words,
especially in a whole suite of them.

A
person's objectivity can be compromised by this sort of stuff.

I don't think we can put a lot of trust in statements about what can
compromise a person's objectivity from someone who apparently thinks
Bush-bashing is a conspiracy theory.

The game
may be banned on Ebay because nobody will claim ownership.

Clutching at straws, aren't you? What indication do you have that it
has anything to do with ownership, let alone that nobody will claim
it? eBay would not be the first Internet resource in the US to
indulge in this sort of squeaky-clean self-censorship, and IIRC it
may not be the first time for eBay either.

Marilyn
brought it to our attention.  Perhaps she would care to defend her
statement.

No need at all for her to do that, but I suspect you're going to have
a hard time defending yours.

Why no need for Marilyn to defend her statement? Because, far from
the dread cards being used to whip up a frenzy within conspiracy
theory groups etc etc, Marilyn used them as a direct and economical
answer to a question from Hakan: Wonder from which industries they
[US leaders] are coming? That's what the cards tell you. Whether
it's derogatory or not is irrelevant. Unless you can demonstrate that
what they say is inaccurate, and intentionally so, your current
(conspiracy?) theory falls at least as flat as the original copyright
one did.

More than one list member has told you to go and do some homework but
it's clear that you haven't. Conspiracy Bush-bashing aside, have you
read these yet?

Go to http://globalissues.org/ (for instance) and do some studying.
You can start with these:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg39994.html
Re: [Biofuel] US Foreign aid

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg51848.html
[Biofuel] Inequality in wealth

Or these?

http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200
5-August/002660.html
[Biofuel] Famines as Commercial Opportunity - was Re: The New Blue
States/Country

http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200
5-August/002657.html
[Biofuel] Famine As Commerce - was Re: The New Blue States/Country

http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200
5-August/002661.html
[Biofuel] The US and Foreign Aid Assistance - was Re: The New Blue
States/Country

Best wishes

Keith


Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:37 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

i don't see how that statement would lead one to believe it was
government
censorship.  it has a certain conspiratorial ring to it, no doubt.  not
entirely
unfounded, since there's a ton of stuff sold electronically/via
download
on
ebay.  sounds as if not even the copyright holder(s) of the card game
are being
allowed to sell it.

-chris



In a message dated 8/16/05 10:23:48 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 In other words, the reason for the ban may have to do with copyright
legalities as opposed to some sort of governmentally imposed
restriction, which the
statement below leads one to believe. 



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey

RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-18 Thread Garth Kim Travis

Greetings Tim,

Tolerance was in my vocabulary long before it became a buzz word, it is a 
word that summed up my father in one word.  I wish he had lived long enough 
to see his teachings take root in his children.


I will accept your definition of meek only as long as you realize that my 
patience is not everlasting.  I have limits like everyone else, but I have 
compassion and a view that the superior must be patient with the inferior 
if you want growth.  Therefore, I must have patience with the poor people 
that were not blessed with a rational upbringing, but were raised on 
television and being cool, as long as they are trying to learn better, anyway.


Bright Blessings,
Kim


At 09:17 AM 8/17/2005, you wrote:

Kim,

Thanks for your frankness.  Tolerance is the politically correct
buzzword these days, in the public arena anyway.  Privately folks are
free to be as intolerant as money can buy.  Discrimination is running
rampant not that anyone would admit to it but you can judge a tree by
its fruit.

I feared the word meek wouldn't convey my intent properly.  I did not
mean doormat!  Instead I meant non-resented wisdom, patience and
gentleness especially while enduring hardship.

Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garth  Kim
Travis
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 7:05 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Greetings,

No, I do not yearn for Canada.  Canadians have their faults too, just
different ones.  Me meek, not in this lifetime.  It is true that the red
in
my hair is more a memory than reality these days, I am used to standing
up
for what I believe is right.

Actually the racism is what I find hardest to take in the US and no, it
is
not just in the south.  The closed neighborhoods that do not want change
or
new people are not particularly healthy either.  What really upset me
when
I first moved here were the neighborhoods based on a certain religion!
How
to create narrow minded children.  However, I do understand that such
neighborhoods are now springing up in Canada, as well.

The main difference I find is the lack of tolerance for anyone different
or
anything different.  I guess Canadians have so many immigrant per
capita,
that interest in the different cultures has managed to keep things a
little
more tolerant.  And yes, I am well aware of the prejedice that those
from
Pakistan ran into when they arrived in Canada.  I am not saying anyone
is
perfect.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 03:22 PM 8/16/2005, you wrote:
Kim,

Gracious me!  As they say the meek shall inherit the earth!  I believe
that you fit that bill.  How soothing and reflective are your words.
You must yearn for Canada.  I am curious as to what you are referring
to
wrt American attitudes?  It doesn't sound very complimentary.  Not
that I'm offended though I am interested in your perspective.

Tim

--



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
g

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/




___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-18 Thread Tim Schlueter








Tom,



Why do you quote 9th and 10th
Commandment to me?  I havent forced my religious views on anyone.  There
are civil and international laws that apply to stealing if that is to what you
are referring.  I believe that would equate to the 7th commandment. 
Now if you are implying that a country is using legal means to scheme
or entice another country to involuntarily give up their property, that would
be 9th and 10th Commandment issues.  Im sure there
are others on this list that are better informed on these matters than I so
someone correct me if need be.



Lets get back to your original comment. 
I dont have cable or satellite so I dont watch TV.  I really am
sorry but I still dont understand your point.  I will feel really silly
if your comment was sarcastic, which Im getting the feeling it was, and
I didnt get it.



Tim











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom Irwin
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005
5:36 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New
Blue States/Country







Hi Tim,











You mean they don´t have Fox News and CNN in Missouri. Perhaps this
will help. When someone goes into another country to take what belongs to that
country they are breaking this one.











You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall
not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or
donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.











You do understand that on don´t you Tim. I think
last part applies to oil. What do you think?











Tom Irwin













From: Tim Schlueter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:25:25
-0300
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New
Blue States/Country








Tom,





Not sure I understand. Please elaborate.



Tim











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom Irwin
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005
1:25 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New
Blue States/Country







Hi Tim and
all,











You mean
it's like Fox News and CNN but in reverse?











Tom Irwin













From: Tim
 Schlueter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:42:33
-0300
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New
Blue States/Country

Chris,

Given the context the statement leaned toward either legitimate
government involvement from any number of agencies, or downright
censorship. That card game is quite derogatory toward many gov't
officials and business leaders. It spins a grain of truth to whip up
frenzy within conspiracy theory groups and other anti-government/big
business, Bush-bashing circles. No card game can reflect reality. A
person's objectivity can be compromised by this sort of stuff. The game
may be banned on Ebay because nobody will claim ownership. Marilyn
brought it to our attention. Perhaps she would care to defend her
statement.

Tim

snip
























___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-18 Thread Tom Irwin




Hello Tim,

Being out of touch with major media in the U.S. may actually be a good idea. Fox news is generally viewed by folks like me as part of the neoconservative propaganda machine. CNN is a bit better but not by leaps and bounds. Where do you usually obtain your news from? On television I look to the BBC for U.S. news mostly on Sundays. Still quite a slant but at least some opposing opinion is permitted. I don't have much access to newspapaers but I tend to read the Atlantic Monthly and Harpers when I can latch onto a copy this far South. I imagine you know that we invaded Iraq a few years back. So far over 1800 of our troops have been killed and more than 27,000 Iraqis. Of that number about 20% are women and children.These are very conservative figures for the Iraqis. So at a minimum our"Collateral Damage" total of dead women and children is 5400 or fairly close to double the 9/11 attacks. BTW, not many folks believe Saddam had anything to do with9/11. He had no weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration pretty much knew this and attacked without U.N. support. All this to get Iraq'soil. That's why I threw in the covet part. The slaughter is obvious but the murder has to have a reason and that is coveting our neighbor's oil. The U.S. does not recognize the authority of any international court with regard to it's citizens and especially it's military and government officials. I could go on about things like Gitmo, breaking our own Consitution and torture. But as Keith has so often told me, it's in the archieves. Start reading for yourself. It might cause you to begin burning candles at night. If your old enough how about Nam in the Sand. It will definitely make you wonder what's happened to our once proud country. There's even answers to that question available, too

Tom Irwin


From: Tim Schlueter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:44:41 -0300Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Tom,

Why do you quote 9th and 10th Commandment to me? I haven’t forced my religious views on anyone. There are civil and international laws that apply to stealing if that is to what you are referring. I believe that would equate to the 7th commandment. Now if you are implying that a country is using “legal” means to scheme or entice another country to involuntarily give up their property, that would be 9th and 10th Commandment issues. I’m sure there are others on this list that are better informed on these matters than I so someone correct me if need be.

Let’s get back to your original comment. I don’t have cable or satellite so I don’t watch TV. I really am sorry but I still don’t understand your point. I will feel really silly if your comment was sarcastic, which I’m getting the feeling it was, and I didn’t get it.

Tim





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom IrwinSent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 5:36 PMTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Hi Tim,



You mean they don´t have Fox News and CNN in Missouri. Perhaps this will help. When someone goes into another country to take what belongs to that country they are breaking this one.



You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."



You do understand that on don´t you Tim. I think last part applies to oil. What do you think?



Tom Irwin





From: Tim Schlueter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:25:25 -0300Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Tom,

Not sure I understand. Please elaborate.

Tim





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom IrwinSent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:25 PMTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Hi Tim and all,



You mean it's like Fox News and CNN but in reverse?



Tom Irwin





From: Tim Schlueter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:42:33 -0300Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryChris,Given the context the statement leaned toward either legitimategovernment involvement from any number of agencies, or downrightcensorship. That card game is quite derogatory toward many gov'tofficials and business leaders. It spins a grain of truth to whip upfrenzy within conspiracy theory groups and other anti-government/bigbusiness, Bush-bashing circles. No card game can reflect reality. Aperson's objectivity can be compromised by this sort of stuff. The gamemay be banned on Ebay because nobody will claim ownership. Marilynbrought it to our attention. Perhaps she would care to defend herstatement.Timsnip







___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/m

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Doug Foskey
Hakan,
 I think the $ slide is well overdue: how else are we (as in the rest of the 
world) to rein in the misuse of resources in the US?
 My only real fear is that the US will use all its nuclear weapons to take 
what it needs to stay afloat...

regards Doug

On Wednesday 17 August 2005 7:32, Hakan Falk wrote:
 Tim,

 Please try to research the subject a bit more and you will find
 that apart of being quite unwilling to give foreign aid at others
 level, it is used for political ends and corporate profits.

 Regarding US financial situation, Clinton actually did a great
 job to create a fiscally sound foundation, to deal with the US
 deficits. That work is gone now and US has never been in a
 worse situation. If it were any other country in the world, it
 would be declared in bankruptcy and it is only able to continue,
 because the disastrous world wide implications of such a move.

 Since Bush is not doing anything about it and his best advisers
 left him due to the inaction, nobody knows where it will end. The
 heavy slide of the dollar is a result of inaction, not a thoughtful
 financial policy. It is actually so bad that responsible American
 economists do not want to debate, afraid of trigger a run on the
 US economy. They do not see that it already begun, with major
 countries unloading their dollars.

 Anyway, this is not fun to talk about and pointless, since nobody
 is going to do something about it yet.

 Hakan

 At 21:00 16/08/2005, you wrote:
 Hakan,
 
 It really amounts to aid with no strings attached.  But even then there
 must be measures put in place to ensure accountability such as progress
 reports, inspections, etc.
 
 In an indirect way, when the US imports goods and services that
 translates into foreign aid.  The US has a huge trade imbalance.  The US
 also has considerable foreign direct investment in PPE that has got to
 help the local economy.  This may sound snippy but I suppose much of
 this activity can be interpreted as exploitation.
 
 Tim Schlueter
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk
 Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:40 PM
 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
 
 
 Tim,
 
 Nothing really, neither size or methods, but it
 is a matter of using foreign aid as a part of
 foreign policies and control. US is mixing their
 foreign policy goals and corporate profits, with
 the way to distribute foreign aid.
 
 1. US is selective and set the rules for their
 foreign aid, as an instrument to enhance their
 foreign policy goals. The countries I mentioned
 refrain from mixing foreign policy goals and only look at the needs.
 
 2. US is demanding that the money is spent with
 US companies and it is only if there are no US
 suppliers available, that the money can be spent
 somewhere else. This means that they short
 circuit any true bidding process, with lowest
 price and suitability as parameters. The
 countries that I mentioned, allow for an
 efficient purchasing process, with
 price/performance as the only measurement. This
 often means more for the money.
 
 Sometimes and for unique needs, all the countries
 will directly deliver produce as aid. The over
 riding factor should always be what is best for
 the recipient and not the convenience of the
 donor or donor related corporations.

 ___
 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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Tom Irwin




Hi Doug and All,

The Atlantic Monthly had a great article (actually several) in it about how the dollar could slide 25% or more. Great cover, circa 1920, with a pair of legs in a business suit looking from the roof of a tall building asif ready to jump.

Tom Irwin

snip___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Hakan Falk


Doug,

It will be hard times for US, but I do not belive on the nuclear option.
It is nothing that really can be taken and as we see in Iraq, it is very
difficult to collect on resources. The Americans will not allow for
a draft and the considerable resources needed for any effective
occupation of anyone.

I hope and belive that it will be new elections and Bush cannot stay
on anyway. By then it will be a higher degree of awareness with the
American people, that they are in deep sh-t. Hopefully a suitable
leader will emerge. At the end I do have a strong belive in the American
people and their basic goodness. We are maybe lucky, in the fact
that US no longer have an adversarial to blame and hate.

Hakan


At 08:59 17/08/2005, you wrote:

Hakan,
 I think the $ slide is well overdue: how else are we (as in the rest of the
world) to rein in the misuse of resources in the US?
 My only real fear is that the US will use all its nuclear weapons to take
what it needs to stay afloat...

regards Doug

On Wednesday 17 August 2005 7:32, Hakan Falk wrote:
 Tim,

 Please try to research the subject a bit more and you will find
 that apart of being quite unwilling to give foreign aid at others
 level, it is used for political ends and corporate profits.

 Regarding US financial situation, Clinton actually did a great
 job to create a fiscally sound foundation, to deal with the US
 deficits. That work is gone now and US has never been in a
 worse situation. If it were any other country in the world, it
 would be declared in bankruptcy and it is only able to continue,
 because the disastrous world wide implications of such a move.

 Since Bush is not doing anything about it and his best advisers
 left him due to the inaction, nobody knows where it will end. The
 heavy slide of the dollar is a result of inaction, not a thoughtful
 financial policy. It is actually so bad that responsible American
 economists do not want to debate, afraid of trigger a run on the
 US economy. They do not see that it already begun, with major
 countries unloading their dollars.

 Anyway, this is not fun to talk about and pointless, since nobody
 is going to do something about it yet.

 Hakan

 At 21:00 16/08/2005, you wrote:
 Hakan,
 
 It really amounts to aid with no strings attached.  But even then there
 must be measures put in place to ensure accountability such as progress
 reports, inspections, etc.
 
 In an indirect way, when the US imports goods and services that
 translates into foreign aid.  The US has a huge trade imbalance.  The US
 also has considerable foreign direct investment in PPE that has got to
 help the local economy.  This may sound snippy but I suppose much of
 this activity can be interpreted as exploitation.
 
 Tim Schlueter
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk
 Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:40 PM
 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
 
 
 Tim,
 
 Nothing really, neither size or methods, but it
 is a matter of using foreign aid as a part of
 foreign policies and control. US is mixing their
 foreign policy goals and corporate profits, with
 the way to distribute foreign aid.
 
 1. US is selective and set the rules for their
 foreign aid, as an instrument to enhance their
 foreign policy goals. The countries I mentioned
 refrain from mixing foreign policy goals and only look at the needs.
 
 2. US is demanding that the money is spent with
 US companies and it is only if there are no US
 suppliers available, that the money can be spent
 somewhere else. This means that they short
 circuit any true bidding process, with lowest
 price and suitability as parameters. The
 countries that I mentioned, allow for an
 efficient purchasing process, with
 price/performance as the only measurement. This
 often means more for the money.
 
 Sometimes and for unique needs, all the countries
 will directly deliver produce as aid. The over
 riding factor should always be what is best for
 the recipient and not the convenience of the
 donor or donor related corporations.




___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Doug Foskey
Hakan,
  except the poor 'terrorists'. (but I do not condone terrorism, but I wish we 
(as all the countries of the 'West' could understand the frustration that 
drives radical acts such as terrorism.)

regards Doug

On Wednesday 17 August 2005 6:36, Hakan Falk wrote:
 Doug,

 It will be hard times for US, but I do not belive on the nuclear option.
 It is nothing that really can be taken and as we see in Iraq, it is very
 difficult to collect on resources. The Americans will not allow for
 a draft and the considerable resources needed for any effective
 occupation of anyone.

 I hope and belive that it will be new elections and Bush cannot stay
 on anyway. By then it will be a higher degree of awareness with the
 American people, that they are in deep sh-t. Hopefully a suitable
 leader will emerge. At the end I do have a strong belive in the American
 people and their basic goodness. We are maybe lucky, in the fact
 that US no longer have an adversarial to blame and hate.

 Hakan

___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Garth Kim Travis

Greetings,

No, I do not yearn for Canada.  Canadians have their faults too, just 
different ones.  Me meek, not in this lifetime.  It is true that the red in 
my hair is more a memory than reality these days, I am used to standing up 
for what I believe is right.


Actually the racism is what I find hardest to take in the US and no, it is 
not just in the south.  The closed neighborhoods that do not want change or 
new people are not particularly healthy either.  What really upset me when 
I first moved here were the neighborhoods based on a certain religion!  How 
to create narrow minded children.  However, I do understand that such 
neighborhoods are now springing up in Canada, as well.


The main difference I find is the lack of tolerance for anyone different or 
anything different.  I guess Canadians have so many immigrant per capita, 
that interest in the different cultures has managed to keep things a little 
more tolerant.  And yes, I am well aware of the prejedice that those from 
Pakistan ran into when they arrived in Canada.  I am not saying anyone is 
perfect.


Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 03:22 PM 8/16/2005, you wrote:

Kim,

Gracious me!  As they say the meek shall inherit the earth!  I believe
that you fit that bill.  How soothing and reflective are your words.
You must yearn for Canada.  I am curious as to what you are referring to
wrt American attitudes?  It doesn't sound very complimentary.  Not
that I'm offended though I am interested in your perspective.

Tim

--




___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Garth Kim Travis

Greetings,

What you say is true, but how many Americans know their history?  Ask most 
Texans who won the civil war and they answer: Texas.  While I do know that 
Texans are not the same as American's, in most people's books, about half 
of my neighbors are from California and they are no better.


Somehow, it has become American to support our industry and stay in hock up 
to wazoo.  What gets me, it that most of the stuff is not made in 
America.  It is made elsewhere, an American name is added, then it is sold 
to Americans.  The joy of living in the states is the right to pay off 
debts without a penalty, especially your mortgage.  I do know American 
history and wish more Americans did and were proud of the good parts, I 
think it would make a nicer country.


Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 04:00 PM 8/16/2005, you wrote:
I was never told that it was un-Canadian to do for myself or to make 
things at home.  I am criticized in this manner about once a week, here in 
Texas.


OK you have my attention.

ANY American who tells you that making something at home is un-American 
hasn't the foggiest notion of this country's history and culture. 
Ingenuity and individuality have contributed greatly to the American way 
of life, for better or worse.


If anyone you know has any doubt about this, tell them to do their your 
own research and find out how many people in this country are amateur 
inventors and basement tinkerers. This didn't just start yesterday. As a 
new Englander, I admired so called Yankee Ingenuity and the folklorish 
status that it developed throughout the post industrial revolution. Some 
can argue that this kind of activity goes farther back than that - 
applying extraordinary ingenuity during the revolutionary war with the 
development and manufacturing processes used to produce the Kentucky long 
rifle and other technologies of it's day. Many of the framers of the 
constitution were tinkerers in their own right. Ask him/her if BENJAMIN 
FRANKLIN sounds like a familiar name.


Mike




___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread J Huntington Chase
Garth and Kim,
Maybe you should go out and educate some people to think otherwise.
The world will never become a better place if you just talk about it
online. Go out and help people notice their beliefs are so 1950s.
xoxox
hunt.

On 8/17/05, Garth  Kim Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Greetings,
 
 No, I do not yearn for Canada.  Canadians have their faults too, just
 different ones.  Me meek, not in this lifetime.  It is true that the red in
 my hair is more a memory than reality these days, I am used to standing up
 for what I believe is right.
 
 Actually the racism is what I find hardest to take in the US and no, it is
 not just in the south.  The closed neighborhoods that do not want change or
 new people are not particularly healthy either.  What really upset me when
 I first moved here were the neighborhoods based on a certain religion!  How
 to create narrow minded children.  However, I do understand that such
 neighborhoods are now springing up in Canada, as well.
 
 The main difference I find is the lack of tolerance for anyone different or
 anything different.  I guess Canadians have so many immigrant per capita,
 that interest in the different cultures has managed to keep things a little
 more tolerant.  And yes, I am well aware of the prejedice that those from
 Pakistan ran into when they arrived in Canada.  I am not saying anyone is
 perfect.
 
 Bright Blessings,
 Kim
 
 At 03:22 PM 8/16/2005, you wrote:
 Kim,
 
 Gracious me!  As they say the meek shall inherit the earth!  I believe
 that you fit that bill.  How soothing and reflective are your words.
 You must yearn for Canada.  I am curious as to what you are referring to
 wrt American attitudes?  It doesn't sound very complimentary.  Not
 that I'm offended though I am interested in your perspective.
 
 Tim
 
 --
 
 
 
 ___
 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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Michael Redler

"The world will never become a better place if you just talk about it online."

Wow! What a provocative statement.

If:

1.) The internet is the most powerful resource forinformation and research in history.

2.) Thatit's strength comes from the collective contributions ofall human beings with access to it and a willingness to contribute.

Then:

1.) Can one quantify the importance of one kind of contribution (like an opinion)when compared to another (like a thesis or white paper)?

2.) Can one then quantify the influence one has on a cause or struggle, depending on whether or not it is done on-line or in person?

MikeJ Huntington Chase [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Garth and Kim,Maybe you should go out and educate some people to think otherwise.The world will never become a better place if you just talk about itonline. Go out and help people notice their beliefs are so 1950s.xoxoxhunt.On 8/17/05, Garth  Kim Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: Greetings,  No, I do not yearn for Canada. Canadians have their faults too, just different ones. Me meek, not in this lifetime. It is true that the red in my hair is more a memory than reality these days, I am used to standing up for what I believe is right.  Actually the racism is what I find hardest to take in the US and no, it is not just in the south. The closed neighborhoods that do not want change or new people are not particularly healthy either. What really upset me when I first
 moved here were the neighborhoods based on a certain religion! How to create narrow minded children. However, I do understand that such neighborhoods are now springing up in Canada, as well.  The main difference I find is the lack of tolerance for anyone different or anything different. I guess Canadians have so many immigrant per capita, that interest in the different cultures has managed to keep things a little more tolerant. And yes, I am well aware of the prejedice that those from Pakistan ran into when they arrived in Canada. I am not saying anyone is perfect.  Bright Blessings, Kim  At 03:22 PM 8/16/2005, you wrote: Kim,  Gracious me! As they say the meek shall inherit the earth! I believe that you fit that bill. How soothing and reflective are your words. You must yearn for Canada. I am curious as to what
 you are referring to wrt "American attitudes?" It doesn't sound very complimentary. Not that I'm offended though I am interested in your perspective.  Tim  --___ 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 listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to
 Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch 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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Garth Kim Travis

Greetings,

If you can tell me how to educate people who do not want to learn, I will 
do so.  I was extremely active in Literacy Volunteers of America for 12 
years.  I worked as a trainer in the Brazos Valley and I tried to run a 
literacy council in Bedias, where the illiterate rate is over 40%.  We had 
free tutors available to anyone who wanted one, guess what?  No 
students!  The bank and the post office were telling people that free 
lessons were available, but still no students!


We live our philosophy, in big letters and out front.  We are trying very 
hard for a truly sustainable life and hope that as our place comes 
together, people will ask how we are accomplishing this, but you can not 
make people with no interest learn.  We are slowly getting questions about 
the health of our animals and grass, but when we explain, they laugh and 
tell us that won't work.  The evidence is in front of them, but we must be 
lying or something.


I am on-line, and although I haven't had time lately, I do regular rants 
about sustainable living, especially about sustainable farming on this 
list. Look in the archives.  I own and run 2 yahoo lists, both of around 
400 people.  One on sustainable building and one on renewable energy.  Plus 
the 20 other lists that I am on and active, sharing what I know and have 
learned and learning from others. If that is not being out there trying to 
teach, I don't know what you want.


Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 07:09 AM 8/17/2005, you wrote:

Garth and Kim,
Maybe you should go out and educate some people to think otherwise.
The world will never become a better place if you just talk about it
online. Go out and help people notice their beliefs are so 1950s.
xoxox
hunt.




___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Keith Addison

The world will never become a better place if you just talk about it online.

Wow! What a provocative statement.


Yes!


If:

1.) The internet is the most powerful resource for information and 
research in history.


2.) That it's strength comes from the collective contributions 
of all human beings with access to it and a willingness to 
contribute.


Then:

1.) Can one quantify the importance of one kind of contribution 
(like an opinion) when compared to another (like a thesis or white 
paper)?


2.) Can one then quantify the influence one has on a cause or 
struggle, depending on whether or not it is done on-line or in 
person?


No, IMHO. To write off the Internet as an agent for change would be 
rash, and the idea that all that happens online is just talk is 
plain wrong.


A lot of our feedback at Journey to Forever results from our online 
work, whether via our website or the Biofuel list. People quite often 
say it's given them new hope and the courage to try, or even the 
courage to try again.


The Internet is a major factor, or the major factor, in the 
development of the Other Superpower, worldwide opinion, which has 
among other things seen the biggest ever protests against war and 
toppled governments when they didn't comply. Meanwhile small groups 
with puny resources use the Internet to stop mega-corporations in 
their tracks. Just talk? How much biofuel is being made as a result 
of the talk that goes on here at the Biofuel list? How much less 
would it be if this group and others like it didn't exist?


Best wishes

Keith


Mike 


J Huntington Chase [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Garth and Kim,
Maybe you should go out and educate some people to think otherwise.
The world will never become a better place if you just talk about it
online. Go out and help people notice their beliefs are so 1950s.
xoxox
hunt.

On 8/17/05, Garth  Kim Travis wrote:
 Greetings,

 No, I do not yearn for Canada. Canadians have their faults too, just
 different ones. Me meek, not in this lifetime. It is true that the red in
 my hair is more a memory than reality these days, I am used to standing up
 for what I believe is right.

 Actually the racism is what I find hardest to take in the US and no, it is
 not just in the south. The closed neighborhoods that do not want change or
 new people are not particularly healthy either. What really upset me when
 I ! first moved here were the neighborhoods based on a certain 
religion! How

 to create narrow minded children. However, I do understand that such
 neighborhoods are now springing up in Canada, as well.

 The main difference I find is the lack of tolerance for anyone different or
 anything different. I guess Canadians have so many immigrant per capita,
 that interest in the different cultures has managed to keep things a little
 more tolerant. And yes, I am well aware of the prejedice that those from
 Pakistan ran into when they arrived in Canada. I am not saying anyone is
 perfect.

 Bright Blessings,
 Kim

 At 03:22 PM 8/16/2005, you wrote:
 Kim,
 
 Gracious me! As they say the meek shall inherit the earth! I believe
 that you fit that bill. How soothing and reflective are your words.
 You must yearn for Canada. I am curious as ! to what you are referring to
 wrt American attitudes? It doesn't sound very complimentary. Not
 that I'm offended though I am interested in your perspective.
 
 Tim



___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Joe Street




However significant or subtle one considers the passing or information
to be, one cannot dismiss the fact that the internet has the capacity
to transmit that information to a larger number of people than face to
face contact can, at least until one reaches the point of having a
venue and an audience of large numbers. I would guess that Garth and
Kim, and others who care enough to even be on this list are already
doing both, that is posting ideas here and also in the minds of friends
and aquaintences in daily life.


Joe

Michael Redler wrote:

  
  "The world will never become a better place if you
just talk about it online."
  
  Wow! What a provocative statement.
  
  If:
  
  1.) The internet is the most powerful resource forinformation
and research in history.
  
  2.) Thatit's strength comes from the collective contributions
ofall human beings with access to it and a willingness to contribute.
  
  Then:
  
  1.) Can one quantify the importance of one kind of contribution
(like an opinion)when compared to another (like a thesis or white
paper)?
  
  2.) Can one then quantify the influence one has on a cause or
struggle, depending on whether or not it is done on-line or in person?
  
  Mike
  
  J Huntington Chase [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  Garth
and Kim,
Maybe you should go out and educate some people to think otherwise.
The world will never become a better place if you just talk about it
online. Go out and help people notice their beliefs are so 1950s.
xoxox
hunt.

On 8/17/05, Garth  Kim Travis wrote:
 Greetings,
 
 No, I do not yearn for Canada. Canadians have their faults too,
just
 different ones. Me meek, not in this lifetime. It is true that the
red in
 my hair is more a memory than reality these days, I am used to
standing up
 for what I believe is right.
 
 Actually the racism is what I find hardest to take in the US and
no, it is
 not just in the south. The closed neighborhoods that do not want
change or
 new people are not particularly healthy either. What really upset
me when
 I first moved here were the neighborhoods based on a certain
religion! How
 to create narrow minded children. However, I do understand that
such
 neighborhoods are now springing up in Canada, as well.
 
 The main difference I find is the lack of tolerance for anyone
different or
 anything different. I guess Canadians have so many immigrant per
capita,
 that interest in the different cultures has managed to keep things
a little
 more tolerant. And yes, I am well aware of the prejedice that
those from
 Pakistan ran into when they arrived in Canada. I am not saying
anyone is
 perfect.
 
 Bright Blessings,
 Kim
 
 At 03:22 PM 8/16/2005, you wrote:
 Kim,
 
 Gracious me! As they say the meek shall inherit the earth! I
believe
 that you fit that bill. How soothing and reflective are your
words.
 You must yearn for Canada. I am curious as to what you are
referring to
 wrt "American attitudes?" It doesn't sound very complimentary.
Not
 that I'm offended though I am interested in your perspective.
 
 Tim
 
 --
 
 
 
 ___
 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/


  
  

___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread marilyn
Kim wrote:
If you can tell me how to educate people who do not want to 
learn, I will do so. I own and run 2 yahoo lists...One on 
sustainable building and one on renewable energy.
  
Kim,

Having students who don't want to learn is the hardest part of 
being a teacher, especially a history teacher because we have a 
responsibility to create citizens who understand democracy and 
participate in it wisely. 

If we don't know history we are condemened to repeat it. This is 
one reason why the control of our media's news is so harmful. 
People are not getting real information about the government 
that is creating history (unless they can find it on the internet). But 
when confronted with what is being covered up, many don't want 
to hear it, and accuse the messengers of being conspiracy nuts.

Marilyn

___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Garth Kim Travis

Greetings Marilyn,
You are not telling me anything I don't know, but you are totally 
correct.  Most people unfortunately get their ideas from 
hollywood/television and think it is real.  They are seriously unhappy when 
you shatter their vision of the world and they tend to attack the 
messenger.  We have been doing our own thing and slowly, people are 
starting to get interested in what we are doing.  The only way I have found 
to teach someone who does not want to learn, is to not let them know they 
are learning, at least for a while.  By example is all we 
have.  Thankfully, there are examples in many countries of Mother Earth, as 
exhibited by this list.

Bright Blessings,
Kim


Kim,

Having students who don't want to learn is the hardest part of
being a teacher, especially a history teacher because we have a
responsibility to create citizens who understand democracy and
participate in it wisely.

If we don't know history we are condemened to repeat it. This is
one reason why the control of our media's news is so harmful.
People are not getting real information about the government
that is creating history (unless they can find it on the internet). But
when confronted with what is being covered up, many don't want
to hear it, and accuse the messengers of being conspiracy nuts.

Marilyn




___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Tom Irwin




Hi Kim,

Don't let those secrets out Kim. You'll have more competition. Let them stay dumb and in debt. As far as knowing history, which history are we talking about? Are we talking about the history that says John F. Kennedy was killed by lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald? Or the real History?

Tom Irwin


From: Garth  Kim Travis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:12:29 -0300Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryGreetings,What you say is true, but how many Americans know their history? Ask most Texans who won the civil war and they answer: Texas. While I do know that Texans are not the same as American's, in most people's books, about half of my neighbors are from California and they are no better.Somehow, it has become American to support our industry and stay in hock up to wazoo. What gets me, it that most of the stuff is not made in America. It is made elsewhere, an American name is added, then it is sold to Americans. The joy of living in the states is the right to pay off debts without a penalty, especially your mortgage. I do know American history and wish more Americans did and were proud of the good parts, I think it would make a nicer country.Bright Blessings,KimAt 04:00 PM 8/16/2005, you wrote:"I was never told that it was un-Canadian to do for myself or to make things at home. I am criticized in this manner about once a week, here in Texas."OK you have my attention.ANY American who tells you that making something at home is un-American hasn't the foggiest notion of this country's history and culture. Ingenuity and individuality have contributed greatly to the American way of life, for better or worse.If anyone you know has any doubt about this, tell them to do their your own research and find out how many people in this country are amateur inventors and basement tinkerers. This didn't just start yesterday. As a new Englander, I admired so called "Yankee Ingenuity" and the folklorish status that it developed throughout the post industrial revolution. Some can argue that this kind of activity goes farther back than that - applying extraordinary ingenuity during the revolutionary war with the development and manufacturing processes used to produce the Kentucky long rifle and other technologies of it's day. Many of the framers of the constitution were tinkerers in their own right. Ask him/her if BENJAMIN FRANKLIN sounds like a familiar name.Mike___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch 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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Garth Kim Travis


Greetings,
Why would I want to see anyone suffer? I teach living debt free
whenever I get the chance, including last week to the employees at my
bank. I would like to live in a sustainable world and the only way
I can see of getting there is to teach at every opportunity. But I
can not teach those who do not want to learn. I do truly
wish, Bright Blessings to everyone.
As for history, the big general sweeps teach us more than getting lost in
quibbling over details. Even if Thucydides made up his whole book,
it does not matter. He still lets us see through the eyes of
someone in another time.
Kim

At 10:27 AM 8/17/2005, you wrote:
Hi Kim,

Don't let those secrets out Kim. You'll have more competition. Let them
stay dumb and in debt. As far as knowing history, which history are we
talking about? Are we talking about the history that says John F. Kennedy
was killed by lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald? Or the real History?

Tom Irwin



From: Garth  Kim Travis
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

Sent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:12:29 -0300

Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Greetings,

What you say is true, but how many Americans know their history? Ask
most 

Texans who won the civil war and they answer: Texas. While I do know
that 

Texans are not the same as American's, in most people's books, about
half 

of my neighbors are from California and they are no better.

Somehow, it has become American to support our industry and stay in
hock up 

to wazoo. What gets me, it that most of the stuff is not made in


America. It is made elsewhere, an American name is added, then it is
sold 

to Americans. The joy of living in the states is the right to pay off


debts without a penalty, especially your mortgage. I do know American


history and wish more Americans did and were proud of the good parts,
I 

think it would make a nicer country.

Bright Blessings,

Kim

At 04:00 PM 8/16/2005, you wrote:

I was never told that it was un-Canadian to do for myself
or to make 

things at home. I am criticized in this manner about once a week,
here in 

Texas.



OK you have my attention.



ANY American who tells you that making something at home is
un-American 

hasn't the foggiest notion of this country's history and culture.


Ingenuity and individuality have contributed greatly to the
American way 

of life, for better or worse.



If anyone you know has any doubt about this, tell them to do
their your 

own research and find out how many people in this country are
amateur 

inventors and basement tinkerers. This didn't just start
yesterday. As a 

new Englander, I admired so called Yankee Ingenuity
and the folklorish 

status that it developed throughout the post industrial
revolution. Some 

can argue that this kind of activity goes farther back than that
- 

applying extraordinary ingenuity during the revolutionary war
with the 

development and manufacturing processes used to produce the
Kentucky long 

rifle and other technologies of it's day. Many of the framers of
the 

constitution were tinkerers in their own right. Ask him/her if
BENJAMIN 

FRANKLIN sounds like a familiar name.



Mike


___

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/


___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread capt3d
hi michael.

 
I don't think I'm off base on this.
 
not sure specifically what you're referring to.  but i wasn't trying to 
suggest that by associating the two ideas (lone individual and anarchist) 
you 
were maligning anarchists or anarchism.
 
My statement/opinion simply said that an anarchist would not think it's 
impossible for the lone individual to protect their own basic rights.
If you thought that I was alluding to folklore, it was not meant that way. I 
think that an anarchist, in its most general meaning (above) could see this 
as quite possible. It's only
an opinion.
 
speaking in terms of the most general meaning, any person of almost any 
political or philosophical persuasion *could* see this (that the 'lone 
individual' could 'protect their own basic rights') as possible.  but your 
comment made 
such a point of view conditional on being an anarchist.

conditionals introduce a sense of specifity.  in this case, that there is 
something specific about being an anarchist that would allow him/her to believe 
such a thing.  add to that the fact that people (in the u.s., at least) don't 
normally hear/read the word anarchist and think of the paris commune, or the 
russian imperial navy, for example.  so even if you were thinking in very 
general terms, this is not how it reads.  

rather, it reads (whether or not you intended it to) as being rooted in the 
common misconception of anarchists as being sort of hyper-radical, nihilistic 
individualists or sociopaths, and perhaps the stereotype of the bomb-throwing 
anarchist as well.  not sure i put that very well, but i think you get my 
general idea.

anyway, my reply was not intended to level accusations or flame you.  just to 
inform.
 
 
As for the labor movement, I would argue that the beginning of the labor 
movement had more to do with admirers of Lenin and Trotsky rather than 
anarchists. 
 
No.  The roots go farther back than that.  I'm referring to the late 
ninteenth century, roughly 1870's to 1880's.
 
Not only did Debs run for president as a socialist, his rise to popularity 
was (at least partly) due to his involvement in the Industrial Workers of the 
World. He was only one of many socialists who volunteered to help the 
struggle.
You said: they would be replaced with local self-rule by worker's 
cooperatives.
I don't question your history Chris.

actually, i wasn't so much talking about history, as about the political 
theory.  the history and the debates that rage about it, get rather complex and 
sometimes blurry.  to whit:

However, I think local self rule quickly gave way to 
a consolidation of power and later collective bargaining.

are you talking about the transformation of political thought in the american 
labor movement?  or revolutionary russia (whether in terms of ideology or 
actual events)?  

The workers cooperatives
relayed the sentiment of the workers to the larger bodies and (IMO) looked 
similar to a
Soviet, Lenin and Trotsky's interpretation of worker's cooperatives.

from a leninist or trotskyist perspective, soviets would be the prototype for 
social/political organization in the future, after the dictatorship of the 
proletariat metamorphosed into a true communist society (utopia?).  meanwhile, 
they would theoretically be the democratic building blocks for a communist 
state (presumably a proletarian representative republican dictatorship, lol) 
that 
would lead the society to that true communist future.

That's my understanding of the events. If it doesn't match the consensus 
reached by scholars of that period (which I am not), then I stand corrected.

i'm not sure there is a consensus, but as far as i'm concerned there's no 
doubt that in 1918, russia was experiencing a general, unorganized 
revolutionary 
uprising, among which there were some anarchist elements to be sure.  the 
bolsheviks merely watched its gathering momentum and opportunistically stepped 
in 
right as it was reaching critical mass.  the debate still rages about how 
things went wrong (IMO) from there.

However, I need you to point me toward the references. . . .

i have read a number of surces on this stuff, though mostly quite a few years 
ago.  so no titles or authors come to mind.  i can only suggest googling 
anarchist with any one or combination of the following:  paris commune; 
levellers; haymarket; russian navy; october (or russian, or soviet, or 
bolshevik, 
etc,) revolution; makhnov; spanish civil war.  for a broader background (beyond 
october 1918) of socialist thought a/o the international socialist movement, 
you 
might try looking up socialist international

if you have a good public library or university library nearby, you can try 
there as well.

. . .which will teach/convince me otherwise.

actually, i wasn't trying to convince you of any particular interpretation of 
history or historical events.  just to point out an apparent inaccuracy.  :^)

cheers,

-chris

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
mike,

in spite of common 

RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Tom Irwin




Hi Kim,

A a nefarious politician once said, " The Devil is in the details ". We have to teach the truth to live sustainable. Fools will always suffer but I appreciate your great heart and dedication.

Tom Irwin


From: Garth  Kim Travis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:13:10 -0300Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryGreetings,Why would I want to see anyone suffer? I teach living debt free whenever I get the chance, including last week to the employees at my bank. I would like to live in a sustainable world and the only way I can see of getting there is to teach at every opportunity. But I can not teach those who do not want to learn. I do truly wish, Bright Blessings to everyone.As for history, the big general sweeps teach us more than getting lost in quibbling over details. Even if Thucydides made up his whole book, it does not matter. He still lets us see through the eyes of someone in another time.Kimsnip___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread capt3d
i don't see how that statement would lead one to believe it was government 
censorship.  it has a certain conspiratorial ring to it, no doubt.  not 
entirely 
unfounded, since there's a ton of stuff sold electronically/via download on 
ebay.  sounds as if not even the copyright holder(s) of the card game are being 
allowed to sell it.

-chris



In a message dated 8/16/05 10:23:48 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 In other words, the reason for the ban may have to do with copyright 
legalities as opposed to some sort of governmentally imposed restriction, which 
the 
statement below leads one to believe. 

___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Tim Schlueter
Kim,

Thanks for your frankness.  Tolerance is the politically correct
buzzword these days, in the public arena anyway.  Privately folks are
free to be as intolerant as money can buy.  Discrimination is running
rampant not that anyone would admit to it but you can judge a tree by
its fruit.

I feared the word meek wouldn't convey my intent properly.  I did not
mean doormat!  Instead I meant non-resented wisdom, patience and
gentleness especially while enduring hardship.

Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garth  Kim
Travis
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 7:05 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Greetings,

No, I do not yearn for Canada.  Canadians have their faults too, just 
different ones.  Me meek, not in this lifetime.  It is true that the red
in 
my hair is more a memory than reality these days, I am used to standing
up 
for what I believe is right.

Actually the racism is what I find hardest to take in the US and no, it
is 
not just in the south.  The closed neighborhoods that do not want change
or 
new people are not particularly healthy either.  What really upset me
when 
I first moved here were the neighborhoods based on a certain religion!
How 
to create narrow minded children.  However, I do understand that such 
neighborhoods are now springing up in Canada, as well.

The main difference I find is the lack of tolerance for anyone different
or 
anything different.  I guess Canadians have so many immigrant per
capita, 
that interest in the different cultures has managed to keep things a
little 
more tolerant.  And yes, I am well aware of the prejedice that those
from 
Pakistan ran into when they arrived in Canada.  I am not saying anyone
is 
perfect.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 03:22 PM 8/16/2005, you wrote:
Kim,

Gracious me!  As they say the meek shall inherit the earth!  I believe
that you fit that bill.  How soothing and reflective are your words.
You must yearn for Canada.  I am curious as to what you are referring
to
wrt American attitudes?  It doesn't sound very complimentary.  Not
that I'm offended though I am interested in your perspective.

Tim

--



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
g

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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Michael Redler








Chris: "...but your comment made such a point of view conditional on being an anarchist."

After reading my previous post, I agree that it could have been interpreted that way. So I responded to that implicitly:

Mike: "If you thought that I was alluding to folklore, it was not meant that way."

Chris: "are you talking about the transformation of political thought in the american labor movement? or revolutionary russia (whether in terms of ideology or actual events)?"

Having beeninvolved inlocalsocialist party activities (at a time when I had loyalty toward a single concept of government rather than to incorporate elements of many), there is a consensus that the firstto fuel the labor movement in the upper mid-west were Trotskyists and that they held firm to the strategies that had so much initial success in turninga bread revolt intothe Russian revolution. SoI see similarities between the bottom-uporganization ofsoviets and the union worker's collectives.

Folklore:

There are different interpretations to what happened at the beginning of the Russian revolution.Please be aware that if you run into any members of the ISO in your travels and you tell them:

"from a Leninist or Trotskyist perspective, soviets would be the prototype for social/political organization in the future, after the dictatorship of the proletariat metamorphosed into a true communist society (utopia?). meanwhile, they would theoretically be the democratic building blocks for a communist state (presumably a proletarian representative republican dictatorship, lol) that would lead the society to that true communist future."

...be prepared for an ear full.

They will take exception to the top-down "republican dictatorship" you referred to and you will be the one accused of beinginfluencedby folklore.

Chris: "anarchism was a very important current in the early days of the labor movement (including in the united states) as well as the international socialist movement."

That was very carefully worded. One can argue that many things helped spark the Internationalsocialist movement(in addition to Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, etc.). If I didn't read this part twice, I would think that you were implying that socialism has anarchism to thank for it's existence. But, I think I know what you're saying.

Finally:

Chris: "actually, i wasn't trying to convince you of any particular interpretation of history or historical events. just to point out an apparent inaccuracy."

You left the word "teach" out (i.e. teach/convince). By responding, you are doing one or both of these things.

Thank you for the references. I willfind time to use them.
Mike[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi michael.I don't think I'm off base on this.not sure specifically what you're referring to. but i wasn't trying to suggest that by associating the two ideas ("lone individual" and "anarchist") you were maligning anarchists or anarchism.My statement/opinion simply said that an anarchist would not think it's impossible "for the lone individual to protect their own basic rights."If you thought that I was alluding to folklore, it was not meant that way. I think that an anarchist, in its most general meaning (above) could see this as quite possible. It's onlyan opinion.speaking in terms of the "most general meaning", any person of almost any political or philosophical persuasion *could* see this (that the 'lone individual' could 'protect their own basic rights') as possible. but your comment
 made such a point of view conditional on being an anarchist.conditionals introduce a sense of specifity. in this case, that there is something specific about being an anarchist that would allow him/her to believe such a thing. add to that the fact that people (in the u.s., at least) don't normally hear/read the word anarchist and think of the paris commune, or the russian imperial navy, for example. so even if you were thinking in very general terms, this is not how it reads. rather, it reads (whether or not you intended it to) as being rooted in the common misconception of anarchists as being sort of hyper-radical, nihilistic individualists or sociopaths, and perhaps the stereotype of the bomb-throwing anarchist as well. not sure i put that very well, but i think you get my general idea.anyway, my reply was not intended to level accusations or flame you. just to inform.As for the labor movement, I
 would argue that the beginning of the labor movement had more to do with admirers of Lenin and Trotsky rather than anarchists. No. The roots go farther back than that. I'm referring to the late ninteenth century, roughly 1870's to 1880's.Not only did Debs run for president as a socialist, his rise to popularity was (at least partly) due to his involvement in the Industrial Workers of the World. He was only one of many socialists who volunteered to help the struggle.You said: "they would be replaced with local self-rule by worker's cooperatives."I don't question your history Chris.actually, i wasn't so 

RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Tim Schlueter
Chris,

Given the context the statement leaned toward either legitimate
government involvement from any number of agencies, or downright
censorship.  That card game is quite derogatory toward many gov't
officials and business leaders.  It spins a grain of truth to whip up
frenzy within conspiracy theory groups and other anti-government/big
business, Bush-bashing circles.  No card game can reflect reality.  A
person's objectivity can be compromised by this sort of stuff.  The game
may be banned on Ebay because nobody will claim ownership.  Marilyn
brought it to our attention.  Perhaps she would care to defend her
statement.

Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:37 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

i don't see how that statement would lead one to believe it was
government 
censorship.  it has a certain conspiratorial ring to it, no doubt.  not
entirely 
unfounded, since there's a ton of stuff sold electronically/via download
on 
ebay.  sounds as if not even the copyright holder(s) of the card game
are being 
allowed to sell it.

-chris



In a message dated 8/16/05 10:23:48 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 In other words, the reason for the ban may have to do with copyright 
legalities as opposed to some sort of governmentally imposed
restriction, which the 
statement below leads one to believe. 

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
g

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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Tom Irwin




Hi Tim and all,

You mean it's like Fox News and CNN but in reverse?

Tom Irwin


From: Tim Schlueter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:42:33 -0300Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryChris,Given the context the statement leaned toward either legitimategovernment involvement from any number of agencies, or downrightcensorship. That card game is quite derogatory toward many gov'tofficials and business leaders. It spins a grain of truth to whip upfrenzy within conspiracy theory groups and other anti-government/bigbusiness, Bush-bashing circles. No card game can reflect reality. Aperson's objectivity can be compromised by this sort of stuff. The gamemay be banned on Ebay because nobody will claim ownership. Marilynbrought it to our attention. Perhaps she would care to defend herstatement.Timsnip___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Tim Schlueter








Tom,



Not sure I understand. Please elaborate.



Tim











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom Irwin
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005
1:25 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New
Blue States/Country







Hi Tim and all,











You mean it's like Fox News and CNN but in reverse?











Tom Irwin













From: Tim Schlueter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:42:33
-0300
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New
Blue States/Country

Chris,

Given the context the statement leaned toward either legitimate
government involvement from any number of agencies, or downright
censorship. That card game is quite derogatory toward many gov't
officials and business leaders. It spins a grain of truth to whip up
frenzy within conspiracy theory groups and other anti-government/big
business, Bush-bashing circles. No card game can reflect reality. A
person's objectivity can be compromised by this sort of stuff. The game
may be banned on Ebay because nobody will claim ownership. Marilyn
brought it to our attention. Perhaps she would care to defend her
statement.

Tim

snip








___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Keith Addison

Chris,

Given the context the statement leaned toward either legitimate
government involvement from any number of agencies, or downright
censorship.  That card game is quite derogatory toward many gov't
officials and business leaders.  It spins a grain of truth to whip up
frenzy within conspiracy theory groups and other anti-government/big
business, Bush-bashing circles.


ROFL!!! Conspiracy theory groups and **other** anti-government/big 
business, Bush-bashing circles??? Now, once we've fought our way 
through this confetti of labellings, does that mean that if you don't 
swallow the Bushies' lies over the Iraq invasion and just about 
everything else you're just a conspiracy theorist? And that if you 
don't believe Monsanto Loves You And So Does Haliburton you're just a 
conspiracy theorist?



No card game can reflect reality.


Images can though, especially well-annotated ones. There can be a lot 
more than a grain of truth in the proverbial thousand words, 
especially in a whole suite of them.



A
person's objectivity can be compromised by this sort of stuff.


I don't think we can put a lot of trust in statements about what can 
compromise a person's objectivity from someone who apparently thinks 
Bush-bashing is a conspiracy theory.



The game
may be banned on Ebay because nobody will claim ownership.


Clutching at straws, aren't you? What indication do you have that it 
has anything to do with ownership, let alone that nobody will claim 
it? eBay would not be the first Internet resource in the US to 
indulge in this sort of squeaky-clean self-censorship, and IIRC it 
may not be the first time for eBay either.



Marilyn
brought it to our attention.  Perhaps she would care to defend her
statement.


No need at all for her to do that, but I suspect you're going to have 
a hard time defending yours.


Why no need for Marilyn to defend her statement? Because, far from 
the dread cards being used to whip up a frenzy within conspiracy 
theory groups etc etc, Marilyn used them as a direct and economical 
answer to a question from Hakan: Wonder from which industries they 
[US leaders] are coming? That's what the cards tell you. Whether 
it's derogatory or not is irrelevant. Unless you can demonstrate that 
what they say is inaccurate, and intentionally so, your current 
(conspiracy?) theory falls at least as flat as the original copyright 
one did.


More than one list member has told you to go and do some homework but 
it's clear that you haven't. Conspiracy Bush-bashing aside, have you 
read these yet?


Go to http://globalissues.org/ (for instance) and do some studying. 
You can start with these:


http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg39994.html
Re: [Biofuel] US Foreign aid

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg51848.html
[Biofuel] Inequality in wealth


Or these?

http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200 
5-August/002660.html
[Biofuel] Famines as Commercial Opportunity - was Re: The New Blue 
States/Country


http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200 
5-August/002657.html

[Biofuel] Famine As Commerce - was Re: The New Blue States/Country

http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200 
5-August/002661.html
[Biofuel] The US and Foreign Aid Assistance - was Re: The New Blue 
States/Country


Best wishes

Keith



Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:37 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

i don't see how that statement would lead one to believe it was
government
censorship.  it has a certain conspiratorial ring to it, no doubt.  not
entirely
unfounded, since there's a ton of stuff sold electronically/via download
on
ebay.  sounds as if not even the copyright holder(s) of the card game
are being
allowed to sell it.

-chris



In a message dated 8/16/05 10:23:48 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 In other words, the reason for the ban may have to do with copyright
legalities as opposed to some sort of governmentally imposed
restriction, which the
statement below leads one to believe. 



___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Tom Irwin




Hi Tim,

You mean they don´t have Fox News and CNN in Missouri. Perhaps this will help. When someone goes into another country to take what belongs to that country they are breaking this one.

You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

You do understand that on don´t you Tim. I think last part applies to oil. What do you think?

Tom Irwin


From: Tim Schlueter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:25:25 -0300Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Tom,

Not sure I understand. Please elaborate.

Tim





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom IrwinSent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:25 PMTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Hi Tim and all,



You mean it's like Fox News and CNN but in reverse?



Tom Irwin





From: Tim Schlueter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:42:33 -0300Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryChris,Given the context the statement leaned toward either legitimategovernment involvement from any number of agencies, or downrightcensorship. That card game is quite derogatory toward many gov'tofficials and business leaders. It spins a grain of truth to whip upfrenzy within conspiracy theory groups and other anti-government/bigbusiness, Bush-bashing circles. No card game can reflect reality. Aperson's objectivity can be compromised by this sort of stuff. The gamemay be banned on Ebay because nobody will claim ownership. Marilynbrought it to our attention. Perhaps she would care to defend herstatement.Timsnip



___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread marilyn
Tim wrote
...Marilyn brought it to our attention.  Perhaps she would care to 
defend her statement.

Tim,

I first wrote about the cards in response to Hakan wondering 
what kind of companies members of the Bush administration 
come from. I remembered a year ago someone had told me how 
many of them came from oil and war industries and these cards 
showed their backgrounds. I searched on google to find them 
and found the card's website:
http://www.ruckus.org/warprofiteers/order/index.html

One of the sites I saw mentioned they had been banned on ebay 
so I added that comment. I have tried to find that site again today 
and am sorry I can't. I went to ebay today and did see one deck 
them listed, so now I see that comment was wrong.

My search did turn up one similar deck of cards called Axis 
Weasels that had been banned on ebay, but it now appears the 
ban is lifted. For those who want to know about this ban, it is 
described on their web site:
http://www.thebushadministration.com/overview.html

I apologize for passing on misleading information and 
appreciate being asked to straighten it out.

Marilyn




___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Mike Weaver

Heck,

most Americans don't even know the proverbial Franklin stove (round 
and made of steel) has nothing to do with Ben Franklin.


Tom Irwin wrote:


Hi Kim,
 
Don't let those secrets out Kim. You'll have more competition. Let 
them stay dumb and in debt. As far as knowing history, which history 
are we talking about? Are we talking about the history that says John 
F. Kennedy was killed by lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald? Or the real 
History?
 
Tom Irwin



*From:* Garth  Kim Travis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
*Sent:* Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:12:29 -0300
*Subject:* RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Greetings,

What you say is true, but how many Americans know their history?
Ask most
Texans who won the civil war and they answer: Texas. While I do
know that
Texans are not the same as American's, in most people's books,
about half
of my neighbors are from California and they are no better.

Somehow, it has become American to support our industry and stay
in hock up
to wazoo. What gets me, it that most of the stuff is not made in
America. It is made elsewhere, an American name is added, then it
is sold
to Americans. The joy of living in the states is the right to pay off
debts without a penalty, especially your mortgage. I do know American
history and wish more Americans did and were proud of the good
parts, I
think it would make a nicer country.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 04:00 PM 8/16/2005, you wrote:
I was never told that it was un-Canadian to do for myself or to
make
things at home. I am criticized in this manner about once a week,
here in
Texas.

OK you have my attention.

ANY American who tells you that making something at home is
un-American
hasn't the foggiest notion of this country's history and culture.
Ingenuity and individuality have contributed greatly to the
American way
of life, for better or worse.

If anyone you know has any doubt about this, tell them to do
their your
own research and find out how many people in this country are
amateur
inventors and basement tinkerers. This didn't just start
yesterday. As a
new Englander, I admired so called Yankee Ingenuity and the
folklorish
status that it developed throughout the post industrial
revolution. Some
can argue that this kind of activity goes farther back than that -
applying extraordinary ingenuity during the revolutionary war
with the
development and manufacturing processes used to produce the
Kentucky long
rifle and other technologies of it's day. Many of the framers of the
constitution were tinkerers in their own right. Ask him/her if
BENJAMIN
FRANKLIN sounds like a familiar name.

Mike



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
javascript:kh6k0(new,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/

 




___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-17 Thread Mike Weaver
You've taken some liberties with this translation.  The original reads 
Thall shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass.  Well, you haven't seen my 
neighbor in her hot tub.  I have a lot of trouble with this one.  Some 
afternoons I covet for an hour or so before I go back to work...


Tom Irwin wrote:


Hi Tim,
 
You mean they don´t have Fox News and CNN in Missouri. Perhaps this 
will help. When someone goes into another country to take what belongs 
to that country they are breaking this one.
 
*You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your 
neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, 
or anything that belongs to your neighbor. *
** 
*You do understand that on don´t you Tim. I think last part applies to 
oil. What do you think?*
** 
*Tom Irwin*



*From:* Tim Schlueter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
*Sent:* Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:25:25 -0300
*Subject:* RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Tom,

 


Not sure I understand.  Please elaborate.

 


Tim

 




*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
javascript:kh6k0(new,[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
javascript:kh6k0(new,[EMAIL PROTECTED])]
*On Behalf Of *Tom Irwin
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:25 PM
*To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
javascript:kh6k0(new,Biofuel@sustainablelists.org)
*Subject:* RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

 


Hi Tim and all,

 


You mean it's like Fox News and CNN but in reverse?

 


Tom Irwin

 




*From:* Tim Schlueter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
javascript:kh6k0(new,[EMAIL PROTECTED])]
*To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
javascript:kh6k0(new,Biofuel@sustainablelists.org)
*Sent:* Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:42:33 -0300
*Subject:* RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Chris,

Given the context the statement leaned toward either legitimate
government involvement from any number of agencies, or downright
censorship. That card game is quite derogatory toward many gov't
officials and business leaders. It spins a grain of truth to
whip up
frenzy within conspiracy theory groups and other
anti-government/big
business, Bush-bashing circles. No card game can reflect
reality. A
person's objectivity can be compromised by this sort of stuff.
The game
may be banned on Ebay because nobody will claim ownership. Marilyn
brought it to our attention. Perhaps she would care to defend her
statement.

Tim

snip

 
 




___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Hakan Falk


Bob,

Thanks for your concerns about me.

Yes you are right, there are many who has the capacity to compensate 
lack of direct experience, with education and enough imagination. 
There are many good places in the world, as I said, and we only 
have to work hard on making more of them. To belive that this in any 
way can be done with the help of weapons, is utterly stupid. It is 
nothing that will be more destructive and more hated, than 
liberators that has killed members of your family and/or your 
friends. As I now live in Spain and married with a Catalan women, I 
often see that the effects of the 1936 to 1939 civil war still are 
lingering. I heard about it before, but did not think that it would 
be so real for so many, who's parents were not even born at that time.


To belive that US will get out of Iraq, without being deeply hated 
the next 50-100 years, is not only ignorant, but also utterly stupid. 
After all they have personally killed around 300,000 Iraqis and was 
behind the Iraq - Iran war, with around an other million dead. 
History will not be kind to US, the Americans and President Bush. 
Where do the Americans get those unreal and sick leaders from, 
including guys like Rumsfelt? It is amazing!!


Hakan

At 03:27 16/08/2005, you wrote:

Hakan,
Well said, and most appropriate. But may I respectfully note that 
like all generalizations, there are many exceptions  to the general 
rule (that lack of international experience leads to a closed mind). 
Example: Although I, along with many of my friends,  have zero 
international living experience (except through reading and the 
media), and although we do enjoy living in the US with all its 
faults (of which we are painfully aware), there are many other 
countries I think we would enjoy living in  - Sweden might be such 
an enjoyable place, for instance. Far from finding Sweden's 
socialist form of government abhorrent, there are many of us who 
would like to see more of it in the US. There's a world of 
difference between chauvinism and patriotism


I do read and enjoy your perceptive and sensitive writings, and I do 
want to tell you how sorry I was to learn of your experience with 
the criminal elements. May this be your last contact with them.


Regards,

Bob Adams
- Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country




Earl,

Why I asked?

I am Swedish and have lived and worked in 8 countries including US, 
worked in 25 and visited 60+ more. I found many things that I liked 
and some things that I disliked in all of them. I can make myself 
understood in 5 languages, not including the Danish and Norweigian 
which are very close to Swedish.


A big majority in all countries, are very proud of their country 
and would not want to live anywhere else. The less international 
experiences they have, the more staunch their opinions are. The 
Americans do not want to live anywhere else and especially not in a 
country like the socialist Sweden. The Swedes do not want to live 
anywhere else and especially not the undemocratic US, where money 
is the only power. Yet, I have never found any countries that has 
so much in common as US and Sweden, this even if Sweden have a 
higher general living standard, according to UN and US statistic. 
That is also why Americans who live in Sweden generally like it 
very much and the same for Swedes who live in US.


What I want to get to, is that you should avoid to have those 
unqualified opinions about other countries. It is amazing how a 
little bit international experiences can make you more humble and 
appreciate that we are all people that basically like each other, 
once when we get the opportunity to meet. There are also many very 
good places to live, independent of what you think of their political label.


Visited Vietnam last year and it was amazing how Americanized and 
unsafe the south still was, compared to the north. As a whole, it 
was a very positive experience and interesting to see the places 
that I for years followed in the news. They  will develop fast and 
in a positive direction.


Hakan


At 17:16 13/08/2005, you wrote:

Keith,

I think you are confusing what I said.  I perfectly agreed with 
you that the U.S. is not a charitable organization, and does take 
much more than it gives (here and abroad).  I can't speak for 
other developing nations, as I have only lived in the U.S. 
(answering Harkan's question in another email).  But I expect you 
are correct about that too.  And the end result is an even bigger 
gap between the haves and the have-nots.


The charity I was referring to is when individuals like your or I 
give something (money, food, clothing, medicine, etc.) to someone 
else, without expecting anything in return.  It would be nice to 
know that if I send a dollar to help provide clean water to a 
village in Sudan, that 90 cents isn't

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Tom Irwin




Hi Hakan,

We get those wonderful leaders from corporations and the military. The ones in the military are actually the pacifists since they´re actually been shot at and seen friends die forAmerica Inc.

Tom


From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 06:04:07 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryBob,Thanks for your concerns about me.Yes you are right, there are many who has the capacity to compensate lack of direct experience, with education and enough imagination. There are many good places in the world, as I said, and we "only" have to work hard on making more of them. To belive that this in any way can be done with the help of weapons, is utterly stupid. It is nothing that will be more destructive and more hated, than "liberators" that has killed members of your family and/or your friends. As I now live in Spain and married with a Catalan women, I often see that the effects of the 1936 to 1939 civil war still are lingering. I heard about it before, but did not think that it would be so real for so many, who's parents were not even born at that time.To belive that US will get out of Iraq, without being deeply hated the next 50-100 years, is not only ignorant, but also utterly stupid. After all they have personally killed around 300,000 Iraqis and was behind the Iraq - Iran war, with around an other million dead. History will not be kind to US, the Americans and President Bush. Where do the Americans get those unreal and sick leaders from, including guys like Rumsfelt? It is amazing!!HakanAt 03:27 16/08/2005, you wrote:Hakan,Well said, and most appropriate. But may I respectfully note that like all generalizations, there are many exceptions to the general rule (that lack of international experience leads to a closed mind). Example: Although I, along with many of my friends, have zero international living experience (except through reading and the media), and although we do enjoy living in the US with all its faults (of which we are painfully aware), there are many other countries I think we would enjoy living in - Sweden might be such an enjoyable place, for instance. Far from finding Sweden's socialist form of government abhorrent, there are many of us who would like to see more of it in the US. There's a world of difference between chauvinism and patriotismI do read and enjoy your perceptive and sensitive writings, and I do want to tell you how sorry I was to learn of your experience with the criminal elements. May this be your last contact with them.Regards,Bob Adams- Original Message - From: "Hakan Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 1:00 PMSubject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryEarl,Why I asked?I am Swedish and have lived and worked in 8 countries including US, worked in 25 and visited 60+ more. I found many things that I liked and some things that I disliked in all of them. I can make myself understood in 5 languages, not including the Danish and Norweigian which are very close to Swedish.A big majority in all countries, are very proud of their country and would not want to live anywhere else. The less international experiences they have, the more staunch their opinions are. The Americans do not want to live anywhere else and especially not in a country like the "socialist" Sweden. The Swedes do not want to live anywhere else and especially not the undemocratic US, where money is the only power. Yet, I have never found any countries that has so much in common as US and Sweden, this even if Sweden have a higher general living standard, according to UN and US statistic. That is also why Americans who live in Sweden generally like it very much and the same for Swedes who live in US.What I want to get to, is that you should avoid to have those unqualified opinions about other countries. It is amazing how a little bit international experiences can make you more humble and appreciate that we are all people that basically like each other, once when we get the opportunity to meet. There are also many very good places to live, independent of what you think of their political label.Visited Vietnam last year and it was amazing how Americanized and unsafe the south still was, compared to the north. As a whole, it was a very positive experience and interesting to see the places that I for years followed in the news. They will develop fast and in a positive direction.HakanAt 17:16 13/08/2005, you wrote:Keith,I think you are confusing what I said. I perfectly agreed with you that the U.S. is not a charitable organization, and does take much more than it gives (here and abroad). I can't speak for other developing nations, as I have only lived in the U.S. (answering Harkan's question in another email). But I expect you are correct about that too. And the end result is an even bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots.The charity I was referring to is when 

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Hakan Falk


Tom,

I had no idea that Bush jr had been shot at and 
seen friends die for America. Nobody told me that 
Rumsfelt had an extinguish military career, but 
it is possible. Powell, that I like a lot, I know 
was a military, but it looked like he had trouble 
with his colleagues, maybe he is the one who 
provided for the shooting at Bush? This girl who 
got Powell's job, looks like a military, but I 
thought that she was a university professor. You 
have to excuse us foreigners who know so little about US leaders.


Then the view about fuel economy is 
understandable, anything with little less mpg 
than a Hummer, must be a wonder of efficiency. 
Anything with better insulation than a tent, must 
look as the technology that would save us from 
Global Warming. Considering the living 
conditioning in military tents, must also make it 
difficult to belive in the concept of Global Warming.


If they come from Corporations, hmmm, I do not 
like to be sued for telling my honest opinion or 
my experiences from US corporate leaders. It does 
however explain the deep rooted habit of lying to 
the people. Wonder from which industries they are coming?


Hakan

At 11:20 16/08/2005, you wrote:

Hi Hakan,

We get those wonderful leaders from corporations 
and the military. The ones in the military are 
actually the pacifists since they´re actually 
been shot at and seen friends die for America Inc.


Tom


--
From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 06:04:07 -0300
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Bob,

Thanks for your concerns about me.

Yes you are right, there are many who has the capacity to compensate
lack of direct experience, with education and enough imagination.
There are many good places in the world, as I said, and we only
have to work hard on making more of them. To belive that this in any
way can be done with the help of weapons, is utterly stupid. It is
nothing that will be more destructive and more hated, than
liberators that has killed members of your family and/or your
friends. As I now live in Spain and married with a Catalan women, I
often see that the effects of the 1936 to 1939 civil war still are
lingering. I heard about it before, but did not think that it would
be so real for so many, who's parents were not even born at that time.

To belive that US will get out of Iraq, without being deeply hated
the next 50-100 years, is not only ignorant, but also utterly stupid.
After all they have personally killed around 300,000 Iraqis and was
behind the Iraq - Iran war, with around an other million dead.
History will not be kind to US, the Americans and President Bush.
Where do the Americans get those unreal and sick leaders from,
including guys like Rumsfelt? It is amazing!!

Hakan

At 03:27 16/08/2005, you wrote:
Hakan,
Well said, and most appropriate. But may I respectfully note that
like all generalizations, there are many exceptions to the general
rule (that lack of international experience leads to a closed mind).
Example: Although I, along with many of my friends, have zero
international living experience (except through reading and the
media), and although we do enjoy living in the US with all its
faults (of which we are painfully aware), there are many other
countries I think we would enjoy living in - Sweden might be such
an enjoyable place, for instance. Far from finding Sweden's
socialist form of government abhorrent, there are many of us who
would like to see more of it in the US. There's a world of
difference between chauvinism and patriotism

I do read and enjoy your perceptive and sensitive writings, and I do
want to tell you how sorry I was to learn of your experience with
the criminal elements. May this be your last contact with them.

Regards,

Bob Adams
- Original Message - From: Hakan Falk
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country



Earl,

Why I asked?

I am Swedish and have lived and worked in 8 countries including US,
worked in 25 and visited 60+ more. I found many things that I liked
and some things that I disliked in all of them. I can make myself
understood in 5 languages, not including the Danish and Norweigian
which are very close to Swedish.

A big majority in all countries, are very proud of their country
and would not want to live anywhere else. The less international
experiences they have, the more staunch their opinions are. The
Americans do not want to live anywhere else and especially not in a
country like the socialist Sweden. The Swedes do not want to live
anywhere else and especially not the undemocratic US, where money
is the only power. Yet, I have never found any countries that has
so much in common as US and Sweden, this even if Sweden have a
higher general living standard, according to UN and US statistic.
That is also why Americans who live in Sweden generally like it
very much and the same for Swedes who live in US

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Tom Irwin




Hi Hakan,

You are talking about the chicken hawks. Bush II had poppy get him out of any possible trip to Viet Nam. Rummy never went to my knowledge and Mr VP got his wife knocked up to extend his deferment. Powell served and was shot at. He's seen first hand what war is all about and of course is no longer in the administration. I can't tell you much about Condi except she used to work for Chevron. They named a tanker after her. Most of the present administration is tied to big oil or big energy either directly of indirectly. It wouldn't surprise me if $100,000 or so goes into somebody's bank account each time one of our soldiers gets killed or maimed. You can be sure that account does not belong to the poorsoldiers family.

Tom


From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:36:27 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryTom,I had no idea that Bush jr had been shot at and seen friends die for America. Nobody told me that Rumsfelt had an extinguish military career, but it is possible. Powell, that I like a lot, I know was a military, but it looked like he had trouble with his colleagues, maybe he is the one who provided for the shooting at Bush? This girl who got Powell's job, looks like a military, but I thought that she was a university professor. You have to excuse us foreigners who know so little about US leaders.Then the view about fuel economy is understandable, anything with little less mpg than a Hummer, must be a wonder of efficiency. Anything with better insulation than a tent, must look as the technology that would save us from Global Warming. Considering the living conditioning in military tents, must also make it difficult to belive in the concept of Global Warming.If they come from Corporations, hmmm, I do not like to be sued for telling my honest opinion or my experiences from US corporate leaders. It does however explain the deep rooted habit of lying to the people. Wonder from which industries they are coming?HakanAt 11:20 16/08/2005, you wrote:Hi Hakan,We get those wonderful leaders from corporations and the military. The ones in the military are actually the pacifists since they´re actually been shot at and seen friends die for America Inc.Tom--From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 06:04:07 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryBob,Thanks for your concerns about me.Yes you are right, there are many who has the capacity to compensatelack of direct experience, with education and enough imagination.There are many good places in the world, as I said, and we "only"have to work hard on making more of them. To belive that this in anyway can be done with the help of weapons, is utterly stupid. It isnothing that will be more destructive and more hated, than"liberators" that has killed members of your family and/or yourfriends. As I now live in Spain and married with a Catalan women, Ioften see that the effects of the 1936 to 1939 civil war still arelingering. I heard about it before, but did not think that it wouldbe so real for so many, who's parents were not even born at that time.To belive that US will get out of Iraq, without being deeply hatedthe next 50-100 years, is not only ignorant, but also utterly stupid.After all they have personally killed around 300,000 Iraqis and wasbehind the Iraq - Iran war, with around an other million dead.History will not be kind to US, the Americans and President Bush.Where do the Americans get those unreal and sick leaders from,including guys like Rumsfelt? It is amazing!!HakanAt 03:27 16/08/2005, you wrote: Hakan, Well said, and most appropriate. But may I respectfully note that like all generalizations, there are many exceptions to the general rule (that lack of international experience leads to a closed mind). Example: Although I, along with many of my friends, have zero international living experience (except through reading and the media), and although we do enjoy living in the US with all its faults (of which we are painfully aware), there are many other countries I think we would enjoy living in - Sweden might be such an enjoyable place, for instance. Far from finding Sweden's socialist form of government abhorrent, there are many of us who would like to see more of it in the US. There's a world of difference between chauvinism and patriotism  I do read and enjoy your perceptive and sensitive writings, and I do want to tell you how sorry I was to learn of your experience with the criminal elements. May this be your last contact with them.  Regards,  Bob Adams - Original Message - From: "Hakan Falk" To: Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryEarl,  Why I asked?  I am Swedish and have lived and worked in 8 countries including US, worked in 25 and visited 60+ more. I found many things that I liked and some

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Garth Kim Travis

Greetings Hakan,

Lying in corporations is standard practice in North America.  The normal 
lie that is real common is: 'Anyone can shut down a job for safety 
reasons.'  I have heard this in many corporations in Canada and the US, but 
I have also seen what happens when someone tries to shut down a job for 
safety reasons.  Either they are ignored and the job continues in an unsafe 
manor or the person very quickly finds themselves in the unemployment line.


Corporate image and the image of being a good corporate citizen is what the 
companies care about, the reality does not have to live up to it, if they 
have spent enough money publicizing their corporate image.


Start work at 16 and by the time you are 20, you have this figured 
out.  The challenge is to figure out which part of the companies spin, they 
actually care about.  Then you know which sacred cow not to damage.  Me, I 
couldn't stand it, so I have been self employed most of my life.


Not all corporations are like this, and the smaller the company, the less 
likely this is.  But one does not go into politics as a rule from small 
business.


The oil industry is especially ripe with type of behavior.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 07:36 AM 8/16/2005, you wrote:
If they come from Corporations, hmmm, I do not like to be sued for telling 
my honest opinion or my experiences from US corporate leaders. It does 
however explain the deep rooted habit of lying to the people. Wonder from 
which industries they are coming?


Hakan




___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread marilyn
Hakan wrote:
Wonder from which industries they are coming?

Hakan, at the following website you can see their backgrounds 
by looking at each card in a card game that shows backgrounds 
of people working with the administration:

http://www.ruckus.org/warprofiteers/

Each suit in the deck represents a category: 
Oil, gas, and energy companies
US government officials
Military and defense contractors
Heads of industry, finance, media, policy, and hype

Go here to select each category to find information on each 
person
http://www.ruckus.org/warprofiteers/cards/index.html

The sale of the card game has been banned on ebay

To see a little about Cheney's background with Halliburton see
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/printabl
e595214.shtml
Doing Business With The Enemy   Jan. 25, 2004

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives were 
part of the Project for the New American Century plan to invade 
Iraq in 1997. They tried to get Clinton interested, but failed. They 
didn't fail with Bush. See their names on the statement of 
principles at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm




Biofuel@sustainablelists.org wrote:

Tom,

I had no idea that Bush jr had been shot at and 
seen friends die for America. Nobody told me that 
Rumsfelt had an extinguish military career, but 
it is possible. Powell, that I like a lot, I know 
was a military, but it looked like he had trouble 
with his colleagues, maybe he is the one who 
provided for the shooting at Bush? This girl who 
got Powell's job, looks like a military, but I 
thought that she was a university professor. You 
have to excuse us foreigners who know so little about US 
leaders.

Then the view about fuel economy is 
understandable, anything with little less mpg 
than a Hummer, must be a wonder of efficiency. 
Anything with better insulation than a tent, must 
look as the technology that would save us from 
Global Warming. Considering the living 
conditioning in military tents, must also make it 
difficult to belive in the concept of Global Warming.

If they come from Corporations, hmmm, I do not 
like to be sued for telling my honest opinion or 
my experiences from US corporate leaders. It does 
however explain the deep rooted habit of lying to 
the people. Wonder from which industries they are coming?

Hakan

At 11:20 16/08/2005, you wrote:
Hi Hakan,

We get those wonderful leaders from corporations 
and the military. The ones in the military are 
actually the pacifists since they´re actually 
been shot at and seen friends die for America Inc.

Tom


--
From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 06:04:07 -0300
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Bob,

Thanks for your concerns about me.

Yes you are right, there are many who has the capacity to 
compensate
lack of direct experience, with education and enough 
imagination.
There are many good places in the world, as I said, and we 
only
have to work hard on making more of them. To belive that this 
in any
way can be done with the help of weapons, is utterly stupid. It is
nothing that will be more destructive and more hated, than
liberators that has killed members of your family and/or your
friends. As I now live in Spain and married with a Catalan 
women, I
often see that the effects of the 1936 to 1939 civil war still are
lingering. I heard about it before, but did not think that it would
be so real for so many, who's parents were not even born at 
that time.

To belive that US will get out of Iraq, without being deeply hated
the next 50-100 years, is not only ignorant, but also utterly 
stupid.
After all they have personally killed around 300,000 Iraqis and 
was
behind the Iraq - Iran war, with around an other million dead.
History will not be kind to US, the Americans and President 
Bush.
Where do the Americans get those unreal and sick leaders 
from,
including guys like Rumsfelt? It is amazing!!

Hakan

At 03:27 16/08/2005, you wrote:
 Hakan,
 Well said, and most appropriate. But may I respectfully note 
that
 like all generalizations, there are many exceptions to the 
general
 rule (that lack of international experience leads to a closed 
mind).
 Example: Although I, along with many of my friends, have zero
 international living experience (except through reading and 
the
 media), and although we do enjoy living in the US with all its
 faults (of which we are painfully aware), there are many other
 countries I think we would enjoy living in - Sweden might be 
such
 an enjoyable place, for instance. Far from finding Sweden's
 socialist form of government abhorrent, there are many of us 
who
 would like to see more of it in the US. There's a world of
 difference between chauvinism and patriotism
 
 I do read and enjoy your perceptive and sensitive writings, 
and I do
 want to tell you how sorry I was to learn

RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Tim Schlueter
Hakan,

What prevents the US from delivering foreign aid in a manner similar to the 
ways of your below listed Countries?

Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 11:04 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Tim,

At 00:02 16/08/2005, you wrote:
Hakan,

What would you consider to be one example of a 
successful country that delivers foreign aid from which the US could learn?

All the Scandinavian countries, UK, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland etc.


I would not expect a country to obey our laws in 
their own country.  That is not what I meant.  I 
apologize for that.  I'm referring to legal 
activities/products a country exports to 
somewhere it is not legal.  I'm thinking along 
the lines of pharmaceuticals or pesticides.  Are 
you aware of any countries that export to US 
what is illegal for them to produce/consume but is OK in the US?

It is customary for US Corporations to take 
advantage and pressure developing countries to 
accept security measures, environmental and labor 
laws, far lesser than the US ones. The most 
famous one is the production in Bophal, India and 
the 15,000++ dead and numerous follow on effects 
and victims. The Corporation even broke the more 
laxed rules in India and US refused to extradite 
the responsible CEO to stand trial.


I understand you to say it is customary in the 
US to take advantage of foreign technical 
solutions as long as they are not registered in the US?

If it has not dramatically changed the last 15 
years, yes. Until then, I was active and worked 
with US companies. I have not heard that US 
started to recognize other countries patent 
registrations and US corporations have played 
quite a few dirty tricks that I now about. Taking 
advantage of foreign research and even 
deliberately bypassing and developing around foreign patents.

US might complain about China, but Europe did in 
the past complain about US and/or Japan. This is 
of course not that newsworthy in US, as their 
complaints about China who is on a path that recognized both in US and Japan.

Hakan


Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 4:28 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Tim,

I will clarify and repeat.

At 15:57 15/08/2005, you wrote:
 Hakan,
 
 What you are saying then is foreign aid does
 not necessarily fit the definition of foreign
 entanglement?  Further, even if it did, that type of entanglement is OK?

Complicated matter for US, but there are more
successful countries, look at them.


 You are right about the demand side of illicit
 drugs.  I was referring to the supply
 side.  Another Country just simply cannot supply
 drugs regardless of demand or legalities.  That spells trouble.

No country supply the drugs, there are criminals
in the countries that do it. US have a high
degree of cooperation on those issues, on matters
that are illegal both in US and the other country.


 Are you saying that if a foreign country doesn't
 agree with our laws, they are not obligated to
 cooperate with us, unless there is something in it for them?

Exactly, US cannot expect that an other country
should police unique US laws on their soil. This
is so basic that it should be easy to understand.
That is why I took the legal age for sex as
example. Sweden who has an age limit of 15 years
for agreed sex, cannot be expected to police the
21 year limit in US. That means that they cannot
arrest and extradite someone who had sex with a
17 year in US, since it is not recognized as a crime in Sweden.

Many countries who do not have death penalty,
cannot extradite a killer to US, if US does not
guarantee that the death penalty will not be applied.


 I was referring to a broader definition of
 counterfeiting than just currency such as that
 pertaining to intellectual property.  For
 instance, I read and hear much about Chinese
 illegal copying of software, music, movies, clothing, etc.

Intellectual properties are complicated and even
the Chinese will take action for things, within
their laws. They do pursue software coping for
export and maybe you will not agree, but they can
even apply death penalty for cases that they
unravel. Many brand products are manufactured in
China and it is in many cases stolen legal production that are sold in China.

US demands are in many cases more of a wish that
the world should respect their registers for
patent, brand names, logos, designs etc., but I
have not yet seen that they offer a similar hard
recognition for other countries registers.

It becomes even more complicated when you look at
paten protection, that are shorter in US than
many other countries. In this cases you will see
patents used in US, even if they are valid in
other countries. US have for many years

RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Tim Schlueter
Kim,

No question about the lying taking place in corporations.  However, a
person tends to take that statement as though it only takes place at the
employer level.  Employees lie to the same degree.  How many people do
we all know who milk worker comp claims?  Or take jobs that pay under
the table so as to protect their unemployment benefits?  What about
stealing company property either in material or unproductive time?  Then
you have people who complain about unsafe working conditions only to hop
on a crotch rocket, drink and drive, smoke, load their kids in the bed
of their pickup, etc.  I'm not protecting the corporation at all.  At
the same time, if more people had the constitution take that job and
shove it and self-employ, the corporation would have to sit up and
listen.  The problem is the pay and benefits are too good.

Tim Schlueter(20 year accountant for the corporation)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garth  Kim
Travis
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:10 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Greetings Hakan,

Lying in corporations is standard practice in North America.  The normal

lie that is real common is: 'Anyone can shut down a job for safety 
reasons.'  I have heard this in many corporations in Canada and the US,
but 
I have also seen what happens when someone tries to shut down a job for 
safety reasons.  Either they are ignored and the job continues in an
unsafe 
manor or the person very quickly finds themselves in the unemployment
line.

Corporate image and the image of being a good corporate citizen is what
the 
companies care about, the reality does not have to live up to it, if
they 
have spent enough money publicizing their corporate image.

Start work at 16 and by the time you are 20, you have this figured 
out.  The challenge is to figure out which part of the companies spin,
they 
actually care about.  Then you know which sacred cow not to damage.  Me,
I 
couldn't stand it, so I have been self employed most of my life.

Not all corporations are like this, and the smaller the company, the
less 
likely this is.  But one does not go into politics as a rule from small 
business.

The oil industry is especially ripe with type of behavior.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 07:36 AM 8/16/2005, you wrote:
If they come from Corporations, hmmm, I do not like to be sued for
telling 
my honest opinion or my experiences from US corporate leaders. It does 
however explain the deep rooted habit of lying to the people. Wonder
from 
which industries they are coming?

Hakan



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
g

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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Tim Schlueter
Why are these cards banned on Ebay?  Perhaps it has to do with this statement 
from Ebay:

Only copyright owners are permitted to sell items or products which are 
intended to be delivered to the buyer by electronic download through the 
Internet. Sellers who own the copyrights to this downloadable media being sold 
must state this fact in their listings and must be able to prove this ownership 
to eBay.

In other words, the reason for the ban may have to do with copyright legalities 
as opposed to some sort of governmentally imposed restriction, which the 
statement below leads one to believe.

Tim


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:08 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Hakan wrote:
Wonder from which industries they are coming?

Hakan, at the following website you can see their backgrounds 
by looking at each card in a card game that shows backgrounds 
of people working with the administration:

http://www.ruckus.org/warprofiteers/

Each suit in the deck represents a category: 
Oil, gas, and energy companies
US government officials
Military and defense contractors
Heads of industry, finance, media, policy, and hype

Go here to select each category to find information on each 
person
http://www.ruckus.org/warprofiteers/cards/index.html

The sale of the card game has been banned on ebay

To see a little about Cheney's background with Halliburton see
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/printabl
e595214.shtml
Doing Business With The Enemy   Jan. 25, 2004

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives were 
part of the Project for the New American Century plan to invade 
Iraq in 1997. They tried to get Clinton interested, but failed. They 
didn't fail with Bush. See their names on the statement of 
principles at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm




Biofuel@sustainablelists.org wrote:

Tom,

I had no idea that Bush jr had been shot at and 
seen friends die for America. Nobody told me that 
Rumsfelt had an extinguish military career, but 
it is possible. Powell, that I like a lot, I know 
was a military, but it looked like he had trouble 
with his colleagues, maybe he is the one who 
provided for the shooting at Bush? This girl who 
got Powell's job, looks like a military, but I 
thought that she was a university professor. You 
have to excuse us foreigners who know so little about US 
leaders.

Then the view about fuel economy is 
understandable, anything with little less mpg 
than a Hummer, must be a wonder of efficiency. 
Anything with better insulation than a tent, must 
look as the technology that would save us from 
Global Warming. Considering the living 
conditioning in military tents, must also make it 
difficult to belive in the concept of Global Warming.

If they come from Corporations, hmmm, I do not 
like to be sued for telling my honest opinion or 
my experiences from US corporate leaders. It does 
however explain the deep rooted habit of lying to 
the people. Wonder from which industries they are coming?

Hakan

At 11:20 16/08/2005, you wrote:
Hi Hakan,

We get those wonderful leaders from corporations 
and the military. The ones in the military are 
actually the pacifists since they´re actually 
been shot at and seen friends die for America Inc.

Tom


--
From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 06:04:07 -0300
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Bob,

Thanks for your concerns about me.

Yes you are right, there are many who has the capacity to 
compensate
lack of direct experience, with education and enough 
imagination.
There are many good places in the world, as I said, and we 
only
have to work hard on making more of them. To belive that this 
in any
way can be done with the help of weapons, is utterly stupid. It is
nothing that will be more destructive and more hated, than
liberators that has killed members of your family and/or your
friends. As I now live in Spain and married with a Catalan 
women, I
often see that the effects of the 1936 to 1939 civil war still are
lingering. I heard about it before, but did not think that it would
be so real for so many, who's parents were not even born at 
that time.

To belive that US will get out of Iraq, without being deeply hated
the next 50-100 years, is not only ignorant, but also utterly 
stupid.
After all they have personally killed around 300,000 Iraqis and 
was
behind the Iraq - Iran war, with around an other million dead.
History will not be kind to US, the Americans and President 
Bush.
Where do the Americans get those unreal and sick leaders 
from,
including guys like Rumsfelt? It is amazing!!

Hakan

At 03:27 16/08/2005, you wrote:
 Hakan,
 Well said, and most appropriate. But may I

RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Garth Kim Travis

Greetings Tim,

You are more than correct about many things.  Few and far between are the 
honest humans, but there are a few.  Fortunately for me, you can't pay me 
enough for me to work at anything that I can't be proud of.  I have never 
been that fond of money.


I like my benefits better than any a corporation could give me.  Plenty of 
fresh air, sunshine, super healthy food, loving animals, no chemicals in my 
environment.  No smokers and I work at my own rate and time.


Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 09:28 AM 8/16/2005, you wrote:

Kim,

No question about the lying taking place in corporations.  However, a
person tends to take that statement as though it only takes place at the
employer level.  Employees lie to the same degree.  How many people do
we all know who milk worker comp claims?  Or take jobs that pay under
the table so as to protect their unemployment benefits?  What about
stealing company property either in material or unproductive time?  Then
you have people who complain about unsafe working conditions only to hop
on a crotch rocket, drink and drive, smoke, load their kids in the bed
of their pickup, etc.  I'm not protecting the corporation at all.  At
the same time, if more people had the constitution take that job and
shove it and self-employ, the corporation would have to sit up and
listen.  The problem is the pay and benefits are too good.

Tim Schlueter(20 year accountant for the corporation)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garth  Kim
Travis
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:10 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Greetings Hakan,

Lying in corporations is standard practice in North America.  The normal

lie that is real common is: 'Anyone can shut down a job for safety
reasons.'  I have heard this in many corporations in Canada and the US,
but
I have also seen what happens when someone tries to shut down a job for
safety reasons.  Either they are ignored and the job continues in an
unsafe
manor or the person very quickly finds themselves in the unemployment
line.

Corporate image and the image of being a good corporate citizen is what
the
companies care about, the reality does not have to live up to it, if
they
have spent enough money publicizing their corporate image.

Start work at 16 and by the time you are 20, you have this figured
out.  The challenge is to figure out which part of the companies spin,
they
actually care about.  Then you know which sacred cow not to damage.  Me,
I
couldn't stand it, so I have been self employed most of my life.

Not all corporations are like this, and the smaller the company, the
less
likely this is.  But one does not go into politics as a rule from small
business.

The oil industry is especially ripe with type of behavior.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 07:36 AM 8/16/2005, you wrote:
If they come from Corporations, hmmm, I do not like to be sued for
telling
my honest opinion or my experiences from US corporate leaders. It does
however explain the deep rooted habit of lying to the people. Wonder
from
which industries they are coming?

Hakan



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
g

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/




___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Keith Addison
Why are these cards banned on Ebay?  Perhaps it has to do with this 
statement from Ebay:


Only copyright owners are permitted to sell items or products which 
are intended to be delivered to the buyer by electronic download 
through the Internet. Sellers who own the copyrights to this 
downloadable media being sold must state this fact in their listings 
and must be able to prove this ownership to eBay.


In other words, the reason for the ban may have to do with copyright 
legalities as opposed to some sort of governmentally imposed 
restriction, which the statement below leads one to believe.


Tim


:-) Believe the small print if you like.

Quite a regular item offered on eBay is this:

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/z/woh1.jpg

Taken directly from our site, the description also taken directly 
from our site, and offered as original plans for sale at $20 or 
something similar. It was JtF who resurrected these plans, but, as 
acknowledged, the copyright belongs to Mother Earth News, but there's 
zero acknowledgement of either JtF or MEN. Try telling eBay about it 
- I got exactly nowhere, and neither did several other people.


Please trim irrelevant previous material from your posts Tim, you're 
wasting tons of bandwidth. Thankyou.


Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
KYOTO Pref., Japan
http://journeytoforever.org/
Biofuel list owner





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:08 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Hakan wrote:
Wonder from which industries they are coming?

Hakan, at the following website you can see their backgrounds
by looking at each card in a card game that shows backgrounds
of people working with the administration:

http://www.ruckus.org/warprofiteers/

Each suit in the deck represents a category:
Oil, gas, and energy companies
US government officials
Military and defense contractors
Heads of industry, finance, media, policy, and hype

Go here to select each category to find information on each
person
http://www.ruckus.org/warprofiteers/cards/index.html

The sale of the card game has been banned on ebay

To see a little about Cheney's background with Halliburton see
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/printabl
e595214.shtml
Doing Business With The Enemy   Jan. 25, 2004

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives were
part of the Project for the New American Century plan to invade
Iraq in 1997. They tried to get Clinton interested, but failed. They
didn't fail with Bush. See their names on the statement of
principles at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm



snip


___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Hakan Falk


Tim,

Nothing really, neither size or methods, but it 
is a matter of using foreign aid as a part of 
foreign policies and control. US is mixing their 
foreign policy goals and corporate profits, with 
the way to distribute foreign aid.


1. US is selective and set the rules for their 
foreign aid, as an instrument to enhance their 
foreign policy goals. The countries I mentioned 
refrain from mixing foreign policy goals and only look at the needs.


2. US is demanding that the money is spent with 
US companies and it is only if there are no US 
suppliers available, that the money can be spent 
somewhere else. This means that they short 
circuit any true bidding process, with lowest 
price and suitability as parameters. The 
countries that I mentioned, allow for an 
efficient purchasing process, with 
price/performance as the only measurement. This 
often means more for the money.


Sometimes and for unique needs, all the countries 
will directly deliver produce as aid. The over 
riding factor should always be what is best for 
the recipient and not the convenience of the 
donor or donor related corporations.


These are also the reasons why the Iraqi oil for 
food scandal could develop. This is typical 
example on how an US led initiative often is 
corrupted and how US deserves their reputation . 
The elements are very recognizable. First the 
motive, which were more designed to satisfy the 
US/world need for oil deliveries than feeding the 
Iraqi people. If Iraq would not have been allowed 
to export oil, the rising prices that we see 
today would have come earlier. It was just not 
possible to redraw the Iraqi oil export from the 
market place and we can see the consequences of 
doing that today. US had to look for a way to 
force Iraq to deliver their production to them in 
a controlled manner. Who were the players?


1. The Iraqi oil ministry and government.
2. US officials.
3. UN officials
4. US oil companies
5. Mostly US suppliers of food and essentials, 
very little from other countries


It was a seemingly genius plan to make an 
absolute necessity, the oil deliveries, to a 
virtue. To be able to get it through, the 
Americans needed support from other countries and 
to some measures the Iraqi oil ministry. This was 
achieved by letting the oil companies from UK, 
France, Germany and Spain in to a part of the 
spoils. UN, Saddam and the Iraqi oil ministry was 
dealt with by kick backs. The whole food for 
oil program was a master piece of a corruption scheme designed and led by US.


Hakan

At 16:02 16/08/2005, you wrote:

Hakan,

What prevents the US from delivering foreign aid 
in a manner similar to the ways of your below listed Countries?


Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk

Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 11:04 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Tim,

At 00:02 16/08/2005, you wrote:
Hakan,

What would you consider to be one example of a
successful country that delivers foreign aid from which the US could learn?

All the Scandinavian countries, UK, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland etc.


I would not expect a country to obey our laws in
their own country.  That is not what I meant.  I
apologize for that.  I'm referring to legal
activities/products a country exports to
somewhere it is not legal.  I'm thinking along
the lines of pharmaceuticals or pesticides.  Are
you aware of any countries that export to US
what is illegal for them to produce/consume but is OK in the US?

It is customary for US Corporations to take
advantage and pressure developing countries to
accept security measures, environmental and labor
laws, far lesser than the US ones. The most
famous one is the production in Bophal, India and
the 15,000++ dead and numerous follow on effects
and victims. The Corporation even broke the more
laxed rules in India and US refused to extradite
the responsible CEO to stand trial.


I understand you to say it is customary in the
US to take advantage of foreign technical
solutions as long as they are not registered in the US?

If it has not dramatically changed the last 15
years, yes. Until then, I was active and worked
with US companies. I have not heard that US
started to recognize other countries patent
registrations and US corporations have played
quite a few dirty tricks that I now about. Taking
advantage of foreign research and even
deliberately bypassing and developing around foreign patents.

US might complain about China, but Europe did in
the past complain about US and/or Japan. This is
of course not that newsworthy in US, as their
complaints about China who is on a path that recognized both in US and Japan.

Hakan


Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 4:28 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Tim,

I

RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Tim Schlueter
Hakan,

It really amounts to aid with no strings attached.  But even then there
must be measures put in place to ensure accountability such as progress
reports, inspections, etc.

In an indirect way, when the US imports goods and services that
translates into foreign aid.  The US has a huge trade imbalance.  The US
also has considerable foreign direct investment in PPE that has got to
help the local economy.  This may sound snippy but I suppose much of
this activity can be interpreted as exploitation.

Tim Schlueter

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:40 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Tim,

Nothing really, neither size or methods, but it 
is a matter of using foreign aid as a part of 
foreign policies and control. US is mixing their 
foreign policy goals and corporate profits, with 
the way to distribute foreign aid.

1. US is selective and set the rules for their 
foreign aid, as an instrument to enhance their 
foreign policy goals. The countries I mentioned 
refrain from mixing foreign policy goals and only look at the needs.

2. US is demanding that the money is spent with 
US companies and it is only if there are no US 
suppliers available, that the money can be spent 
somewhere else. This means that they short 
circuit any true bidding process, with lowest 
price and suitability as parameters. The 
countries that I mentioned, allow for an 
efficient purchasing process, with 
price/performance as the only measurement. This 
often means more for the money.

Sometimes and for unique needs, all the countries 
will directly deliver produce as aid. The over 
riding factor should always be what is best for 
the recipient and not the convenience of the 
donor or donor related corporations.

___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Michael Redler








"I was never told that it was un-Canadian to do for myself or to make things at home. I am criticized in this manner about once a week, here in Texas."

OK you have my attention.

ANY American who tells you that making something at home is un-American hasn't the foggiest notion ofthis country's history and culture.Ingenuity and individuality have contributed greatly to the American way of life, for better or worse.

If anyone you know has any doubt about this, tell them to do theiryour own research and find out how many people in this country are amateur inventors and basement tinkerers. This didn't just start yesterday. As a new Englander, I admired so called "Yankee Ingenuity" and the folklorish status that it developed throughout the post industrial revolution. Some can argue that this kind of activity goesfarther back than that -applying extraordinary ingenuity during the revolutionary war with the development and manufacturing processes used to produce the Kentucky long rifle and other technologies of it's day. Many of the framers of the constitution were tinkerers in their own right. Ask him/her if BENJAMIN FRANKLIN sounds like a familiar name.

MikeGarth  Kim Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings,I moved to the US in my midthirties, so I did not grow up with American attitudes. While Canadians do share many things with the US, we did not share all of them. I was never told that it was un-Canadian to do for myself or to make things at home. I am criticized in this manner about once a week, here in Texas.Once upon a time, I thought I knew what was right in politics. Now the only thing I do know, is that if you want to have an opinion, you had better do some serious homework. Even then, somewhere down the road, something that was done by the leadership in the shadows will come to light and make you wish you had never supported them.I have no answers to such questions. I do try to live lightly on Mother Earth, to be accepting of others as long as they cause no harm to me and mine, and to try to make the
 world a better place for all of us. This is enough of a challenge, for me.Bright Blessings,KimAt 01:01 PM 8/16/2005, you wrote:Kim,Bless you! So many people are proud of their money regardless of howthey earned it. However, would there be any validity to the statementthat your lifestyle would not be possible if not for the capitalistic,corporate driven, free society in which we live? If so, that would be ahorrible piece of irony. I'm not being antagonistic. I guess I'm just"lost in America" with a couple hundred million others.Tim-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garth  KimTravisSent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:39 AMTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue
 States/CountryGreetings Tim,You are more than correct about many things. Few and far between arethehonest humans, but there are a few. Fortunately for me, you can't paymeenough for me to work at anything that I can't be proud of. I haveneverbeen that fond of money.I like my benefits better than any a corporation could give me. Plentyoffresh air, sunshine, super healthy food, loving animals, no chemicals inmyenvironment. No smokers and I work at my own rate and time.Bright Blessings,Kim___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel
 and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch 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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Hakan Falk


Tim,

Please try to research the subject a bit more and you will find
that apart of being quite unwilling to give foreign aid at others
level, it is used for political ends and corporate profits.

Regarding US financial situation, Clinton actually did a great
job to create a fiscally sound foundation, to deal with the US
deficits. That work is gone now and US has never been in a
worse situation. If it were any other country in the world, it
would be declared in bankruptcy and it is only able to continue,
because the disastrous world wide implications of such a move.

Since Bush is not doing anything about it and his best advisers
left him due to the inaction, nobody knows where it will end. The
heavy slide of the dollar is a result of inaction, not a thoughtful
financial policy. It is actually so bad that responsible American
economists do not want to debate, afraid of trigger a run on the
US economy. They do not see that it already begun, with major
countries unloading their dollars.

Anyway, this is not fun to talk about and pointless, since nobody
is going to do something about it yet.

Hakan


At 21:00 16/08/2005, you wrote:

Hakan,

It really amounts to aid with no strings attached.  But even then there
must be measures put in place to ensure accountability such as progress
reports, inspections, etc.

In an indirect way, when the US imports goods and services that
translates into foreign aid.  The US has a huge trade imbalance.  The US
also has considerable foreign direct investment in PPE that has got to
help the local economy.  This may sound snippy but I suppose much of
this activity can be interpreted as exploitation.

Tim Schlueter

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:40 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Tim,

Nothing really, neither size or methods, but it
is a matter of using foreign aid as a part of
foreign policies and control. US is mixing their
foreign policy goals and corporate profits, with
the way to distribute foreign aid.

1. US is selective and set the rules for their
foreign aid, as an instrument to enhance their
foreign policy goals. The countries I mentioned
refrain from mixing foreign policy goals and only look at the needs.

2. US is demanding that the money is spent with
US companies and it is only if there are no US
suppliers available, that the money can be spent
somewhere else. This means that they short
circuit any true bidding process, with lowest
price and suitability as parameters. The
countries that I mentioned, allow for an
efficient purchasing process, with
price/performance as the only measurement. This
often means more for the money.

Sometimes and for unique needs, all the countries
will directly deliver produce as aid. The over
riding factor should always be what is best for
the recipient and not the convenience of the
donor or donor related corporations.




___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Tim Schlueter
Keith,

You're saying Ebay picks and chooses which of its own rules to follow
and when?  Perhaps so but if that is the case, at least we know it is
Ebay doing the suppressing unless you think they are getting squeezed by
someone.

Thanks for the advice to delete irrelevant material.

Tim Schlueter

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:49 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Why are these cards banned on Ebay?  Perhaps it has to do with this 
statement from Ebay:

Only copyright owners are permitted to sell items or products which 
are intended to be delivered to the buyer by electronic download 
through the Internet. Sellers who own the copyrights to this 
downloadable media being sold must state this fact in their listings 
and must be able to prove this ownership to eBay.

In other words, the reason for the ban may have to do with copyright 
legalities as opposed to some sort of governmentally imposed 
restriction, which the statement below leads one to believe.

Tim

:-) Believe the small print if you like.

Quite a regular item offered on eBay is this:

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/z/woh1.j
pg

Taken directly from our site, the description also taken directly 
from our site, and offered as original plans for sale at $20 or 
something similar. It was JtF who resurrected these plans, but, as 
acknowledged, the copyright belongs to Mother Earth News, but there's 
zero acknowledgement of either JtF or MEN. Try telling eBay about it 
- I got exactly nowhere, and neither did several other people.

Please trim irrelevant previous material from your posts Tim, you're 
wasting tons of bandwidth. Thankyou.

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
KYOTO Pref., Japan
http://journeytoforever.org/
Biofuel list owner

 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:08 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Hakan wrote:
Wonder from which industries they are coming?

Hakan, at the following website you can see their backgrounds
by looking at each card in a card game that shows backgrounds
of people working with the administration:

http://www.ruckus.org/warprofiteers/

Each suit in the deck represents a category:
   Oil, gas, and energy companies
   US government officials
   Military and defense contractors
   Heads of industry, finance, media, policy, and hype

Go here to select each category to find information on each
person
http://www.ruckus.org/warprofiteers/cards/index.html

The sale of the card game has been banned on ebay

To see a little about Cheney's background with Halliburton see
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/printabl
e595214.shtml
Doing Business With The Enemy  Jan. 25, 2004

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives were
part of the Project for the New American Century plan to invade
Iraq in 1997. They tried to get Clinton interested, but failed. They
didn't fail with Bush. See their names on the statement of
principles at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm


snip


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
g

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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Tim Schlueter
Kim,

Bless you!  So many people are proud of their money regardless of how
they earned it.  However, would there be any validity to the statement
that your lifestyle would not be possible if not for the capitalistic,
corporate driven, free society in which we live?  If so, that would be a
horrible piece of irony.  I'm not being antagonistic.  I guess I'm just
lost in America with a couple hundred million others.

Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garth  Kim
Travis
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:39 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Greetings Tim,

You are more than correct about many things.  Few and far between are
the 
honest humans, but there are a few.  Fortunately for me, you can't pay
me 
enough for me to work at anything that I can't be proud of.  I have
never 
been that fond of money.

I like my benefits better than any a corporation could give me.  Plenty
of 
fresh air, sunshine, super healthy food, loving animals, no chemicals in
my 
environment.  No smokers and I work at my own rate and time.

Bright Blessings,
Kim


___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Mike Weaver

Oh, man!  I just wasted $20.00!!

Keith Addison wrote:

Why are these cards banned on Ebay?  Perhaps it has to do with this 
statement from Ebay:


Only copyright owners are permitted to sell items or products which 
are intended to be delivered to the buyer by electronic download 
through the Internet. Sellers who own the copyrights to this 
downloadable media being sold must state this fact in their listings 
and must be able to prove this ownership to eBay.


In other words, the reason for the ban may have to do with copyright 
legalities as opposed to some sort of governmentally imposed 
restriction, which the statement below leads one to believe.


Tim



:-) Believe the small print if you like.

Quite a regular item offered on eBay is this:

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/z/woh1.jpg 



Taken directly from our site, the description also taken directly from 
our site, and offered as original plans for sale at $20 or something 
similar. It was JtF who resurrected these plans, but, as acknowledged, 
the copyright belongs to Mother Earth News, but there's zero 
acknowledgement of either JtF or MEN. Try telling eBay about it - I 
got exactly nowhere, and neither did several other people.


Please trim irrelevant previous material from your posts Tim, you're 
wasting tons of bandwidth. Thankyou.


Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
KYOTO Pref., Japan
http://journeytoforever.org/
Biofuel list owner





___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-16 Thread Tim Schlueter
Kim,

Gracious me!  As they say the meek shall inherit the earth!  I believe
that you fit that bill.  How soothing and reflective are your words.
You must yearn for Canada.  I am curious as to what you are referring to
wrt American attitudes?  It doesn't sound very complimentary.  Not
that I'm offended though I am interested in your perspective.

Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garth  Kim
Travis
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 3:01 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Greetings,

I moved to the US in my midthirties, so I did not grow up with American 
attitudes.  While Canadians do share many things with the US, we did not

share all of them.  I was never told that it was un-Canadian to do for 
myself or to make things at home.  I am criticized in this manner about 
once a week, here in Texas.

Once upon a time, I thought I knew what was right in politics.  Now the 
only thing I do know, is that if you want to have an opinion, you had 
better do some serious homework.  Even then, somewhere down the road, 
something that was done by the leadership in the shadows will come to
light 
and make you wish you had never supported them.

I have no answers to such questions.  I do try to live lightly on Mother

Earth, to be accepting of others as long as they cause no harm to me and

mine, and to try to make the world a better place for all of us.  This
is 
enough of a challenge, for me.

Bright Blessings,
Kim


**
This electronic mail transmission contains confidential and/or privileged
information intended only for the person(s) named.  Any use, distribution,
copying or disclosure by another person is strictly prohibited.

**



___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-15 Thread Tim Schlueter
Hakan,
 
Yes, that is quite immoral to export our dirty work much less support oppresive 
regimes for any reason.  My question is how can we avoid foreign entanglements, 
regardless of methods, without being completely discompassionate?  At the same 
time if we refrain from taking advantage of foreign sub-standards and lenient 
laws, they should help us enforce our laws such as immigration, drug-trafficing 
and counterfeiting.
 
Tim



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Hakan Falk
Sent: Sun 8/14/2005 5:13 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country




Tim,

This is not really the question form and maybe many others. It is not
the question of that US is engaged, it is the way US does it and
traditionally did it. It is immoral to support activities by their
corporations, that are not up to their standards and laws for US at
home. It is not morally justifiable to support oppressive regimes, in
order to support US financial interests. We can only mention The Shah
of Iran, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, etc. as a few of a long list that
were helped to power and then maintained by US.

Iraq is the result of a misunderstanding, Saddam Hussein asked for
the US permission to invade Kuweit and thought that he got it.



Hakan

At 02:45 14/08/2005, you wrote:
There seems to be general agreement on this list that the U.S.
should avoid foreign entanglements, at least when it comes to some
of the uglier tenets of foreign policy.  Shouldn't we be just as
concerned about so called benevolent tenets as well?  Even feeding
and clothing the oppressed will upset the oppressors.  Perhaps what
a foreign entanglement refers to is a personal decision driven by
that person's views toward any one particular governmental involvement?

Tim Schlueter
St. Louis



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 8/12/2005 11:45 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Mike,

Where do I start?

First, I have a real problem with any government (U.S., state,
local) taking my hard earned money (in the form of taxes) and
redistributing it to others.  Now, there are legitimate things that
each of these levels of government can spend taxpayer dollars on,
namely, those outlined in their constitution or charter.  In the
case of the U.S. Government, these include national defense (not
necessarily offense, though), minting currency, postal services,
etc.  When the U.S. Government (or perhaps the state governments)
start spending my money outside the bounds of the Constitution, it
is no longer legit.  I would like to see Congress try and pass an
Amendment to allow giving loans to foreign nations and never
expecting repayment of those loans.  How much support do you think
they would get from the populace?

Second, some people may consider giving funds or supplies to help
poorer nations or refugee groups as charity, which it is.  But
charity is you or I freely donating my money to others for the
purpose of helping those in need.  I have given money to help
victims of 9-11, I have helped feed the homeless in soup kitchens, I
have given my old clothing and furniture to Goodwill, Salvation
Army, etc.  Governments, such as our federal government, do not own
the money they give to others - the money belongs to the taxpayers
(and bond holders) who provide the money.  How can the U.S.
Government consider giving money to poor African countries as
charity, when it isn't their money to give?  As I mentioned
previously, if the U.S. Government would stop taking my hard earned
money and donating away, perhaps I would have more money that I
could freely give to organizations like the Red Cross (this is only
one example, there are others) as charity.

Third, the idea of giving for the sake of giving is lost on most
politicians.  Inside the Beltway, a politician's power is measured
by his or her ability to fundraise - accepting money from some
generous sole to support some Cause of the day.  Have you ever
met a political donor that didn't expect something in return?  The
President and Congress are just as guilty of wanting something in
return for helping other nations.  How much money have they pumped
into the poorer nations of the Iraq War Coalition?

Socialism and true communism may have its value to some and will
thrive in some places of the world, but I prefer not to live under
it.  Or at least, if I have to, please call it as such - The
Socialist Unoin of America.

The same goes for the United Nations.

Thanks for the opportunity to explain myself.

Earl.

- Original Message -

 From: Michael Redler mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:35 PM
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


 Earl,

 Earl wrote: It seems to me that be requiring wealthy
 nations to donate any

RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-15 Thread Hakan Falk


Tim,

There are many of the top 20 industrialized who, 
per capita, give more foreign aid than US. The 
fact is that the most of them do. This both in 
percentage of  GDP and in absolute numbers. Most 
of them have a behavior of quite high standard 
and without corruptive and reciprocal rules. They 
are not avoiding foreign entanglement, on the 
contrary. I suggest that US look closer to those and learn.


Drug-trafficking is a problem that starts with 
the demand and the definitions. The demand is a 
social problem, not a criminal. With a targeted 
and reality based legislation, a lot will 
disappear. I must be something very wrong, with a 
country that have 21 years as legal sexual age, 
which make most Americans criminals already when 
they start their adult life. Laws should be 
reasonable, adopted to realities and regarded as 
fair by the majority, then it will be anchored 
and followed by most of the population.


The laws of any country are the concerns of that 
country and is only when laws are matching 
between countries, that cooperation can be 
established. To help with an other country's 
immigration, laws about leaving a country must be 
established and emigration can be controlled. Any 
country who establish laws about the rights to 
leave the country, will be branded as suppressive 
by US and might be invaded by US (subject to sufficient oil reserves). LOL


Counterfeiting is an area with intensive 
international cooperation and your complain is 
baseless. It does not matter where he $´s are 
produced, it is criminal. US $ and Euro are 
attractive money, but US currency is far easier to counterfeit.


Hakan



At 05:34 15/08/2005, you wrote:

Hakan,

Yes, that is quite immoral to export our dirty 
work much less support oppresive regimes for any 
reason.  My question is how can we avoid foreign 
entanglements, regardless of methods, without 
being completely discompassionate?  At the same 
time if we refrain from taking advantage of 
foreign sub-standards and lenient laws, they 
should help us enforce our laws such as 
immigration, drug-trafficing and counterfeiting.


Tim



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Hakan Falk
Sent: Sun 8/14/2005 5:13 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country




Tim,

This is not really the question form and maybe many others. It is not
the question of that US is engaged, it is the way US does it and
traditionally did it. It is immoral to support activities by their
corporations, that are not up to their standards and laws for US at
home. It is not morally justifiable to support oppressive regimes, in
order to support US financial interests. We can only mention The Shah
of Iran, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, etc. as a few of a long list that
were helped to power and then maintained by US.

Iraq is the result of a misunderstanding, Saddam Hussein asked for
the US permission to invade Kuweit and thought that he got it.



Hakan

At 02:45 14/08/2005, you wrote:
There seems to be general agreement on this list that the U.S.
should avoid foreign entanglements, at least when it comes to some
of the uglier tenets of foreign policy.  Shouldn't we be just as
concerned about so called benevolent tenets as well?  Even feeding
and clothing the oppressed will upset the oppressors.  Perhaps what
a foreign entanglement refers to is a personal decision driven by
that person's views toward any one particular governmental involvement?

Tim Schlueter
St. Louis



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 8/12/2005 11:45 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Mike,

Where do I start?

First, I have a real problem with any government (U.S., state,
local) taking my hard earned money (in the form of taxes) and
redistributing it to others.  Now, there are legitimate things that
each of these levels of government can spend taxpayer dollars on,
namely, those outlined in their constitution or charter.  In the
case of the U.S. Government, these include national defense (not
necessarily offense, though), minting currency, postal services,
etc.  When the U.S. Government (or perhaps the state governments)
start spending my money outside the bounds of the Constitution, it
is no longer legit.  I would like to see Congress try and pass an
Amendment to allow giving loans to foreign nations and never
expecting repayment of those loans.  How much support do you think
they would get from the populace?

Second, some people may consider giving funds or supplies to help
poorer nations or refugee groups as charity, which it is.  But
charity is you or I freely donating my money to others for the
purpose of helping those in need.  I have given money to help
victims of 9-11, I have helped feed the homeless in soup kitchens, I
have given my old clothing and furniture to Goodwill, Salvation
Army, etc.  Governments, such as our

RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-15 Thread Tim Schlueter
Hakan,

What you are saying then is foreign aid does not necessarily fit the 
definition of foreign entanglement?  Further, even if it did, that type of 
entanglement is OK?

You are right about the demand side of illicit drugs.  I was referring to the 
supply side.  Another Country just simply cannot supply drugs regardless of 
demand or legalities.  That spells trouble.

Are you saying that if a foreign country doesn't agree with our laws, they are 
not obligated to cooperate with us, unless there is something in it for them?

I was referring to a broader definition of counterfeiting than just currency 
such as that pertaining to intellectual property.  For instance, I read and 
hear much about Chinese illegal copying of software, music, movies, clothing, 
etc.

Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 4:27 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Tim,

There are many of the top 20 industrialized who, 
per capita, give more foreign aid than US. The 
fact is that the most of them do. This both in 
percentage of  GDP and in absolute numbers. Most 
of them have a behavior of quite high standard 
and without corruptive and reciprocal rules. They 
are not avoiding foreign entanglement, on the 
contrary. I suggest that US look closer to those and learn.

Drug-trafficking is a problem that starts with 
the demand and the definitions. The demand is a 
social problem, not a criminal. With a targeted 
and reality based legislation, a lot will 
disappear. I must be something very wrong, with a 
country that have 21 years as legal sexual age, 
which make most Americans criminals already when 
they start their adult life. Laws should be 
reasonable, adopted to realities and regarded as 
fair by the majority, then it will be anchored 
and followed by most of the population.

The laws of any country are the concerns of that 
country and is only when laws are matching 
between countries, that cooperation can be 
established. To help with an other country's 
immigration, laws about leaving a country must be 
established and emigration can be controlled. Any 
country who establish laws about the rights to 
leave the country, will be branded as suppressive 
by US and might be invaded by US (subject to sufficient oil reserves). LOL

Counterfeiting is an area with intensive 
international cooperation and your complain is 
baseless. It does not matter where he $´s are 
produced, it is criminal. US $ and Euro are 
attractive money, but US currency is far easier to counterfeit.

Hakan



At 05:34 15/08/2005, you wrote:
Hakan,

Yes, that is quite immoral to export our dirty 
work much less support oppresive regimes for any 
reason.  My question is how can we avoid foreign 
entanglements, regardless of methods, without 
being completely discompassionate?  At the same 
time if we refrain from taking advantage of 
foreign sub-standards and lenient laws, they 
should help us enforce our laws such as 
immigration, drug-trafficing and counterfeiting.

Tim



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Hakan Falk
Sent: Sun 8/14/2005 5:13 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country




Tim,

This is not really the question form and maybe many others. It is not
the question of that US is engaged, it is the way US does it and
traditionally did it. It is immoral to support activities by their
corporations, that are not up to their standards and laws for US at
home. It is not morally justifiable to support oppressive regimes, in
order to support US financial interests. We can only mention The Shah
of Iran, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, etc. as a few of a long list that
were helped to power and then maintained by US.

Iraq is the result of a misunderstanding, Saddam Hussein asked for
the US permission to invade Kuweit and thought that he got it.



Hakan

At 02:45 14/08/2005, you wrote:
 There seems to be general agreement on this list that the U.S.
 should avoid foreign entanglements, at least when it comes to some
 of the uglier tenets of foreign policy.  Shouldn't we be just as
 concerned about so called benevolent tenets as well?  Even feeding
 and clothing the oppressed will upset the oppressors.  Perhaps what
 a foreign entanglement refers to is a personal decision driven by
 that person's views toward any one particular governmental involvement?
 
 Tim Schlueter
 St. Louis
 
 
 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Fri 8/12/2005 11:45 PM
 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
 
 
 Mike,
 
 Where do I start?
 
 First, I have a real problem with any government (U.S., state,
 local) taking my hard earned money (in the form of taxes) and
 redistributing it to others.  Now, there are legitimate things that
 each of these levels

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-15 Thread capt3d
mike,

in spite of common folklore, anarchism does not mean every man for himself.   
sometimes referred to as 'libertarian' socialsim (as opposed to 
'authoritarian' models such as communism), the basic tenet is the abolition of 
the 
detached, alienated authority of government and its dehumanizing instrument of 
social 
control, bureaucracy.  they would be replaced with local self-rule by worker's 
cooperatives.

anarchism was a very important current in the early days of the labor 
movement (including in the united states) as well as the international 
socialist 
movement.  significantly, the international worker's holiday, mayday, honors 
the 
anniversary of the police-instigated unrest at a largely anarchist labor 
gathering in chicago's haymarket square.

best,

-chris b.

In a message dated 8/15/05 12:13:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 That's easy enough to believe (unless you're an anarchist). 

___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-15 Thread Hakan Falk


Tim,

I will clarify and repeat.

At 15:57 15/08/2005, you wrote:

Hakan,

What you are saying then is foreign aid does 
not necessarily fit the definition of foreign 
entanglement?  Further, even if it did, that type of entanglement is OK?


Complicated matter for US, but there are more 
successful countries, look at them.



You are right about the demand side of illicit 
drugs.  I was referring to the supply 
side.  Another Country just simply cannot supply 
drugs regardless of demand or legalities.  That spells trouble.


No country supply the drugs, there are criminals 
in the countries that do it. US have a high 
degree of cooperation on those issues, on matters 
that are illegal both in US and the other country.



Are you saying that if a foreign country doesn't 
agree with our laws, they are not obligated to 
cooperate with us, unless there is something in it for them?


Exactly, US cannot expect that an other country 
should police unique US laws on their soil. This 
is so basic that it should be easy to understand. 
That is why I took the legal age for sex as 
example. Sweden who has an age limit of 15 years 
for agreed sex, cannot be expected to police the 
21 year limit in US. That means that they cannot 
arrest and extradite someone who had sex with a 
17 year in US, since it is not recognized as a crime in Sweden.


Many countries who do not have death penalty, 
cannot extradite a killer to US, if US does not 
guarantee that the death penalty will not be applied.



I was referring to a broader definition of 
counterfeiting than just currency such as that 
pertaining to intellectual property.  For 
instance, I read and hear much about Chinese 
illegal copying of software, music, movies, clothing, etc.


Intellectual properties are complicated and even 
the Chinese will take action for things, within 
their laws. They do pursue software coping for 
export and maybe you will not agree, but they can 
even apply death penalty for cases that they 
unravel. Many brand products are manufactured in 
China and it is in many cases stolen legal production that are sold in China.


US demands are in many cases more of a wish that 
the world should respect their registers for 
patent, brand names, logos, designs etc., but I 
have not yet seen that they offer a similar hard 
recognition for other countries registers.


It becomes even more complicated when you look at 
paten protection, that are shorter in US than 
many other countries. In this cases you will see 
patents used in US, even if they are valid in 
other countries. US have for many years played a 
similar role as China in the field of patents. It 
never helped that the European countries 
complained, but now when US have a film and music 
industry to protect, the table is turned. What is 
the difference between a unique technical 
solution and a sequence of notes? If you have to 
register a patent in US, to protect a technical 
solution, similar registration should also be 
required for US intellectual properties in other 
countries. US get much more protection for their 
unregistered intellectual properties, that they 
give for the unregistered thought process for technical solutions.


It is very complicated and US is cherry picking 
on subjects that give them benefits and disregard what they want.


Hakan



Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk

Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 4:27 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Tim,

There are many of the top 20 industrialized who,
per capita, give more foreign aid than US. The
fact is that the most of them do. This both in
percentage of  GDP and in absolute numbers. Most
of them have a behavior of quite high standard
and without corruptive and reciprocal rules. They
are not avoiding foreign entanglement, on the
contrary. I suggest that US look closer to those and learn.

Drug-trafficking is a problem that starts with
the demand and the definitions. The demand is a
social problem, not a criminal. With a targeted
and reality based legislation, a lot will
disappear. I must be something very wrong, with a
country that have 21 years as legal sexual age,
which make most Americans criminals already when
they start their adult life. Laws should be
reasonable, adopted to realities and regarded as
fair by the majority, then it will be anchored
and followed by most of the population.

The laws of any country are the concerns of that
country and is only when laws are matching
between countries, that cooperation can be
established. To help with an other country's
immigration, laws about leaving a country must be
established and emigration can be controlled. Any
country who establish laws about the rights to
leave the country, will be branded as suppressive
by US and might be invaded by US (subject to sufficient oil reserves). LOL

Counterfeiting is an area with intensive
international

RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-15 Thread Tim Schlueter
Hakan,

What would you consider to be one example of a successful country that delivers 
foreign aid from which the US could learn?  

I would not expect a country to obey our laws in their own country.  That is 
not what I meant.  I apologize for that.  I'm referring to legal 
activities/products a country exports to somewhere it is not legal.  I'm 
thinking along the lines of pharmaceuticals or pesticides.  Are you aware of 
any countries that export to US what is illegal for them to produce/consume but 
is OK in the US?

I understand you to say it is customary in the US to take advantage of foreign 
technical solutions as long as they are not registered in the US?

Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 4:28 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Tim,

I will clarify and repeat.

At 15:57 15/08/2005, you wrote:
Hakan,

What you are saying then is foreign aid does 
not necessarily fit the definition of foreign 
entanglement?  Further, even if it did, that type of entanglement is OK?

Complicated matter for US, but there are more 
successful countries, look at them.


You are right about the demand side of illicit 
drugs.  I was referring to the supply 
side.  Another Country just simply cannot supply 
drugs regardless of demand or legalities.  That spells trouble.

No country supply the drugs, there are criminals 
in the countries that do it. US have a high 
degree of cooperation on those issues, on matters 
that are illegal both in US and the other country.


Are you saying that if a foreign country doesn't 
agree with our laws, they are not obligated to 
cooperate with us, unless there is something in it for them?

Exactly, US cannot expect that an other country 
should police unique US laws on their soil. This 
is so basic that it should be easy to understand. 
That is why I took the legal age for sex as 
example. Sweden who has an age limit of 15 years 
for agreed sex, cannot be expected to police the 
21 year limit in US. That means that they cannot 
arrest and extradite someone who had sex with a 
17 year in US, since it is not recognized as a crime in Sweden.

Many countries who do not have death penalty, 
cannot extradite a killer to US, if US does not 
guarantee that the death penalty will not be applied.


I was referring to a broader definition of 
counterfeiting than just currency such as that 
pertaining to intellectual property.  For 
instance, I read and hear much about Chinese 
illegal copying of software, music, movies, clothing, etc.

Intellectual properties are complicated and even 
the Chinese will take action for things, within 
their laws. They do pursue software coping for 
export and maybe you will not agree, but they can 
even apply death penalty for cases that they 
unravel. Many brand products are manufactured in 
China and it is in many cases stolen legal production that are sold in China.

US demands are in many cases more of a wish that 
the world should respect their registers for 
patent, brand names, logos, designs etc., but I 
have not yet seen that they offer a similar hard 
recognition for other countries registers.

It becomes even more complicated when you look at 
paten protection, that are shorter in US than 
many other countries. In this cases you will see 
patents used in US, even if they are valid in 
other countries. US have for many years played a 
similar role as China in the field of patents. It 
never helped that the European countries 
complained, but now when US have a film and music 
industry to protect, the table is turned. What is 
the difference between a unique technical 
solution and a sequence of notes? If you have to 
register a patent in US, to protect a technical 
solution, similar registration should also be 
required for US intellectual properties in other 
countries. US get much more protection for their 
unregistered intellectual properties, that they 
give for the unregistered thought process for technical solutions.

It is very complicated and US is cherry picking 
on subjects that give them benefits and disregard what they want.

Hakan


Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 4:27 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Tim,

There are many of the top 20 industrialized who,
per capita, give more foreign aid than US. The
fact is that the most of them do. This both in
percentage of  GDP and in absolute numbers. Most
of them have a behavior of quite high standard
and without corruptive and reciprocal rules. They
are not avoiding foreign entanglement, on the
contrary. I suggest that US look closer to those and learn.

Drug-trafficking is a problem that starts with
the demand and the definitions. The demand is a
social problem, not a criminal

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-15 Thread Michael Redler


The context in which it was written:
Doug wrote: "Impossible for the lone individual to protect their own basic rights."
My reply: "That's easy enough to believe (unless you're an anarchist)."Anarchism is a political view derived from the Greek áíáñ÷ßá ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is opposing to rulers. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist
I don't think I'm off base on this. My statement/opinion simply said that an anarchist would not think it's impossible "for the lone individual to protect their own basic rights."
If you thought that I was alluding to folklore, it was not meant that way. I think that an anarchist, in its most general meaning (above) could see this as quite possible. It's only an opinion.
As for the labor movement, I would argue that the beginning of the labor movement had more to do with admirers of Lenin and Trotsky rather than anarchists. Not only didDebs run for president as a socialist, his rise to popularity was (at least partly)due to his involvement in the Industrial Workers of the World. He was only one of many socialists who volunteered to help the struggle.
You said: "they would be replaced with local self-rule by worker's cooperatives."
I don't question your history Chris. However, I think "local self rule" quickly gave way to a consolidation of power and later collective bargaining. The workers cooperativesrelayed the sentiment of the workers to the larger bodiesand (IMO) lookedsimilar toa Soviet, Lenin and Trotsky's interpretation of "worker's cooperatives".
That's my understanding of the events. If it doesn't match the consensus reached by scholars of that period (which I am not), then I stand corrected. However, I need you to point me toward the references which will teach/convince me otherwise.Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

mike,in spite of common folklore, anarchism does not mean every man for himself. sometimes referred to as 'libertarian' socialsim (as opposed to 'authoritarian' models such as communism), the basic tenet is the abolition of the detached, alienated authority of government and its dehumanizing instrument of social control, bureaucracy. they would be replaced with local self-rule by worker's cooperatives.anarchism was a very important current in the early days of the labor movement (including in the united states) as well as the international socialist movement. significantly, the international worker's holiday, mayday, honors the anniversary of the police-instigated unrest at a largely anarchist labor gathering in chicago's haymarket square.best,-chris b.In a message dated 8/15/05 12:13:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 writes: That's easy enough to believe (unless you're an anarchist). ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch 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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-15 Thread Doug Younker
Michael- in that context, the anarchists belief they wouldn't be trampled
under foot under anarchy, I would have to agree.  Sorry if I missed
something out of turn.  After this, this will be dead topic for me.
Doug

From: Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country



 The context in which it was written:

 Doug wrote: Impossible for the lone individual to protect their own basic
rights.

 My reply: That's easy enough to believe (unless you're an anarchist).


___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-15 Thread William Adams

Hakan,
Well said, and most appropriate. But may I respectfully note that like all 
generalizations, there are many exceptions  to the general rule (that lack 
of international experience leads to a closed mind). Example: Although I, 
along with many of my friends,  have zero international living experience 
(except through reading and the media), and although we do enjoy living in 
the US with all its faults (of which we are painfully aware), there are many 
other countries I think we would enjoy living in  - Sweden might be such an 
enjoyable place, for instance. Far from finding Sweden's socialist form of 
government abhorrent, there are many of us who would like to see more of it 
in the US. There's a world of difference between chauvinism and patriotism


I do read and enjoy your perceptive and sensitive writings, and I do want to 
tell you how sorry I was to learn of your experience with the criminal 
elements. May this be your last contact with them.


Regards,

Bob Adams
- Original Message - 
From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country




Earl,

Why I asked?

I am Swedish and have lived and worked in 8 countries including US, worked 
in 25 and visited 60+ more. I found many things that I liked and some 
things that I disliked in all of them. I can make myself understood in 5 
languages, not including the Danish and Norweigian which are very close to 
Swedish.


A big majority in all countries, are very proud of their country and would 
not want to live anywhere else. The less international experiences they 
have, the more staunch their opinions are. The Americans do not want to 
live anywhere else and especially not in a country like the socialist 
Sweden. The Swedes do not want to live anywhere else and especially not 
the undemocratic US, where money is the only power. Yet, I have never 
found any countries that has so much in common as US and Sweden, this even 
if Sweden have a higher general living standard, according to UN and US 
statistic. That is also why Americans who live in Sweden generally like it 
very much and the same for Swedes who live in US.


What I want to get to, is that you should avoid to have those unqualified 
opinions about other countries. It is amazing how a little bit 
international experiences can make you more humble and appreciate that we 
are all people that basically like each other, once when we get the 
opportunity to meet. There are also many very good places to live, 
independent of what you think of their political label.


Visited Vietnam last year and it was amazing how Americanized and unsafe 
the south still was, compared to the north. As a whole, it was a very 
positive experience and interesting to see the places that I for years 
followed in the news. They  will develop fast and in a positive direction.


Hakan


At 17:16 13/08/2005, you wrote:

Keith,

I think you are confusing what I said.  I perfectly agreed with you that 
the U.S. is not a charitable organization, and does take much more than it 
gives (here and abroad).  I can't speak for other developing nations, as I 
have only lived in the U.S. (answering Harkan's question in another 
email).  But I expect you are correct about that too.  And the end result 
is an even bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots.


The charity I was referring to is when individuals like your or I give 
something (money, food, clothing, medicine, etc.) to someone else, without 
expecting anything in return.  It would be nice to know that if I send a 
dollar to help provide clean water to a village in Sudan, that 90 cents 
isn't being sucked up by some U.S. corporation before it even gets there.


Thanks,

Earl.

- Original Message - From: Keith Addison 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


No it is not charity, and this is the point you miss, I hope it's through 
ignorance rather than convenience, but I think it's already been pointed 
out to you. There is LOTS about it in the archives, and the gist of it is 
that all the industrialised nations, the so-called developed nations, 
and especially the US, take VERY much more than they give to poor 
countries, and even the giving, in the form of aid, is often or 
usually tied to benefiting commercial interests in the donor countries 
rather than benefiting poor people at the receiving end as alleged. All 
they get dumped on them is harsh neo-liberalism and yet more imported 
poverty.




___
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

RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-15 Thread Hakan Falk


Tim,

At 00:02 16/08/2005, you wrote:

Hakan,

What would you consider to be one example of a 
successful country that delivers foreign aid from which the US could learn?


All the Scandinavian countries, UK, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland etc.


I would not expect a country to obey our laws in 
their own country.  That is not what I meant.  I 
apologize for that.  I'm referring to legal 
activities/products a country exports to 
somewhere it is not legal.  I'm thinking along 
the lines of pharmaceuticals or pesticides.  Are 
you aware of any countries that export to US 
what is illegal for them to produce/consume but is OK in the US?


It is customary for US Corporations to take 
advantage and pressure developing countries to 
accept security measures, environmental and labor 
laws, far lesser than the US ones. The most 
famous one is the production in Bophal, India and 
the 15,000++ dead and numerous follow on effects 
and victims. The Corporation even broke the more 
laxed rules in India and US refused to extradite 
the responsible CEO to stand trial.



I understand you to say it is customary in the 
US to take advantage of foreign technical 
solutions as long as they are not registered in the US?


If it has not dramatically changed the last 15 
years, yes. Until then, I was active and worked 
with US companies. I have not heard that US 
started to recognize other countries patent 
registrations and US corporations have played 
quite a few dirty tricks that I now about. Taking 
advantage of foreign research and even 
deliberately bypassing and developing around foreign patents.


US might complain about China, but Europe did in 
the past complain about US and/or Japan. This is 
of course not that newsworthy in US, as their 
complaints about China who is on a path that recognized both in US and Japan.


Hakan



Tim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk

Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 4:28 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Tim,

I will clarify and repeat.

At 15:57 15/08/2005, you wrote:
Hakan,

What you are saying then is foreign aid does
not necessarily fit the definition of foreign
entanglement?  Further, even if it did, that type of entanglement is OK?

Complicated matter for US, but there are more
successful countries, look at them.


You are right about the demand side of illicit
drugs.  I was referring to the supply
side.  Another Country just simply cannot supply
drugs regardless of demand or legalities.  That spells trouble.

No country supply the drugs, there are criminals
in the countries that do it. US have a high
degree of cooperation on those issues, on matters
that are illegal both in US and the other country.


Are you saying that if a foreign country doesn't
agree with our laws, they are not obligated to
cooperate with us, unless there is something in it for them?

Exactly, US cannot expect that an other country
should police unique US laws on their soil. This
is so basic that it should be easy to understand.
That is why I took the legal age for sex as
example. Sweden who has an age limit of 15 years
for agreed sex, cannot be expected to police the
21 year limit in US. That means that they cannot
arrest and extradite someone who had sex with a
17 year in US, since it is not recognized as a crime in Sweden.

Many countries who do not have death penalty,
cannot extradite a killer to US, if US does not
guarantee that the death penalty will not be applied.


I was referring to a broader definition of
counterfeiting than just currency such as that
pertaining to intellectual property.  For
instance, I read and hear much about Chinese
illegal copying of software, music, movies, clothing, etc.

Intellectual properties are complicated and even
the Chinese will take action for things, within
their laws. They do pursue software coping for
export and maybe you will not agree, but they can
even apply death penalty for cases that they
unravel. Many brand products are manufactured in
China and it is in many cases stolen legal production that are sold in China.

US demands are in many cases more of a wish that
the world should respect their registers for
patent, brand names, logos, designs etc., but I
have not yet seen that they offer a similar hard
recognition for other countries registers.

It becomes even more complicated when you look at
paten protection, that are shorter in US than
many other countries. In this cases you will see
patents used in US, even if they are valid in
other countries. US have for many years played a
similar role as China in the field of patents. It
never helped that the European countries
complained, but now when US have a film and music
industry to protect, the table is turned. What is
the difference between a unique technical
solution and a sequence of notes? If you have to
register a patent in US, to protect a technical
solution, similar

RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-14 Thread Hakan Falk


Tim,

This is not really the question form and maybe many others. It is not 
the question of that US is engaged, it is the way US does it and 
traditionally did it. It is immoral to support activities by their 
corporations, that are not up to their standards and laws for US at 
home. It is not morally justifiable to support oppressive regimes, in 
order to support US financial interests. We can only mention The Shah 
of Iran, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, etc. as a few of a long list that 
were helped to power and then maintained by US.


Iraq is the result of a misunderstanding, Saddam Hussein asked for 
the US permission to invade Kuweit and thought that he got it.




Hakan

At 02:45 14/08/2005, you wrote:
There seems to be general agreement on this list that the U.S. 
should avoid foreign entanglements, at least when it comes to some 
of the uglier tenets of foreign policy.  Shouldn't we be just as 
concerned about so called benevolent tenets as well?  Even feeding 
and clothing the oppressed will upset the oppressors.  Perhaps what 
a foreign entanglement refers to is a personal decision driven by 
that person's views toward any one particular governmental involvement?


Tim Schlueter
St. Louis



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Fri 8/12/2005 11:45 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Mike,

Where do I start?

First, I have a real problem with any government (U.S., state, 
local) taking my hard earned money (in the form of taxes) and 
redistributing it to others.  Now, there are legitimate things that 
each of these levels of government can spend taxpayer dollars on, 
namely, those outlined in their constitution or charter.  In the 
case of the U.S. Government, these include national defense (not 
necessarily offense, though), minting currency, postal services, 
etc.  When the U.S. Government (or perhaps the state governments) 
start spending my money outside the bounds of the Constitution, it 
is no longer legit.  I would like to see Congress try and pass an 
Amendment to allow giving loans to foreign nations and never 
expecting repayment of those loans.  How much support do you think 
they would get from the populace?


Second, some people may consider giving funds or supplies to help 
poorer nations or refugee groups as charity, which it is.  But 
charity is you or I freely donating my money to others for the 
purpose of helping those in need.  I have given money to help 
victims of 9-11, I have helped feed the homeless in soup kitchens, I 
have given my old clothing and furniture to Goodwill, Salvation 
Army, etc.  Governments, such as our federal government, do not own 
the money they give to others - the money belongs to the taxpayers 
(and bond holders) who provide the money.  How can the U.S. 
Government consider giving money to poor African countries as 
charity, when it isn't their money to give?  As I mentioned 
previously, if the U.S. Government would stop taking my hard earned 
money and donating away, perhaps I would have more money that I 
could freely give to organizations like the Red Cross (this is only 
one example, there are others) as charity.


Third, the idea of giving for the sake of giving is lost on most 
politicians.  Inside the Beltway, a politician's power is measured 
by his or her ability to fundraise - accepting money from some 
generous sole to support some Cause of the day.  Have you ever 
met a political donor that didn't expect something in return?  The 
President and Congress are just as guilty of wanting something in 
return for helping other nations.  How much money have they pumped 
into the poorer nations of the Iraq War Coalition?


Socialism and true communism may have its value to some and will 
thrive in some places of the world, but I prefer not to live under 
it.  Or at least, if I have to, please call it as such - The 
Socialist Unoin of America.


The same goes for the United Nations.

Thanks for the opportunity to explain myself.

Earl.

- Original Message -

From: Michael Redler mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Earl,

Earl wrote: It seems to me that be requiring wealthy 
nations to donate any portion of
their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a 
global scale.


Giving it a name (i.e. socialism or ...ism), doesn't 
explain why you disagree. Please include something to support your position.


There are people in this list who (despite McCarthy's 
legacy) understand the value of socialism and even communism (not 
to be confused with Stalin's mislabeled brand of fascism) as a 
theoretical model for democracy.


Mike




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-14 Thread dwoodard
There may have been a misunderstanding in Baghdad. I suspect that the
people in Washington knew exactly what they were doing.

Doug Woodard
St. Catharines, Ontario


On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Hakan Falk wrote:

 Iraq is the result of a misunderstanding, Saddam Hussein asked for
 the US permission to invade Kuweit and thought that he got it.

___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-14 Thread Michael Redler








Well done Keith.

Earl wrote: "Socialism and true communism may have its value to some and will thrive in some places of the world, but I prefer not to live under it. Or at least, if I have to, please call it as such - The Socialist Unoin of America."

You prefer not to live under a model of democracy that allowsevery person in society a chance to participate in the decisions of their government AND immediately dismiss those who break their promise to serve, without waiting until the next election year?

Please explain yourself Earl.

I'm not convinced that socialism or communism can really work sincea successful examplehas never been achieved. However, it's principles, as a model for government,are far more democratic that the republic we live in today.

So,what am I left to believe Earl? Are you a victim of the McCarthy legacy or do you prefernot to entertaina conversation on the merit of a valid modelfor democracy?

Perhaps you don't realize that you already live under it's influence. Concepts derived fromcommunism have already contributed to the stabilization of oursociety (i.e. AFL-CIO). Ifthe working class did not take a stand, we could be called "The Robber Baron States of America"; ormaybe "Fordia" or "Coca Colica" (in contrast to your "Socialist Union of America"). If your OK with this, give it time because, we may get there yet. We already have a congress which is controlled by huge lobbies on the payroll of multinational corporations.

In the past, socialism has played a bigger roll in the U.S. than most Americans care to know. In fact, it was popular enough that Eugene Debs won a million votes during his presidential campaign - while he was in prison.

A hundred years after Marx commented on the future of capitalism, there have been remarkable revelationsabout his accuracy. Evenright-wing economists and dedicated capitalists are noticingand acknowledging his predictions about things like outsourcingfor cheap labor.


You would be sorely disappointed if you allowed pure capitalism to demonstrate itself to be an example of democracy to the world.

Some of us already are...
MikeKeith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello EarlMike,Where do I start?First, I have a real problem with any government (U.S., state, local) taking my hard earned money (in the form of taxes) and redistributing it to others. Now, there are legitimate things that each of these levels of government can spend taxpayer dollars on, namely, those outlined in their constitution or charter. In the case of the U.S. Government, these include national defense (not necessarily offense, though), minting currency, postal services, etc. When the U.S. Government (or perhaps the state governments) start spending my money outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is no longer legit. I would like to see Congress try and pass an Amendment to allow giving loans to foreign nations and never expecting repayment of
 those loans. How much support do you think they would get from the populace?Second, some people may consider giving funds or supplies to help poorer nations or refugee groups as charity, which it is.No it is not charity, and this is the point you miss, I hope it's through ignorance rather than convenience, but I think it's already been pointed out to you. There is LOTS about it in the archives, and the gist of it is that all the industrialised nations, the so-called "developed" nations, and especially the US, take VERY much more than they "give" to poor countries, and even the "giving", in the form of "aid", is often or usually tied to benefiting commercial interests in the donor countries rather than benefiting poor people at the receiving end as alleged. All they get dumped on them is harsh neo-liberalism and yet more imported poverty.Go to http://globalissues.org/ (for instance) and do some
 studying. You can start with these:http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg39994.htmlRe: [Biofuel] US Foreign aidhttp://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg51848.html[Biofuel] Inequality in wealthBest wishesKeithBut charity is you or I freely donating my money to others for the purpose of helping those in need. I have given money to help victims of 9-11, I have helped feed the homeless in soup kitchens, I have given my old clothing and furniture to Goodwill, Salvation Army, etc. Governments, such as our federal government, do not own the money they give to others - the money belongs to the taxpayers (and bond holders) who provide the money. How can the U.S. Government consider giving money to poor African countries as charity, when it isn't their money to give? As I mentioned previously, if the U.S. Government
 would stop taking my hard earned money and "donating" away, perhaps I would have more money that I could freely give to organizations like the Red Cross (this is only one example, there are others) as charity.Third, the idea of giving for the sake of giving is lost on most politicians. Inside 

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-13 Thread KinsleyForPrez08

Robert,

Thank you for the reminders - I forgot a few things

- Original Message - 
From: robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED]


   You live in a country where you have the ABILITY to earn your money, 
and you question the legitimacy of the government in taxing your income? 
You live in a country with an elaborate infrastructure undreamed of by the 
Constitutional framers, and you have a problem with supporting that 
infrastructure?


It is true that many of the Constitutional framers never intended the 
federal government to become the beaurocratic behemoth that is is today. 
They would have probably have revolted by now if they were alive today.  I 
think we have career politicians to thank for our unsupportable 
infrastructure.




 Now, there are legitimate things that each of these levels of government 
can spend taxpayer dollars on, namely, those outlined in their 
constitution or charter.


   We do not live in the same nation that existed in 1789 when the 
Constitution was ratified.


Which is why the Constitution is a living document, and there are currently 
27 amendments to the Constitution.  Perhaps we need a few more to bring it 
up to today's standards.  But the President and Congress have already 
demonstrated that they can expand federal powers without the need for a 
Constitutional Amendment, so why bother trying.  And the citizens won't 
notice the difference.




 In the case of the U.S. Government, these include national defense (not 
necessarily offense, though), minting currency, postal services, etc. 
When the U.S. Government (or perhaps the state governments) start 
spending my money outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is no longer 
legit.


   Not so, else that kind of activity would have been deemed 
unconstitutional long ago.  Yours is a tired argument from the 1930s.


How do you explain Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid?  Is it in the 
Constitution?  Then why does the FY2006 budget include over $1 trillion in 
expenditures for these programs?




 I would like to see Congress try and pass an Amendment to allow giving 
loans to foreign nations and never expecting repayment of those loans. 
How much support do you think they would get from the populace?


   What on earth are you talking about?  If you're so concerned with 
fiscal restraint, why not encourage the Federal Government to pass a 
balanced budget amendment?  Deficit spending is a serious problem, of 
which foreign aid is a vanishingly small percentage.


Bravo - I think that a balance budget amendment would be a great addition to 
our Constitution!  Then perhaps the Federal Government wouldn't be allowed 
to increase our public debt by $390 billion next year (not including 
interest on the debt).
You do make a good point about direct foreign aid - it only amounts to $950 
million, or 0.037% of the total federal budget.  I stand corrected.  But 
private contributions have had a significant impact on international aid 
when the need arises - US-based relief groups and non-governmental 
organizations raised over $1.031 billion towards the Asian Tsunami Disaster 
Relief last year.




 Governments, such as our federal government, do not own the money they 
give to others - the money belongs to the taxpayers (and bond holders) 
who provide the money.


   If you look on a dollar bill, you will find a statement that reads: 
Federal Reserve Note.  Read Section 8 of Article 1 for further 
enlightenment on this issue.


I apologize for mispeaking.  I meant that the federal government does not 
add value to the gross domestic product (GDP).  It is the citizenry (and 
non-citizen residents) who add value to the GDP.  Money is something created 
by the federal government (constitutionally, of course) to measure the GDP 
and each citizen's contribution to the GDP.  And by measuring this, they 
have the ability to tax it.


   The percentage of spending that goes to aid nations in the Third World 
is tiny, compared to overall government spending, and while much of that 
spending goes right back into American corporations, the largest dollar 
amounts invested overseas occurs in the form of military assistance. 
Israel, by the way, is the biggest recipient of American foreign aid.  We 
have discussed this issue to death previously.  A search of the archives 
is in order.




Hence the something in return mentioned below...  I completely forgot 
about the fact that much of the government-based aid spent overseas comes 
right back to U.S. Corporations.  Thank you for adding strength to my point 
below.


 As I mentioned previously, if the U.S. Government would stop taking my 
hard earned money and donating away, perhaps I would have more money 
that I could freely give to organizations like the Red Cross (this is 
only one example, there are others) as charity.


   The amount of money that you and I could donate for foreign aid would 
do very little to help.  Only governments have the financial wherewithal 

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-13 Thread Doug Foskey
Robert,
 as a non-american, I totally agree with your sentiments. Government is for 
the people, by the peoplenow where have I heard that before??
 I think the worst thing that has happened in the last few decades is the 
recognition of the corporation as a 'person' - which is why we cannot 
slander, or really restrict the power wielded by the corporations. How long 
is it since the Anti-monopoly legislation was used in any country?

regards Doug

On Saturday 13 August 2005 3:45, robert luis rabello wrote:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Where do I start?

   Oh boy!

  First, I have a real problem with any government (U.S., state, local)
  taking my hard earned money (in the form of taxes) and redistributing it
  to others.

   You live in a country where you have the ABILITY to earn your money,
 and you question the legitimacy of the government in taxing your
 income?  You live in a country with an elaborate infrastructure
 undreamed of by the Constitutional framers, and you have a problem
 with supporting that infrastructure?

   Now, there are legitimate things that each of these levels
  of government can spend taxpayer dollars on, namely, those outlined in
  their constitution or charter.

   We do not live in the same nation that existed in 1789 when the
 Constitution was ratified.

   In the case of the U.S. Government,
  these include national defense (not necessarily offense, though),
  minting currency, postal services, etc.  When the U.S. Government (or
  perhaps the state governments) start spending my money outside the
  bounds of the Constitution, it is no longer legit.

   Not so, else that kind of activity would have been deemed
 unconstitutional long ago.  Yours is a tired argument from the 1930s.

   I would like to see
  Congress try and pass an Amendment to allow giving loans to foreign
  nations and never expecting repayment of those loans.  How much support
  do you think they would get from the populace?

   What on earth are you talking about?  If you're so concerned with
 fiscal restraint, why not encourage the Federal Government to pass a
 balanced budget amendment?  Deficit spending is a serious problem, of
 which foreign aid is a vanishingly small percentage.

   Governments, such as our
  federal government, do not own the money they give to others - the money
  belongs to the taxpayers (and bond holders) who provide the money.

   If you look on a dollar bill, you will find a statement that reads:
 Federal Reserve Note.  Read Section 8 of Article 1 for further
 enlightenment on this issue.

  How can the U.S. Government consider giving money to poor African
  countries as charity, when it isn't their money to give?

   The percentage of spending that goes to aid nations in the Third
 World is tiny, compared to overall government spending, and while much
 of that spending goes right back into American corporations, the
 largest dollar amounts invested overseas occurs in the form of
 military assistance.  Israel, by the way, is the biggest recipient of
 American foreign aid.  We have discussed this issue to death
 previously.  A search of the archives is in order.

   As I mentioned
  previously, if the U.S. Government would stop taking my hard earned
  money and donating away, perhaps I would have more money that I could
  freely give to organizations like the Red Cross (this is only one
  example, there are others) as charity.

   The amount of money that you and I could donate for foreign aid would
 do very little to help.  Only governments have the financial
 wherewithal to make a difference.  We Americans like to think we're
 generous, but an examination of the facts shows a very different picture.

  Third, the idea of giving for the sake of giving is lost on most
  politicians.  Inside the Beltway, a politician's power is measured by
  his or her ability to fundraise - accepting money from some generous
  sole to support some Cause of the day.  Have you ever met a political
  donor that didn't expect something in return?  The President and
  Congress are just as guilty of wanting something in return for helping
  other nations.  How much money have they pumped into the poorer nations
  of the Iraq War Coalition?

   Likely a lot less than we've spent in Iraq ourselves.

  Socialism and true communism may have its value to some and will thrive
  in some places of the world, but I prefer not to live under it.

   Then don't use the socialist electrical grid, power plants, highway
 system and telecommunications infrastructure that Americans have
 collectively paid for over the years.  I suspect you will also not
 want to participate in any of the corporate welfare that has gone on
 either.  Health care?  Don't bother going to a county hospital, or the
 local library.  Oh yes, and police and fire suppression should also be
 high on your list of socialist government services you can do without.
   Even if you didn't learn how to read 

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-13 Thread Hakan Falk


Earl,

It would be interesting to know how many countries you lived, or 
worked, in and how many languages you can communicate in?


Hakan

At 06:45 13/08/2005, you wrote:

Mike,

Where do I start?

First, I have a real problem with any government (U.S., state, 
local) taking my hard earned money (in the form of taxes) and 
redistributing it to others.  Now, there are legitimate things that 
each of these levels of government can spend taxpayer dollars on, 
namely, those outlined in their constitution or charter.  In the 
case of the U.S. Government, these include national defense (not 
necessarily offense, though), minting currency, postal services, 
etc.  When the U.S. Government (or perhaps the state governments) 
start spending my money outside the bounds of the Constitution, it 
is no longer legit.  I would like to see Congress try and pass an 
Amendment to allow giving loans to foreign nations and never 
expecting repayment of those loans.  How much support do you think 
they would get from the populace?


Second, some people may consider giving funds or supplies to help 
poorer nations or refugee groups as charity, which it is.  But 
charity is you or I freely donating my money to others for the 
purpose of helping those in need.  I have given money to help 
victims of 9-11, I have helped feed the homeless in soup kitchens, I 
have given my old clothing and furniture to Goodwill, Salvation 
Army, etc.  Governments, such as our federal government, do not own 
the money they give to others - the money belongs to the taxpayers 
(and bond holders) who provide the money.  How can the U.S. 
Government consider giving money to poor African countries as 
charity, when it isn't their money to give?  As I mentioned 
previously, if the U.S. Government would stop taking my hard earned 
money and donating away, perhaps I would have more money that I 
could freely give to organizations like the Red Cross (this is only 
one example, there are others) as charity.


Third, the idea of giving for the sake of giving is lost on most 
politicians.  Inside the Beltway, a politician's power is measured 
by his or her ability to fundraise - accepting money from some 
generous sole to support some Cause of the day.  Have you ever 
met a political donor that didn't expect something in return?  The 
President and Congress are just as guilty of wanting something in 
return for helping other nations.  How much money have they pumped 
into the poorer nations of the Iraq War Coalition?


Socialism and true communism may have its value to some and will 
thrive in some places of the world, but I prefer not to live under 
it.  Or at least, if I have to, please call it as such - The 
Socialist Unoin of America.


The same goes for the United Nations.

Thanks for the opportunity to explain myself.

Earl.

- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Michael Redler
To: mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Earl,

Earl wrote: It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to 
donate any portion of

their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global scale.

Giving it a name (i.e. socialism or ...ism), doesn't explain why you 
disagree. Please include something to support your position.


There are people in this list who (despite McCarthy's legacy) 
understand the value of socialism and even communism (not to be 
confused with Stalin's mislabeled brand of fascism) as a theoretical 
model for democracy.


Mike


--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:48:58 -0300
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Dale,

I don't mean to deflate your dream, but why do we need the government
beauracracy (of which the UN most certainly is) to guarranty these basic
human rights? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of every person on the
planet to protect his or her basic rights?

It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to donate any portion of
their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global scale.

Your other point about not getting involved with those poorer nations is
right on the money. The biggest terrorism problems in the US today are a
direct result of our meddling in other nations' affairs. If we spent less
time and money on controlling other countries, we could spend less time and
money on counter terrorism measures. Maybe then my taxes will go down and I
would be able to donate my own money to those poorer nations. But that, my
friend, is truly just a dream.

Regards,

Earl Kinsley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
That government is best which governs least. -- Thomas Paine

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-13 Thread Keith Addison

Hello Earl


Mike,

Where do I start?

First, I have a real problem with any government (U.S., state, 
local) taking my hard earned money (in the form of taxes) and 
redistributing it to others.  Now, there are legitimate things that 
each of these levels of government can spend taxpayer dollars on, 
namely, those outlined in their constitution or charter.  In the 
case of the U.S. Government, these include national defense (not 
necessarily offense, though), minting currency, postal services, 
etc.  When the U.S. Government (or perhaps the state governments) 
start spending my money outside the bounds of the Constitution, it 
is no longer legit.  I would like to see Congress try and pass an 
Amendment to allow giving loans to foreign nations and never 
expecting repayment of those loans.  How much support do you think 
they would get from the populace?


Second, some people may consider giving funds or supplies to help 
poorer nations or refugee groups as charity, which it is.


No it is not charity, and this is the point you miss, I hope it's 
through ignorance rather than convenience, but I think it's already 
been pointed out to you. There is LOTS about it in the archives, and 
the gist of it is that all the industrialised nations, the so-called 
developed nations, and especially the US, take VERY much more than 
they give to poor countries, and even the giving, in the form of 
aid, is often or usually tied to benefiting commercial interests in 
the donor countries rather than benefiting poor people at the 
receiving end as alleged. All they get dumped on them is harsh 
neo-liberalism and yet more imported poverty.


Go to http://globalissues.org/ (for instance) and do some studying. 
You can start with these:


http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg39994.html
Re: [Biofuel] US Foreign aid

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg51848.html
[Biofuel] Inequality in wealth

Best wishes

Keith



But charity is you or I freely donating my money to others for the 
purpose of helping those in need.  I have given money to help 
victims of 9-11, I have helped feed the homeless in soup kitchens, I 
have given my old clothing and furniture to Goodwill, Salvation 
Army, etc.  Governments, such as our federal government, do not own 
the money they give to others - the money belongs to the taxpayers 
(and bond holders) who provide the money.  How can the U.S. 
Government consider giving money to poor African countries as 
charity, when it isn't their money to give?  As I mentioned 
previously, if the U.S. Government would stop taking my hard earned 
money and donating away, perhaps I would have more money that I 
could freely give to organizations like the Red Cross (this is only 
one example, there are others) as charity.


Third, the idea of giving for the sake of giving is lost on most 
politicians.  Inside the Beltway, a politician's power is measured 
by his or her ability to fundraise - accepting money from some 
generous sole to support some Cause of the day.  Have you ever 
met a political donor that didn't expect something in return?  The 
President and Congress are just as guilty of wanting something in 
return for helping other nations.  How much money have they pumped 
into the poorer nations of the Iraq War Coalition?


Socialism and true communism may have its value to some and will 
thrive in some places of the world, but I prefer not to live under 
it.  Or at least, if I have to, please call it as such - The 
Socialist Unoin of America.


The same goes for the United Nations.

Thanks for the opportunity to explain myself.

Earl.

- Original Message -

From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Michael Redler
To: mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Earl,

Earl wrote: It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to 
donate any portion of

their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global scale.

Giving it a name (i.e. socialism or ...ism), doesn't explain why you 
disagree. Please include something to support your position.


There are people in this list who (despite McCarthy's legacy) 
understand the value of socialism and even communism (not to be 
confused with Stalin's mislabeled brand of fascism) as a theoretical 
model for democracy.


Mike 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:48:58 -0300
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Dale,

I don't mean to deflate your dream, but why do we need the government
beauracracy (of which the UN most certainly is) to guarranty these basic
human rights? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of every person on the
planet to protect his or her basic rights?

It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to donate any portion of
their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global scale.

Your other point about

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-13 Thread Tom Irwin




Hi all,

Don´t you all realize the definition of government? That´s where we put all the corruption in one place so we can keep an eye on it. It´s an animal that you watch carefully and shouldn´t feed very much in order to keep it´s natural search for more territory under control. Cute little buggers when their babies but dangerous preditors when overfed adults.

Big Smile,

Tom Irwin


From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:56:38 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryHello EarlMike,Where do I start?First, I have a real problem with any government (U.S., state, local) taking my hard earned money (in the form of taxes) and redistributing it to others. Now, there are legitimate things that each of these levels of government can spend taxpayer dollars on, namely, those outlined in their constitution or charter. In the case of the U.S. Government, these include national defense (not necessarily offense, though), minting currency, postal services, etc. When the U.S. Government (or perhaps the state governments) start spending my money outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is no longer legit. I would like to see Congress try and pass an Amendment to allow giving loans to foreign nations and never expecting repayment of those loans. How much support do you think they would get from the populace?Second, some people may consider giving funds or supplies to help poorer nations or refugee groups as charity, which it is.No it is not charity, and this is the point you miss, I hope it's through ignorance rather than convenience, but I think it's already been pointed out to you. There is LOTS about it in the archives, and the gist of it is that all the industrialised nations, the so-called "developed" nations, and especially the US, take VERY much more than they "give" to poor countries, and even the "giving", in the form of "aid", is often or usually tied to benefiting commercial interests in the donor countries rather than benefiting poor people at the receiving end as alleged. All they get dumped on them is harsh neo-liberalism and yet more imported poverty.Go to http://globalissues.org/ (for instance) and do some studying. You can start with these:http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg39994.htmlRe: [Biofuel] US Foreign aidhttp://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg51848.html[Biofuel] Inequality in wealthBest wishesKeithBut charity is you or I freely donating my money to others for the purpose of helping those in need. I have given money to help victims of 9-11, I have helped feed the homeless in soup kitchens, I have given my old clothing and furniture to Goodwill, Salvation Army, etc. Governments, such as our federal government, do not own the money they give to others - the money belongs to the taxpayers (and bond holders) who provide the money. How can the U.S. Government consider giving money to poor African countries as charity, when it isn't their money to give? As I mentioned previously, if the U.S. Government would stop taking my hard earned money and "donating" away, perhaps I would have more money that I could freely give to organizations like the Red Cross (this is only one example, there are others) as charity.Third, the idea of giving for the sake of giving is lost on most politicians. Inside the "Beltway," a politician's power is measured by his or her ability to fundraise - accepting money from some "generous" sole to support some "Cause of the day." Have you ever met a political donor that didn't expect something in return? The President and Congress are just as guilty of wanting something in return for helping other nations. How much money have they pumped into the poorer nations of the Iraq War Coalition?Socialism and true communism may have its value to some and will thrive in some places of the world, but I prefer not to live under it. Or at least, if I have to, please call it as such - The Socialist Unoin of America.The same goes for the United Nations.Thanks for the opportunity to explain myself.Earl.- Original Message -From: Michael RedlerTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:35 PMSubject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryEarl,Earl wrote: "It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to "donate" any portion oftheir GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global scale."Giving it a name (i.e. socialism or ...ism), doesn't explain why you disagree. Please include something to support your position.There are people in this list who (despite McCarthy's legacy) understand the value of socialism and even communism (not to be confused with Stalin's mislabeled brand of fascism) as a theoretical model for democracy.Mike From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:48:58 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue 

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-13 Thread Tom Irwin




Hi Kinsley,

In your defense, the taxation in the United states used to be progressive, now it is not. That means that those with the least disposable income pay for the infrastructure of the wealthy. How many lower middle class and poor use aircraft on a daily or weekly basis to get around? Yet they pay for airport construction, maintenence, and airline regulation so richcorporate business folk can travel with speed and comfort. Or at least they once traveled with speed before airport security became a necessity. But those lower middle class and poor folk are paying for that security as well as many other things. 

Tom Irwin


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 04:27:33 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryRobert,Thank you for the reminders - I forgot a few things- Original Message - From: "robert luis rabello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You live in a country where you have the ABILITY to earn your money,  and you question the legitimacy of the government in taxing your income?  You live in a country with an elaborate infrastructure undreamed of by the  Constitutional framers, and you have a problem with supporting that  infrastructure?It is true that many of the Constitutional framers never intended the federal government to become the beaurocratic behemoth that is is today. They would have probably have revolted by now if they were alive today. I think we have career politicians to thank for our unsupportable infrastructure. Now, there are legitimate things that each of these levels of government  can spend taxpayer dollars on, namely, those outlined in their  constitution or charter. We do not live in the same nation that existed in 1789 when the  Constitution was ratified.Which is why the Constitution is a living document, and there are currently 27 amendments to the Constitution. Perhaps we need a few more to bring it up to today's standards. But the President and Congress have already demonstrated that they can expand federal powers without the need for a Constitutional Amendment, so why bother trying. And the citizens won't notice the difference. In the case of the U.S. Government, these include national defense (not  necessarily offense, though), minting currency, postal services, etc.  When the U.S. Government (or perhaps the state governments) start  spending my money outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is no longer  legit. Not so, else that kind of activity would have been deemed  unconstitutional long ago. Yours is a tired argument from the 1930s.How do you explain Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid? Is it in the Constitution? Then why does the FY2006 budget include over $1 trillion in expenditures for these programs? I would like to see Congress try and pass an Amendment to allow giving  loans to foreign nations and never expecting repayment of those loans.  How much support do you think they would get from the populace? What on earth are you talking about? If you're so concerned with  fiscal restraint, why not encourage the Federal Government to pass a  balanced budget amendment? Deficit spending is a serious problem, of  which foreign aid is a vanishingly small percentage.Bravo - I think that a balance budget amendment would be a great addition to our Constitution! Then perhaps the Federal Government wouldn't be allowed to increase our public debt by $390 billion next year (not including interest on the debt).You do make a good point about direct foreign aid - it only amounts to $950 million, or 0.037% of the total federal budget. I stand corrected. But private contributions have had a significant impact on international aid when the need arises - US-based relief groups and non-governmental organizations raised over $1.031 billion towards the Asian Tsunami Disaster Relief last year. Governments, such as our federal government, do not own the money they  give to others - the money belongs to the taxpayers (and bond holders)  who provide the money. If you look on a dollar bill, you will find a statement that reads:  "Federal Reserve Note". Read Section 8 of Article 1 for further  enlightenment on this issue.I apologize for mispeaking. I meant that the federal government does not add value to the gross domestic product (GDP). It is the citizenry (and non-citizen residents) who add value to the GDP. Money is something created by the federal government (constitutionally, of course) to measure the GDP and each citizen's contribution to the GDP. And by measuring this, they have the ability to tax it. The percentage of spending that goes to aid nations in the Third World  is tiny, compared to overall government spending, and while much of that  spending goes right back into American corporations, the largest dollar  amounts "invested" overseas occurs in the form of military assistance.  Israel, by the way, is the biggest recipient of American foreign aid. We  have discussed this issue to death previously. A search of 

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-13 Thread KinsleyForPrez08

Keith,

I think you are confusing what I said.  I perfectly agreed with you that the 
U.S. is not a charitable organization, and does take much more than it gives 
(here and abroad).  I can't speak for other developing nations, as I have 
only lived in the U.S. (answering Harkan's question in another email).  But 
I expect you are correct about that too.  And the end result is an even 
bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots.


The charity I was referring to is when individuals like your or I give 
something (money, food, clothing, medicine, etc.) to someone else, without 
expecting anything in return.  It would be nice to know that if I send a 
dollar to help provide clean water to a village in Sudan, that 90 cents 
isn't being sucked up by some U.S. corporation before it even gets there.


Thanks,

Earl.

- Original Message - 
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]


No it is not charity, and this is the point you miss, I hope it's through 
ignorance rather than convenience, but I think it's already been pointed 
out to you. There is LOTS about it in the archives, and the gist of it is 
that all the industrialised nations, the so-called developed nations, 
and especially the US, take VERY much more than they give to poor 
countries, and even the giving, in the form of aid, is often or 
usually tied to benefiting commercial interests in the donor countries 
rather than benefiting poor people at the receiving end as alleged. All 
they get dumped on them is harsh neo-liberalism and yet more imported 
poverty. 



___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-13 Thread robert luis rabello

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Robert,

Thank you for the reminders - I forgot a few things


It is true that many of the Constitutional framers never intended the 
federal government to become the beaurocratic behemoth that is is today. 
They would have probably have revolted by now if they were alive today.  +


	This is an idea advocated by Thomas Jefferson.  I, however, do not 
support violent revolution.


I think we have career politicians to thank for our unsupportable 
infrastructure.


	The infrastructure IS supportable, should the career politicians to 
which you refer choose to do so.  But it's not very sexy to support 
bridges, rail lines, pavement and power equipment when compared to 
nonfunctional missile defense, or the hydrogen boondoggle, among others.



Which is why the Constitution is a living document, and there are 
currently 27 amendments to the Constitution.  Perhaps we need a few more 
to bring it up to today's standards.  But the President and Congress 
have already demonstrated that they can expand federal powers without 
the need for a Constitutional Amendment, so why bother trying.  And the 
citizens won't notice the difference.


	Some of us DO notice.  I've written in this forum before that the 
whole process of selecting candidates is biased in favor of the 
mediocre.  By the time the primaries come to the west coast, the two 
top candidates have already been chosen for us.



How do you explain Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid?  Is it in the 
Constitution?  Then why does the FY2006 budget include over $1 trillion 
in expenditures for these programs?


	We have Frances Perkins, the first woman to hold a cabinet level 
position in American government (as Secretary of Labor), to thank for 
Social Security; a program that has served well for decades.  When she 
first proposed the idea to Franklin Roosevelt, he told her that he 
didn't think such a program would survive a challenge in the courts. 
So, Frances Perkins invited the Chief Justice and his wife over for 
tea and discussed implementing Social Security with him.  When asked 
how the government could impose such a program without an effective 
legal challenge, he answered: It's the power to tax, my dear.  That 
power, clearly spelled out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution 
gives Congress the authority.  It reads as follows, for the benefit of 
non Americans in this forum:


	The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, 
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common 
Defence and general welfare of the United States . . .


	This is why social programs like Medicare / Medicaid and Social 
Security have NEVER been successfully challenged in the courts. 
Further, when we examine the spending on health care in the United 
States as a percentage of the overall budget, the U.S. spends far less 
than most other developed nations.  The Social Security trust fund had 
been running a surplus for many, many years, until Mr. Reagan and his 
successors began using the trust fund for general revenue.  Now we 
have a problem because we're living longer, and the money we were 
SUPPOSED to have saved for the program has already been spent.



Bravo - I think that a balance budget amendment would be a great 
addition to our Constitution!  Then perhaps the Federal Government 
wouldn't be allowed to increase our public debt by $390 billion next 
year (not including interest on the debt).


	Indeed!  Some of us have complained about this for decades.  The 
largest single item in the Federal Budget is Defense spending, which 
DWARFS everything else.  We spend far more money on our military than 
anyone else, and yes, that military is capable of projecting power 
like no other, but is that really NECESSARY?


	George Washington warned about overseas entanglements.  It's too bad 
we didn't listen to his advice.



You do make a good point about direct foreign aid - it only amounts to 
$950 million, or 0.037% of the total federal budget.  I stand 
corrected.


	You are more of a gentleman than I first thought.  I apologize for 
misjudging you.


 But private contributions have had a significant impact on 
international aid when the need arises - US-based relief groups and 
non-governmental organizations raised over $1.031 billion towards the 
Asian Tsunami Disaster Relief last year.


	Perhaps, but only when a well publicized crisis arises.  The type of 
aid that will really matter for Third World nations needs to be 
sustained over time, and spread into quiet places where people suffer 
without cameras.




Compared to other nations, Americans do tend to be rather tight when it 
comes to giving money to others.


Yet somehow we BELIEVE that we're generous!



   Likely a lot less than we've spent in Iraq ourselves.



I didn't spend anything in Iraq.  But our President has spent billions 
and billions in Iraq.  How much of that benefitted U.S. Corporations and 
special interest groups?

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-13 Thread Mike Weaver

robert luis rabello wrote:


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Robert,

Thank you for the reminders - I forgot a few things



It is true that many of the Constitutional framers never intended the 
federal government to become the beaurocratic behemoth that is is 
today. They would have probably have revolted by now if they were 
alive today.  +



This is an idea advocated by Thomas Jefferson.  I, however, do not 
support violent revolution.


I think we have career politicians to thank for our unsupportable 
infrastructure.



The infrastructure IS supportable, should the career politicians 
to which you refer choose to do so.  But it's not very sexy to 
support bridges, rail lines, pavement and power equipment when 
compared to nonfunctional missile defense, or the hydrogen boondoggle, 
among others.


Especially when the real issues are constantly obscured by red herrings 
like Gay Marriage or The Death Tax.  The true issues are not being 
framed at a national level.  The average American is far more concerned 
with the spectre of Gay Marriage ( horrors!) than global warming.  I 
have to hand it to the gang running the country - they are masters at 
whipping up a frenzy over some minor issue.  *And it works everytime*!





Which is why the Constitution is a living document, and there are 
currently 27 amendments to the Constitution.  Perhaps we need a few 
more to bring it up to today's standards.  But the President and 
Congress have already demonstrated that they can expand federal 
powers without the need for a Constitutional Amendment, so why bother 
trying.  And the citizens won't notice the difference.



Some of us DO notice.  I've written in this forum before that the 
whole process of selecting candidates is biased in favor of the 
mediocre.  By the time the primaries come to the west coast, the two 
top candidates have already been chosen for us.



How do you explain Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid?  Is it in 
the Constitution?  Then why does the FY2006 budget include over $1 
trillion in expenditures for these programs?



We have Frances Perkins, the first woman to hold a cabinet level 
position in American government (as Secretary of Labor), to thank for 
Social Security; a program that has served well for decades.  When she 
first proposed the idea to Franklin Roosevelt, he told her that he 
didn't think such a program would survive a challenge in the courts. 
So, Frances Perkins invited the Chief Justice and his wife over for 
tea and discussed implementing Social Security with him.  When asked 
how the government could impose such a program without an effective 
legal challenge, he answered: It's the power to tax, my dear.  That 
power, clearly spelled out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution 
gives Congress the authority.  It reads as follows, for the benefit of 
non Americans in this forum:


The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, 
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common 
Defence and general welfare of the United States . . .


This is why social programs like Medicare / Medicaid and Social 
Security have NEVER been successfully challenged in the courts. 
Further, when we examine the spending on health care in the United 
States as a percentage of the overall budget, the U.S. spends far less 
than most other developed nations.  The Social Security trust fund had 
been running a surplus for many, many years, until Mr. Reagan and his 
successors began using the trust fund for general revenue.  Now we 
have a problem because we're living longer, and the money we were 
SUPPOSED to have saved for the program has already been spent.


and provide for the common Defence and * general welfare* of the United 
States . . . I don't believe our government has read this part. 




Bravo - I think that a balance budget amendment would be a great 
addition to our Constitution!  Then perhaps the Federal Government 
wouldn't be allowed to increase our public debt by $390 billion next 
year (not including interest on the debt).



Indeed!  Some of us have complained about this for decades.  The 
largest single item in the Federal Budget is Defense spending, which 
DWARFS everything else.  We spend far more money on our military than 
anyone else, and yes, that military is capable of projecting power 
like no other, but is that really NECESSARY?


All this power hasn't really gotten us much, though.  Another complete 
and utter disaster.  We haven't even done what we promised in Afganistan.


George Washington warned about overseas entanglements.  It's too 
bad we didn't listen to his advice.



I personally don't mind a SMALL debt.  It doesn't bother me to have 
other countries interested in our financial well-being.  But right now 
all it would take to topple our house of cards is for ONE Asian bank to 
start dumping dollars.


What Army?  We have no Army - it's all getting in to trouble overseas.  
Have 

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-13 Thread Mike Weaver

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Mike,
 
Where do I start?
 
First, I have a real problem with any government (U.S., state, local) 
taking my hard earned money (in the form of taxes) and redistributing 
it to others.  Now, there are legitimate things that each of these 
levels of government can spend taxpayer dollars on, namely, those 
outlined in their constitution or charter.  In the case of the U.S. 
Government, these include national defense (not necessarily offense, 
though), minting currency, postal services, etc.  When the U.S. 
Government (or perhaps the state governments) start spending my money 
outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is no longer legit.  I 
would like to see Congress try and pass an Amendment to allow giving 
loans to foreign nations and never expecting repayment of those 
loans.  How much support do you think they would get from the populace?


I think that was one of the points I was trying to make.  From my 
experience,  grants - which is really what you are talking about, or 
loans that are never paid back - it's all semantics - are pretty 
worthless.  If you can't make a business case for a loan, a grant won't 
help you. 

Actually, most Americans favor some foreign aid - we like to be thought 
of as generous.  I think it's the delivery they question.   Everytime 
there is a big disaster Bush goes on TV and makes some fuzzy promise and 
the public eats  it up.



 
Second, some people may consider giving funds or supplies to help 
poorer nations or refugee groups as charity, which it is.  But charity 
is you or I freely donating my money to others for the purpose of 
helping those in need.  I have given money to help victims of 9-11, I 
have helped feed the homeless in soup kitchens, I have given my old 
clothing and furniture to Goodwill, Salvation Army, etc.  Governments, 
such as our federal government, do not own the money they give to 
others - the money belongs to the taxpayers (and bond holders) who 
provide the money.  How can the U.S. Government consider giving money 
to poor African countries as charity, when it isn't their money to 
give?  As I mentioned previously, if the U.S. Government would stop 
taking my hard earned money and donating away, perhaps I would have 
more money that I could freely give to organizations like the Red 
Cross (this is only one example, there are others) as charity.


How do you feel about your hard-earned money going to Big Oil as thinly 
disguised tax incentives as in the last energy bill?  How do you feel 
about monstrous no-bid contracts to Halliburton?  Isn't that donationg 
your money?  Doesn't corporate welfare amount to the same thing?


 
Third, the idea of giving for the sake of giving is lost on most 
politicians.  Inside the Beltway, a politician's power is measured 
by his or her ability to fundraise - accepting money from some 
generous sole to support some Cause of the day.  Have you ever met 
a political donor that didn't expect something in return?  The 
President and Congress are just as guilty of wanting something in 
return for helping other nations.  How much money have they pumped 
into the poorer nations of the Iraq War Coalition




I've lived in DC for 41 years - I know how it works.  It's the best 
government money can buy.  How much money was pumped in to poorer 
countries as part of the coalition of the coerced ?  Not nearly as 
much as is flowing back to the big US contractors.  Iraq is a conduit 
to channel money to the favored few.  Kellog, Root Brown and so on.


 
Socialism and true communism may have its value to some and will 
thrive in some places of the world, but I prefer not to live under 
it.  Or at least, if I have to, please call it as such - The Socialist 
Unoin of America.


FWIW I think the first has some value but only as an idea cauldron - a 
fairly minor component of a reasonably regulated free market democratic 
republic.  I actually think we could expand Medicare and Medicade and it 
would work better than what we've got now.


 
The same goes for the United Nations.
 
Thanks for the opportunity to explain myself.
 
Earl.
 
- Original Message -


*From:* Michael Redler mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:35 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Earl,
 
Earl wrote: It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to

donate any portion of
their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global
scale.
 
Giving it a name (i.e. socialism or ...ism), doesn't explain why

you disagree. Please include something to support your position.
 
There are people in this list who (despite McCarthy's legacy)

understand the value of socialism and even communism (not to be
confused with Stalin's mislabeled brand of fascism) as a
theoretical model for democracy.
 
Mike

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-13 Thread Hakan Falk


Earl,

Why I asked?

I am Swedish and have lived and worked in 8 countries including US, 
worked in 25 and visited 60+ more. I found many things that I liked 
and some things that I disliked in all of them. I can make myself 
understood in 5 languages, not including the Danish and Norweigian 
which are very close to Swedish.


A big majority in all countries, are very proud of their country and 
would not want to live anywhere else. The less international 
experiences they have, the more staunch their opinions are. The 
Americans do not want to live anywhere else and especially not in a 
country like the socialist Sweden. The Swedes do not want to live 
anywhere else and especially not the undemocratic US, where money is 
the only power. Yet, I have never found any countries that has so 
much in common as US and Sweden, this even if Sweden have a higher 
general living standard, according to UN and US statistic. That is 
also why Americans who live in Sweden generally like it very much and 
the same for Swedes who live in US.


What I want to get to, is that you should avoid to have those 
unqualified opinions about other countries. It is amazing how a 
little bit international experiences can make you more humble and 
appreciate that we are all people that basically like each other, 
once when we get the opportunity to meet. There are also many very 
good places to live, independent of what you think of their political label.


Visited Vietnam last year and it was amazing how Americanized and 
unsafe the south still was, compared to the north. As a whole, it was 
a very positive experience and interesting to see the places that I 
for years followed in the news. They  will develop fast and in a 
positive direction.


Hakan


At 17:16 13/08/2005, you wrote:

Keith,

I think you are confusing what I said.  I perfectly agreed with you 
that the U.S. is not a charitable organization, and does take much 
more than it gives (here and abroad).  I can't speak for other 
developing nations, as I have only lived in the U.S. (answering 
Harkan's question in another email).  But I expect you are correct 
about that too.  And the end result is an even bigger gap between 
the haves and the have-nots.


The charity I was referring to is when individuals like your or I 
give something (money, food, clothing, medicine, etc.) to someone 
else, without expecting anything in return.  It would be nice to 
know that if I send a dollar to help provide clean water to a 
village in Sudan, that 90 cents isn't being sucked up by some U.S. 
corporation before it even gets there.


Thanks,

Earl.

- Original Message - From: Keith Addison 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


No it is not charity, and this is the point you miss, I hope it's 
through ignorance rather than convenience, but I think it's already 
been pointed out to you. There is LOTS about it in the archives, 
and the gist of it is that all the industrialised nations, the 
so-called developed nations, and especially the US, take VERY 
much more than they give to poor countries, and even the 
giving, in the form of aid, is often or usually tied to 
benefiting commercial interests in the donor countries rather than 
benefiting poor people at the receiving end as alleged. All they 
get dumped on them is harsh neo-liberalism and yet more imported poverty.




___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-13 Thread KinsleyForPrez08

Harkan,

I have lived in the U.S. all my life, but can't say I am that happy about 
everything in this country.  The only other countries I have been to are 
Canada (not much different to the tourist) and Russia (post-Soviet Union). 
I have worked and socialized with people from other countries, including 
Russians, Canadians, Swedes, Indians, Turks, Germans, Frenchmen, Japanese, 
Mexicans, Brazilians and Chineses, and have seen the same, mostly satisfied 
patriotism among many of those people.  I have lived in 3 separate regions 
of the U.S., and visited many more, and I honestly like the area I grew up 
in the best (perhaps because of the socialist services provided by my city 
government).  I do not wish to say that America is better than anywhere else 
in the world, or that the American people are more enlightened that citizens 
of other nations (though the Americans on this list are better informed and 
have more independent thought than most).


One of the major problems I see in the U.S. today is the strict 
categorization that goes on here, whether by corporate marketing, television 
media or politicians.  As an intelligent, relatively well-informed person, I 
refuse to consider myself as categorized.  Though my political views are 
mostly libertarian, I am a staunch independent politically.  I feel that our 
corporations and citizens as a whole do not give a crap about the 
environment, whereas I care what happens to the land, air and water around 
me (hence one of the main reasons I joined this list, to figure out how I 
can have less of an impact on the earth in general).  But I do not consider 
myself an environmentalist of any sort (I will, however scold my friends and 
family for littering, not recycling and wasting energy).


I agree that money is power in the U.S., which is one of the benefits (and 
abuses) of capitalism.  I would like to believe that government should be 
above the greed, but it is no different than any other part of American 
society.  Nobody's perfect, but we do the best we can with what we are 
dealt.  It is nice to see people, like those on this list, who can look at 
the situations around the world rationally and form their own opinions about 
what is really happening.


To all on the list, I would like to thank you for the insightful 
conversations and vast amounts of information from around the world.  I am 
always learning something new about the U.S. and the world at large.  Much 
of it has strengthened my own opinions, but occasionally, my opinions have 
changed because of what I have digested here.


Thanks,

Earl.

- Original Message - 
From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country




Earl,

Why I asked?

I am Swedish and have lived and worked in 8 countries including US, worked 
in 25 and visited 60+ more. I found many things that I liked and some 
things that I disliked in all of them. I can make myself understood in 5 
languages, not including the Danish and Norweigian which are very close to 
Swedish.


A big majority in all countries, are very proud of their country and would 
not want to live anywhere else. The less international experiences they 
have, the more staunch their opinions are. The Americans do not want to 
live anywhere else and especially not in a country like the socialist 
Sweden. The Swedes do not want to live anywhere else and especially not 
the undemocratic US, where money is the only power. Yet, I have never 
found any countries that has so much in common as US and Sweden, this even 
if Sweden have a higher general living standard, according to UN and US 
statistic. That is also why Americans who live in Sweden generally like it 
very much and the same for Swedes who live in US.


What I want to get to, is that you should avoid to have those unqualified 
opinions about other countries. It is amazing how a little bit 
international experiences can make you more humble and appreciate that we 
are all people that basically like each other, once when we get the 
opportunity to meet. There are also many very good places to live, 
independent of what you think of their political label.


Visited Vietnam last year and it was amazing how Americanized and unsafe 
the south still was, compared to the north. As a whole, it was a very 
positive experience and interesting to see the places that I for years 
followed in the news. They  will develop fast and in a positive direction.


Hakan


At 17:16 13/08/2005, you wrote:

Keith,

I think you are confusing what I said.  I perfectly agreed with you that 
the U.S. is not a charitable organization, and does take much more than it 
gives (here and abroad).  I can't speak for other developing nations, as I 
have only lived in the U.S. (answering Harkan's question in another 
email).  But I expect you are correct about that too.  And the end result 
is an even bigger gap between

RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-13 Thread Tim Schlueter
There seems to be general agreement on this list that the U.S. should avoid 
foreign entanglements, at least when it comes to some of the uglier tenets of 
foreign policy.  Shouldn't we be just as concerned about so called benevolent 
tenets as well?  Even feeding and clothing the oppressed will upset the 
oppressors.  Perhaps what a foreign entanglement refers to is a personal 
decision driven by that person's views toward any one particular governmental 
involvement?
 
Tim Schlueter
St. Louis



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 8/12/2005 11:45 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Mike,
 
Where do I start?
 
First, I have a real problem with any government (U.S., state, local) taking my 
hard earned money (in the form of taxes) and redistributing it to others.  Now, 
there are legitimate things that each of these levels of government can spend 
taxpayer dollars on, namely, those outlined in their constitution or charter.  
In the case of the U.S. Government, these include national defense (not 
necessarily offense, though), minting currency, postal services, etc.  When the 
U.S. Government (or perhaps the state governments) start spending my money 
outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is no longer legit.  I would like to 
see Congress try and pass an Amendment to allow giving loans to foreign nations 
and never expecting repayment of those loans.  How much support do you think 
they would get from the populace?
 
Second, some people may consider giving funds or supplies to help poorer 
nations or refugee groups as charity, which it is.  But charity is you or I 
freely donating my money to others for the purpose of helping those in need.  I 
have given money to help victims of 9-11, I have helped feed the homeless in 
soup kitchens, I have given my old clothing and furniture to Goodwill, 
Salvation Army, etc.  Governments, such as our federal government, do not own 
the money they give to others - the money belongs to the taxpayers (and bond 
holders) who provide the money.  How can the U.S. Government consider giving 
money to poor African countries as charity, when it isn't their money to give?  
As I mentioned previously, if the U.S. Government would stop taking my hard 
earned money and donating away, perhaps I would have more money that I could 
freely give to organizations like the Red Cross (this is only one example, 
there are others) as charity.
 
Third, the idea of giving for the sake of giving is lost on most politicians.  
Inside the Beltway, a politician's power is measured by his or her ability to 
fundraise - accepting money from some generous sole to support some Cause of 
the day.  Have you ever met a political donor that didn't expect something in 
return?  The President and Congress are just as guilty of wanting something in 
return for helping other nations.  How much money have they pumped into the 
poorer nations of the Iraq War Coalition?
 
Socialism and true communism may have its value to some and will thrive in some 
places of the world, but I prefer not to live under it.  Or at least, if I have 
to, please call it as such - The Socialist Unoin of America.
 
The same goes for the United Nations.
 
Thanks for the opportunity to explain myself.
 
Earl.
 
- Original Message - 

From: Michael Redler mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


Earl,
 
Earl wrote: It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to 
donate any portion of 
their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global scale.
 
Giving it a name (i.e. socialism or ...ism), doesn't explain why you 
disagree. Please include something to support your position.
 
There are people in this list who (despite McCarthy's legacy) 
understand the value of socialism and even communism (not to be confused with 
Stalin's mislabeled brand of fascism) as a theoretical model for democracy.
 
Mike 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:48:58 -0300
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Dale,

I don't mean to deflate your dream, but why do we need the government 
beauracracy (of which the UN most certainly is) to guarranty these 
basic 
human rights? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of every person on 
the 
planet to protect his or her basic rights?

It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to donate any 
portion of 
their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global scale.

Your other point about

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-12 Thread Doug Younker
Earl,

Impossible for the lone individual to protect their own basic rights.
Recognition of that is way we attempt the rule of law.  There is socialism
and there are social programs, they aren't the same thing. The radical right
is depending on a sufficient number of persons not understanding that, while
they take more than their share, of this planet's resources.  Likewise they
depend on a negative connotation of beauracracy, beauracrats are everday
people working for a living.  Demonization and fear, two tools of the
radical right.
Doug, N0LKK

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


 Dale,

 I don't mean to deflate your dream, but why do we need the government
 beauracracy (of which the UN most certainly is) to guarranty these basic
 human rights?  Shouldn't that be the responsibility of every person on the
 planet to protect his or her basic rights?

 It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to donate any portion
of
 their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global scale.

 Your other point about not getting involved with those poorer nations is
 right on the money.  The biggest terrorism problems in the US today are a
 direct result of our meddling in other nations' affairs.  If we spent less
 time and money on controlling other countries, we could spend less time
and
 money on counter terrorism measures.  Maybe then my taxes will go down and
I
 would be able to donate my own money to those poorer nations.  But that,
my
 friend, is truly just a dream.

 Regards,

 Earl Kinsley
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 --
 That government is best which governs least.  --  Thomas Paine

 - Original Message - 
 From: Dale Seto
 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:10 AM
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


 This is a very wise and informed comment that Keith made, and I totally
 agree. I hope someday that the UN will ingrain and apply four basic rights
 for every human on this planet, and they are;
 1)  access to food
 2) access to clean water
 3) access to shelter
 4) personal security

 I also beleive that all wealthy countries be required to donate just 2% of
 their GDP to a fund to help accomplish this. Just think of all the extra
 money we are spending on counter terrorism that could be put towards this
 goal. It would also thwart terrorism because terrorists would not  be able
 to get a foothold or seek refige in the countries that our goodwill has
 touched. But our help must be unconditional. We must not get involved, or
 tell their country how to run it. All we would ask is that they be
peaceful
 and abide international law. I know that this is just pie in the sky and
 whishfull thinking, but its just a dream of mine.


 Best wishes, Dale


 ___
 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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-12 Thread KinsleyForPrez08



Mike,

Where do I start?

First, I have a real problem with any government 
(U.S., state, local) taking my hard earned money (in the form of taxes) and 
redistributing it to others. Now, there are legitimate things that each of 
these levels of government can spend taxpayer dollars on, namely, those outlined 
in their constitution or charter. In the case of the U.S. Government, 
these include national defense (not necessarily offense, though), minting 
currency, postal services, etc. When the U.S. Government (or perhaps the 
state governments) start spending my money outside the bounds of the 
Constitution, it is no longer legit. I would like to see Congress try and 
pass an Amendment to allow giving loans to foreign nations and never expecting 
repayment of those loans. How much support do you think they would get 
from the populace?

Second, some people may consider giving funds or 
supplies to help poorer nationsor refugee groups as charity, which it 
is. But charity is you or I freely donating my money to others for the 
purpose of helping those in need. I have given money to help victims of 
9-11, I have helped feed the homeless in soup kitchens, I have given my old 
clothing and furniture to Goodwill, Salvation Army, etc. Governments, such 
as our federal government, do not own the money they give to others - the money 
belongs to the taxpayers (and bond holders) who provide the money. How can 
the U.S. Government consider giving money to poor African countries as charity, 
when it isn't their money to give? As I mentioned previously, if the U.S. 
Government would stop taking my hard earned money and "donating" away, perhaps I 
would have more money that I could freely give to organizations like the Red 
Cross (this is only one example, there are others) as charity.

Third, the idea of giving for the sake of giving is 
lost on most politicians. Inside the "Beltway," a politician's power is 
measured by his or her ability to fundraise - accepting money from some 
"generous" sole to support some "Cause of the day." Have you ever met a 
political donor that didn't expect something in return? The President and 
Congress are just as guilty of wanting something in return for helping other 
nations. How much money have they pumped intothe poorer nations of 
the Iraq War Coalition?

Socialism and true communism may have its value to 
some and will thrive in some places of the world, but I prefer not to live under 
it. Or at least, if I have to, please call it as such - The Socialist 
Unoin of America.

The same goes for the United Nations.

Thanks for the opportunity to explain 
myself.

Earl.

- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Michael Redler 
  
  To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:35 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue 
  States/Country
  
  
  
  
  Earl,
  
  Earl wrote: "It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to "donate" 
  any portion of their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a 
  global scale."
  
  Giving it a name (i.e. socialism or ...ism), doesn't explain why you 
  disagree. Pleaseinclude something tosupport your position.
  
  There are people in this list who (despite McCarthy's legacy) understand 
  the value ofsocialism and even communism (not to be confused 
  withStalin's mislabeled brand of fascism) as a theoretical model for 
  democracy.
  
  Mike
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
  Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:48:58 
  -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryDale,I don't mean to deflate your dream, 
  but why do we need the government beauracracy (of which the UN most 
  certainly is) to guarranty these basic human rights? Shouldn't that be the 
  responsibility of every person on the planet to protect his or her basic 
  rights?It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to "donate" 
  any portion of their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a 
  global scale.Your other point about not getting involved with those 
  poorer nations is right on the money. The biggest terrorism problems in 
  the US today are a direct result of our meddling in other nations' 
  affairs. If we spent less time and money on controlling other countries, 
  we could spend less time and money on counter terrorism measures. Maybe 
  then my taxes will go down and I would be able to donate my own money to 
  those poorer nations. But that, my friend, is truly just a 
  dream.Regards,Earl Kinsley[EMAIL PROTECTED]--"That 
  government is best which governs least." -- Thomas 
  Paine
___
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 B

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-12 Thread robert luis rabello

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Where do I start?


Oh boy!
 
First, I have a real problem with any government (U.S., state, local) 
taking my hard earned money (in the form of taxes) and redistributing it 
to others.


	You live in a country where you have the ABILITY to earn your money, 
and you question the legitimacy of the government in taxing your 
income?  You live in a country with an elaborate infrastructure 
undreamed of by the Constitutional framers, and you have a problem 
with supporting that infrastructure?


 Now, there are legitimate things that each of these levels 
of government can spend taxpayer dollars on, namely, those outlined in 
their constitution or charter.


	We do not live in the same nation that existed in 1789 when the 
Constitution was ratified.


 In the case of the U.S. Government, 
these include national defense (not necessarily offense, though), 
minting currency, postal services, etc.  When the U.S. Government (or 
perhaps the state governments) start spending my money outside the 
bounds of the Constitution, it is no longer legit.


	Not so, else that kind of activity would have been deemed 
unconstitutional long ago.  Yours is a tired argument from the 1930s.


 I would like to see 
Congress try and pass an Amendment to allow giving loans to foreign 
nations and never expecting repayment of those loans.  How much support 
do you think they would get from the populace?


	What on earth are you talking about?  If you're so concerned with 
fiscal restraint, why not encourage the Federal Government to pass a 
balanced budget amendment?  Deficit spending is a serious problem, of 
which foreign aid is a vanishingly small percentage.


 Governments, such as our 
federal government, do not own the money they give to others - the money 
belongs to the taxpayers (and bond holders) who provide the money. 


	If you look on a dollar bill, you will find a statement that reads: 
Federal Reserve Note.  Read Section 8 of Article 1 for further 
enlightenment on this issue.



How can the U.S. Government consider giving money to poor African countries 
as charity, when it isn't their money to give?


	The percentage of spending that goes to aid nations in the Third 
World is tiny, compared to overall government spending, and while much 
of that spending goes right back into American corporations, the 
largest dollar amounts invested overseas occurs in the form of 
military assistance.  Israel, by the way, is the biggest recipient of 
American foreign aid.  We have discussed this issue to death 
previously.  A search of the archives is in order.


 As I mentioned 
previously, if the U.S. Government would stop taking my hard earned 
money and donating away, perhaps I would have more money that I could 
freely give to organizations like the Red Cross (this is only one 
example, there are others) as charity.


	The amount of money that you and I could donate for foreign aid would 
do very little to help.  Only governments have the financial 
wherewithal to make a difference.  We Americans like to think we're 
generous, but an examination of the facts shows a very different picture.


 
Third, the idea of giving for the sake of giving is lost on most 
politicians.  Inside the Beltway, a politician's power is measured by 
his or her ability to fundraise - accepting money from some generous 
sole to support some Cause of the day.  Have you ever met a political 
donor that didn't expect something in return?  The President and 
Congress are just as guilty of wanting something in return for helping 
other nations.  How much money have they pumped into the poorer nations 
of the Iraq War Coalition?


Likely a lot less than we've spent in Iraq ourselves.


Socialism and true communism may have its value to some and will thrive 
in some places of the world, but I prefer not to live under it.


	Then don't use the socialist electrical grid, power plants, highway 
system and telecommunications infrastructure that Americans have 
collectively paid for over the years.  I suspect you will also not 
want to participate in any of the corporate welfare that has gone on 
either.  Health care?  Don't bother going to a county hospital, or the 
local library.  Oh yes, and police and fire suppression should also be 
high on your list of socialist government services you can do without. 
 Even if you didn't learn how to read and write in a (horrors!) 
PUBLIC school, many of the rest of us did.  That literacy you've 
developed wouldn't do you a whole lot of good were it not for the 
ability of the rest of us to comprehend the grapheme / phoneme 
relationships that appear on our collective (gasp!) computer screens. 
 By the way, the internet itself had some initial government funding, 
did it not?  Rid yourself of all these socialist trappings before you 
come here and whine about the pathetic contribution our government 
makes to improving life for the poor people of this world.




The same goes 

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-10 Thread KinsleyForPrez08

Dale,

I don't mean to deflate your dream, but why do we need the government 
beauracracy (of which the UN most certainly is) to guarranty these basic 
human rights?  Shouldn't that be the responsibility of every person on the 
planet to protect his or her basic rights?


It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to donate any portion of 
their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global scale.


Your other point about not getting involved with those poorer nations is 
right on the money.  The biggest terrorism problems in the US today are a 
direct result of our meddling in other nations' affairs.  If we spent less 
time and money on controlling other countries, we could spend less time and 
money on counter terrorism measures.  Maybe then my taxes will go down and I 
would be able to donate my own money to those poorer nations.  But that, my 
friend, is truly just a dream.


Regards,

Earl Kinsley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
That government is best which governs least.  --  Thomas Paine

- Original Message - 
From: Dale Seto

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


This is a very wise and informed comment that Keith made, and I totally 
agree. I hope someday that the UN will ingrain and apply four basic rights 
for every human on this planet, and they are;

1)  access to food
2) access to clean water
3) access to shelter
4) personal security

I also beleive that all wealthy countries be required to donate just 2% of 
their GDP to a fund to help accomplish this. Just think of all the extra 
money we are spending on counter terrorism that could be put towards this 
goal. It would also thwart terrorism because terrorists would not  be able 
to get a foothold or seek refige in the countries that our goodwill has 
touched. But our help must be unconditional. We must not get involved, or 
tell their country how to run it. All we would ask is that they be peaceful 
and abide international law. I know that this is just pie in the sky and 
whishfull thinking, but its just a dream of mine.



Best wishes, Dale


___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-10 Thread Tom Irwin




Greeting Earl,

I'd love to see the U.S. stop meddling in other countries. Any chance you can get them to stop sending their 700 military advisors to the border of Peru and Bolivia with plans to ship a proposed division? While you are at it can you get the governemnet to stop wasting your tax money supporting American agribusinesses. Then perhaps the rest of the third world will be able to begin to fend for itself.

Just a thought or two,

Tom Irwin



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:48:58 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryDale,I don't mean to deflate your dream, but why do we need the government beauracracy (of which the UN most certainly is) to guarranty these basic human rights? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of every person on the planet to protect his or her basic rights?It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to "donate" any portion of their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global scale.Your other point about not getting involved with those poorer nations is right on the money. The biggest terrorism problems in the US today are a direct result of our meddling in other nations' affairs. If we spent less time and money on controlling other countries, we could spend less time and money on counter terrorism measures. Maybe then my taxes will go down and I would be able to donate my own money to those poorer nations. But that, my friend, is truly just a dream.Regards,Earl Kinsley[EMAIL PROTECTED]--"That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Paine- Original Message - From: Dale SetoTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:10 AMSubject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryThis is a very wise and informed comment that Keith made, and I totally agree. I hope someday that the UN will ingrain and apply four basic rights for every human on this planet, and they are;1) access to food2) access to clean water3) access to shelter4) personal securityI also beleive that all wealthy countries be required to donate just 2% of their GDP to a fund to help accomplish this. Just think of all the extra money we are spending on counter terrorism that could be put towards this goal. It would also thwart terrorism because terrorists would not be able to get a foothold or seek refige in the countries that our goodwill has touched. But our help must be unconditional. We must not get involved, or tell their country how to run it. All we would ask is that they be peaceful and abide international law. I know that this is just pie in the sky and whishfull thinking, but its just a dream of mine.Best wishes, Dale___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch 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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-10 Thread Michael Redler



Earl,

Earl wrote: "It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to "donate" any portion of their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global scale."

Giving it a name (i.e. socialism or ...ism), doesn't explain why you disagree. Pleaseinclude something tosupport your position.

There are people in this list who (despite McCarthy's legacy) understand the value ofsocialism and even communism (not to be confused withStalin's mislabeled brand of fascism) as a theoretical model for democracy.

Mike

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:48:58 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryDale,I don't mean to deflate your dream, but why do we need the government beauracracy (of which the UN most certainly is) to guarranty these basic human rights? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of every person on the planet to protect his or her basic rights?It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to "donate" any portion of their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global scale.Your other point about not getting involved with those poorer nations is right on the money. The biggest terrorism problems in the US today are a direct result of our meddling in other nations' affairs. If we spent less time and money on controlling other countries, we could spend less time and money on counter terrorism
 measures. Maybe then my taxes will go down and I would be able to donate my own money to those poorer nations. But that, my friend, is truly just a dream.Regards,Earl Kinsley[EMAIL PROTECTED]--"That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Paine- Original Message - From: Dale SetoTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:10 AMSubject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryThis is a very wise and informed comment that Keith made, and I totally agree. I hope someday that the UN will ingrain and apply four basic rights for every
 human on this planet, and they are;1) access to food2) access to clean water3) access to shelter4) personal securityI also beleive that all wealthy countries be required to donate just 2% of their GDP to a fund to help accomplish this. Just think of all the extra money we are spending on counter terrorism that could be put towards this goal. It would also thwart terrorism because terrorists would not be able to get a foothold or seek refige in the countries that our goodwill has touched. But our help must be unconditional. We must not get involved, or tell their country how to run it. All we would ask is that they be peaceful and abide international law. I know that this is just pie in the sky and whishfull thinking, but its just a dream of mine.Best wishes, Dale___
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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-10 Thread Mike Weaver

Me too.

Not to mention, has it every really worked out the way we thought it would?

Tom Irwin wrote:


Greeting Earl,
 
I'd love to see the U.S. stop meddling in other countries. Any chance 
you can get them to stop sending their 700 military advisors to the 
border of Peru and Bolivia with plans to ship a proposed division? 
While you are at it can you get the governemnet to stop wasting your 
tax money supporting American agribusinesses. Then perhaps the rest of 
the third world will be able to begin to fend for itself.
 
Just a thought or two,
 
Tom Irwin
 



*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
*Sent:* Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:48:58 -0300
*Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

Dale,

I don't mean to deflate your dream, but why do we need the government
beauracracy (of which the UN most certainly is) to guarranty these
basic
human rights? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of every person
on the
planet to protect his or her basic rights?

It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to donate any
portion of
their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global scale.

Your other point about not getting involved with those poorer
nations is
right on the money. The biggest terrorism problems in the US today
are a
direct result of our meddling in other nations' affairs. If we
spent less
time and money on controlling other countries, we could spend less
time and
money on counter terrorism measures. Maybe then my taxes will go
down and I
would be able to donate my own money to those poorer nations. But
that, my
friend, is truly just a dream.

Regards,

Earl Kinsley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
javascript:kh6k0(new,[EMAIL PROTECTED])
--
That government is best which governs least. -- Thomas Paine

- Original Message -
From: Dale Seto
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
javascript:kh6k0(new,Biofuel@sustainablelists.org)
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


This is a very wise and informed comment that Keith made, and I
totally
agree. I hope someday that the UN will ingrain and apply four
basic rights
for every human on this planet, and they are;
1) access to food
2) access to clean water
3) access to shelter
4) personal security

I also beleive that all wealthy countries be required to donate
just 2% of
their GDP to a fund to help accomplish this. Just think of all the
extra
money we are spending on counter terrorism that could be put
towards this
goal. It would also thwart terrorism because terrorists would not
be able
to get a foothold or seek refige in the countries that our
goodwill has
touched. But our help must be unconditional. We must not get
involved, or
tell their country how to run it. All we would ask is that they be
peaceful
and abide international law. I know that this is just pie in the
sky and
whishfull thinking, but its just a dream of mine.


Best wishes, Dale


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
javascript:kh6k0(new,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/

 




___
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] The New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and comments

2005-08-07 Thread Mike Weaver

Keith Addison wrote:


Hello Mike

Joseph Stiglitz (and my father, who is a development economist) make 
the following points:

Globalization is not going away, nor can we wish it away.



I don't know of anybody who does wish it away. I don't know why you 
might think that I'd like to - because I said this?


*  I do think there is a desire to wish it away or at least in its 
current form.  I made this remark more as a generality - not as specific 
response to your comments.
I personally believe that most of Stiglitz's comments are on target.  
Globalization has largely been hijacked for the benefit of rich 
countries and at the expense of poor countries.  I do think there are 
tangential benefits and that some developing countries have benefited, 
albeit at a cost - environmental damage comes to mind.




It all comes down to the same thing, the one single reason that 
development and aid are needed in the first place: the reason 
poverty and hunger exist on such a vast scale in a world of plenty 
is an inequitable world economic system. Any effort to change that 
at any level might accomplish more than many bilateral aid 
programs do. Hence the ongoing worldwide protests, it's a major item 
on the agenda of the Other Superpower.




The Other Superpower, when it protests at WTO or G8 meetings, is 
invariably dubbed anti-globalisation by the mainstream media, though 
that is not their message, they're not anti-globalisation, they're 
anti corporate globalisation, a very different matter, not an 
inevitability, and it will indeed go away.


I think that's a point we both agree on - I think the mainstream media 
always manages to find the looniest participents and get them on TV.  
There is a world of well-reasoned Globalization thought, but it often 
seems to be drowned out, or overshadowed by a few boneheaded hooligans 
smashing things and creating mayhem at a protest.  I do not particularly 
think corporate globalisation is a good thing, except for corporations 
and perhaps those buying really cheap things at WalMart.  That's what I 
mean when I say globalization has been hijacked for the benefit of the 
wealthy.  The key issue now is how to effect change?  What steps can be 
taken to move globalization to more equitable form?  I believe one way 
is to hold corporations accountable.  With all due respect, and I am 
very grateful for and impressed by amount of work you put into this 
list, as well as your well-reasoned commentary, I fear that unless there 
is a coordinated and large response to the current iteration of 
globalization, the corporations will have their way. 

I think we have articulated what the problem is: an inequitable world 
economic system - the current system - globalization is a large piece - 
continues to support this.  What is the framework for change?  It won't 
come from the US.  Finland maybe, but the US, at least for now, is 
hopeless. 


- More later - have to go meet on of my Biodiesel buddies!



There's quite a lot about Stiglitz in the list archives, including this:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8835
TomPaine.com - The Way Ahead

From Globalization and Its Discontents, by Joseph E. Stiglitz

Today, globalization is being challenged around the world. There is 
discontent with globalization, and rightfully so. Globalization can be 
a force for good: the globalization of ideas about democracy and of 
civil society have changed the way people think, while global 
political movements have led to debt relief and the treaty on land mines.


Globalization has helped hundreds of millions of people attain higher 
standards of living, beyond what they, or most economists, thought 
imaginable but a short while ago. The globalization of the economy has 
benefited countries that took advantage of it by seeking new markets 
for their exports and by welcoming foreign investment. Even so, the 
countries that have benefited the most have been those that took 
charge of their own destiny and recognized the role government can 
play in development rather than relying on the notion of a 
self-regulated market that would fix its own problems.


But for millions of people globalization has not worked. Many have 
actually been made worse off, as they have seen their jobs destroyed 
and their lives become more insecure. They have felt increasingly 
powerless against forces beyond their control. They have seen their 
democracies undermined, their cultures eroded.


If globalization continues to be conducted in the way that has been 
in the past, if we continue to fail to learn from our mistakes, 
globalization will not only not succeed in promoting development but 
will continue to create poverty and instability. Without reform, the 
backlash that has started will mount and discontent with globalization 
will grow...


[more]

I think the most realistic approach is to work hard to put as human 
a face as possible on it.  Work to make it more equitable, and keep 
track of companies who 

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and comments

2005-08-06 Thread Mike Weaver

Have a look at http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/factsheet.htm

I was in and out of the development world for years, though never as a 
program manager nor direct architect of projects.  I did spend a fair 
amount of time
reviewing and visiting projects, almost all in Africa. 

My thoughts are, and it is still not fashionable to say it, that aid 
projects are generally hopeless.  This is not to say that for instance 
building a well or constructing a road is a bad idea, it is not, but 
simply handing out money to the governments of developing countries is a 
loss.  I have also observed that when simply handing out funds as a 
grant many times results in the group collecting a salary until the 
grant runs out, then the projects fade away.  I would hasten to say this 
is not always the case and some projects do take root ans succeed.


The best model I have observed is to make long term, low or no interest 
loans directly to well-organized groups that have prepared a solid 
business plan.  Treat the project the same as a bank would view a small 
business loan.  If there is a solid business idea, it will work, if not, 
then the funds would go to a project with a better plan.  This cuts out 
the government, which very often cannot resist taking a little (or 
large) cut. 

Of course, many other variables apply:  some countries do not have the 
social infrastructure - I don't believe I would pour money into Congo or 
Zimbabwe right now, but others do, such as Botswana, Ghana, Uganda and 
many others.


As for corruption, I don't think the US is in any position to start 
screaming about it - call it what you will - but sweetheart deals with 
hallibuton, giveaways to the oil industry - it amounts to the same 
thing.  We're just more complicit because we don't protest.


I agree w/ the UN comments - I think we should appropriate the notion of 
Finlandization only in a political sense, and apply to the UN.  They 
DO need to clean up their act - they've brought most of their reputation 
on themselves.  But the US could stand a little of this too.


-Mike

Dale Seto wrote:

You have very good points, Hakan. The 2% is just a number that I 
dreamed up. It could be more or less depending on what each country 
can afford at the time. Nobody can expect a country which is mired in 
a recession, for example, to give as freely as the good times. But if 
we all could give as much as humanly possible it would be great. If 
the naysyers of foreign aid say that we should only take care of own, 
we should appeal to their greed instead. We should tell them that 
foreign aid is just an investment for third world countries to get on 
their feet to become future consumers of our products like 
refridgerators, stoves, nuclear power reactors, and gas guzzling 
SUV's. I'm sure the oil industry would like that!


It just seems that when we try to help the third world, and get their 
feet on the first rung of the ladder, a disaster like famine or 
sunami, or earthquake kicks them off the ladder again. 

As for the UN. You are absolutely right. There needs to be reform in a 
big way. But we shouldn't despair because just like any other huge 
political organization misuse and scandal do hapen. But we must not 
drift away from our goal of the perfect planet. Even in Canada, we are 
bombarded with government scandal and corrupt behaviour from time to 
time. And as Canadians, we are supposed to hold ourselves to high 
moral standards. Yeah, right.


But that should certainly not deter us from trying to help in our own 
way, no matter what that help entails.


Thanks for your comments, Dale   





From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:45:33 +0200


Dale,

It is difficult and 2% is a very high value. European countries have
a 1 % goal and several of them give around 0.8% of GDP. For most
European countries, it is a true 0.8% with little hooks, like that
they have to spend the money in purchases from the donor Country.

US give 0.2% of GDP and have spending rules, which forces US
purchases. Even if you consider that US GDP is 1.5 to 2 times higher
than many European countries, the US aid is less than half of most
European Countries per capita. In real term it is larger than any
other individual country, but significantly lower than EU together.
US have the advantage of its size and population, when they say that
they are the largest contributor and Europe do not yet count as a
nation in this respect.

To be able to get a more peaceful world, it helps if the nations
recognize, respect and obey international law. It would help a lot
if US recognized and participated in the International Court. US
says that they do not want to give anyone else the right to judge US
citizens than US courts, the rules for the International court give
however the members preferred right to persecute any crimes. It is
only

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and comments

2005-08-06 Thread Dale Seto

Thanks, Mike
But don't you think that this hypothetical "2%" could be put into a fund to do just that? A nestegg, so to speak, to give out these low interest loans? But then who would be trustworthy enough to administer these loans and make it transparent enough for all to watchdog it? I guess we are running into the same problem over and over again.
See ya.From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and commentsDate: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 09:49:31 -0400Have a look at http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/factsheet.htmI was in and out of the development world for years, though never as a program manager nor direct architect of projects.I did spend a fair amount of timereviewing and visiting projects, almost all in Africa.My thoughts are, and it is still not fashionable to say it, that aid projects are generally hopeless.This is not to say that for instance building a well or constructing a road is a bad idea, it is not, but simply 
handing out money to the governments of developing countries is a loss.I have also observed that when simply handing out funds as a grant many times results in the group collecting a salary until the grant runs out, then the projects fade away.I would hasten to say this is not always the case and some projects do take root ans succeed.The best model I have observed is to make long term, low or no interest loans directly to well-organized groups that have prepared a solid business plan.Treat the project the same as a bank would view a small business loan.If there is a solid business idea, it will work, if not, then the funds would go to a project with a better plan.This cuts out the government, which very often cannot resist 
taking a little (or large) cut.Of course, many other variables apply:some countries do not have the social infrastructure - I don't believe I would pour money into Congo or Zimbabwe right now, but others do, such as Botswana, Ghana, Uganda and many others.As for corruption, I don't think the US is in any position to start screaming about it - call it what you will - but sweetheart deals with hallibuton, giveaways to the oil industry - it amounts to the same thing.We're just more complicit because we don't protest.I agree w/ the UN comments - I think we should appropriate the notion of "Finlandization" only in a political sense, and apply to the UN.They DO need to clean up their act - they've brought most of their reputation on 
themselves.But the US could stand a little of this too.-MikeDale Seto wrote:You have very good points, Hakan. The 2% is just a number that I dreamed up. It could be more or less depending on what each country can afford at the time. Nobody can expect a country which is mired in a recession, for example, to give as freely as the good times. But if we all could give as much as humanly possible it would be great. If the naysyers of foreign aid say that we should only take care of own, we should appeal to their greed instead. We should tell them that foreign aid is just an investment for third world countries to get on their feet to become future consumers of our products like refridgerators, stoves, nuclear power 
reactors, and gas guzzling SUV's. I'm sure the oil industry would like that!It just seems that when we try to help the third world, and get their feet on the first rung of the ladder, a disaster like famine or sunami, or earthquake kicks them off the ladder again.As for the UN. You are absolutely right. There needs to be reform in a big way. But we shouldn't despair because just like any other huge political organization misuse and scandal do hapen. But we must not drift away from our goal of the perfect planet. Even in Canada, we are bombarded with government scandal and corrupt behaviour from time to time. And as Canadians, we are supposed to hold ourselves to high moral standards. Yeah, right.But that should 
certainly not deter us from trying to help in our own way, no matter what that help entails.Thanks for your comments, Dale From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:45:33 +0200   Dale,  It is difficult and 2% is a very high value. European countries have a 1 % goal and several of them give around 0.8% of GDP. For most European countries, it is a true 0.8% with little hooks, like that they have to spend the money in 
purchases from the donor Country.  US give 0.2% of GDP and have spending rules, which forces US purchases. Even if you consider that US GDP is 1.5 to 2 times higher than many European countries, the US aid is less than half of most European Countries per capita. In real term it is larger than any other individual country, but significantly lower than EU together. US have the advantage of its size and population, when they say that 

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and comments

2005-08-06 Thread Mike Weaver
Yes, I do.  But first you have to convince the donor countries to do it 
and that it is in their interest.


Look at: http://www.commondreams.org/views/101100-101.htm
and look up William Easterly's work.

I am afraid I'm kind of pessimistic right now - the whole foreign aid 
issue, while not intractable, requires both donor and donee to rethink 
the process.
But that is a very difficult notion and the status quo has a lot of 
momentum right now.  I do not see how the US can find money to blow Iraq 
to bits but can't even follow its commitment to rebuild Afganistan.


Mike

Dale Seto wrote:


Thanks, Mike

But don't you think that this hypothetical 2% could be put into a 
fund to do just that? A nestegg, so to speak, to give out these low 
interest loans? But then who would be trustworthy enough to administer 
these loans and make it transparent enough for all to watchdog it? I 
guess we are running into the same problem over and over again.


See ya.




From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and 
comments

Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 09:49:31 -0400

Have a look at http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/factsheet.htm

I was in and out of the development world for years, though never as
a program manager nor direct architect of projects.  I did spend a
fair amount of time
reviewing and visiting projects, almost all in Africa.

My thoughts are, and it is still not fashionable to say it, that aid
projects are generally hopeless.  This is not to say that for
instance building a well or constructing a road is a bad idea, it is
not, but simply handing out money to the governments of developing
countries is a loss.  I have also observed that when simply handing
out funds as a grant many times results in the group collecting a
salary until the grant runs out, then the projects fade away.  I
would hasten to say this is not always the case and some projects do
take root ans succeed.

The best model I have observed is to make long term, low or no
interest loans directly to well-organized groups that have prepared
a solid business plan.  Treat the project the same as a bank would
view a small business loan.  If there is a solid business idea, it
will work, if not, then the funds would go to a project with a
better plan.  This cuts out the government, which very often cannot
resist taking a little (or large) cut.

Of course, many other variables apply:  some countries do not have
the social infrastructure - I don't believe I would pour money into
Congo or Zimbabwe right now, but others do, such as Botswana, Ghana,
Uganda and many others.

As for corruption, I don't think the US is in any position to start
screaming about it - call it what you will - but sweetheart deals
with hallibuton, giveaways to the oil industry - it amounts to the
same thing.  We're just more complicit because we don't protest.

I agree w/ the UN comments - I think we should appropriate the
notion of Finlandization only in a political sense, and apply to
the UN.  They DO need to clean up their act - they've brought most
of their reputation on themselves.  But the US could stand a little
of this too.

-Mike

Dale Seto wrote:

You have very good points, Hakan. The 2% is just a number that I
dreamed up. It could be more or less depending on what each country
can afford at the time. Nobody can expect a country which is mired
in a recession, for example, to give as freely as the good times.
But if we all could give as much as humanly possible it would be
great. If the naysyers of foreign aid say that we should only take
care of own, we should appeal to their greed instead. We should
tell them that foreign aid is just an investment for third world
countries to get on their feet to become future consumers of our
products like refridgerators, stoves, nuclear power reactors, and
gas guzzling SUV's. I'm sure the oil industry would like that!

It just seems that when we try to help the third world, and get
their feet on the first rung of the ladder, a disaster like famine
or sunami, or earthquake kicks them off the ladder again.

As for the UN. You are absolutely right. There needs to be reform
in a big way. But we shouldn't despair because just like any other
huge political organization misuse and scandal do hapen. But we
must not drift away from our goal of the perfect planet. Even in
Canada, we are bombarded with government scandal and corrupt
behaviour from time to time. And as Canadians, we are supposed to
hold ourselves to high moral standards. Yeah, right.

But that should certainly not deter us from trying to help in our
own way, no matter what that help entails.

Thanks for your comments, Dale




 From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
 Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:45:33 +0200
 
 
 Dale,
 
 It is difficult and 2

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and comments

2005-08-06 Thread Keith Addison
 political organization misuse and scandal do hapen. But we 
must not drift away from our goal of the perfect planet. Even in 
Canada, we are bombarded with government scandal and corrupt 
behaviour from time to time. And as Canadians, we are supposed to 
hold ourselves to high moral standards. Yeah, right.


But that should certainly not deter us from trying to help in our 
own way, no matter what that help entails.


Thanks for your comments, Dale




From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:45:33 +0200


Dale,

It is difficult and 2% is a very high value. European countries have
a 1 % goal and several of them give around 0.8% of GDP. For most
European countries, it is a true 0.8% with little hooks, like that
they have to spend the money in purchases from the donor Country.

US give 0.2% of GDP and have spending rules, which forces US
purchases. Even if you consider that US GDP is 1.5 to 2 times higher
than many European countries, the US aid is less than half of most
European Countries per capita. In real term it is larger than any
other individual country, but significantly lower than EU together.
US have the advantage of its size and population, when they say that
they are the largest contributor and Europe do not yet count as a
nation in this respect.

To be able to get a more peaceful world, it helps if the nations
recognize, respect and obey international law. It would help a lot
if US recognized and participated in the International Court. US
says that they do not want to give anyone else the right to judge US
citizens than US courts, the rules for the International court give
however the members preferred right to persecute any crimes. It is
only if the member do not do this, that the International court can
come into play.

We all know about the UN problems and the food for oil scandal etc.,
in which many  US corporations were the real beneficiaries. I like
very much Galloways speech, when the US called him to testify and
announced that he would be harshly interrogated. The reality was
that the US representatives and US was truthfully exposed in all
their own corruptness. I saved the speech and it is great, brought
it up on my server for a while, if someone missed it,
http://hakanfalk.com/msnbc_uk_galloway_blisters_us_on_iraq_050517-01b.wmv
Big file 2.5 Mb, but really worth downloading and look/hear at. It
is not often the US representatives look like disoriented school
kids.

Talking about corruption,
http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2004/cpi2004.en.html#cpi2004

US is today talking a lot about UN reforms, but show no signs of
willingness to deal with its own corruption problems. It is quite
telling, how Bush appointed the new UN ambassador, by in a
calculated manner utilizing an emergency rule instead of going
through the process. I cannot imagine that this rule was created for
this purpose and it looks as a corruptive way to do it.

Hakan


At 04:10 PM 8/2/2005, you wrote:

This is a very wise and informed comment that Keith made, and I
totally agree. I hope someday that the UN will ingrain and apply
four basic rights for every human on this planet, and they are;

1)  access to food

2) access to clean water

3) access to shelter

4) personal security



I also beleive that all wealthy countries be required to donate
just 2% of their GDP to a fund to help accomplish this. Just think
of all the extra money we are spending on counter terrorism that
could be put towards this goal. It would also thwart terrorism
because terrorists would not  be able to get a foothold or seek
refige in the countries that our goodwill has touched. But our help
must be unconditional. We must not get involved, or tell their
country how to run it. All we would ask is that they be peaceful
and abide international law. I know that this is just pie in the
sky and whishfull thinking, but its just a dream of mine.

Best wishes, Dale


 From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 11:47:03 +0900
 
 uphold and fight for some snails life, being of great
importance
 and right to live, yet believe it is okay to kill babies.
 
 I would have to say I disagree!  the Netiqutte rules govern my
 language. There is a massive over population problem on this
planet
 and it is not the snails. Nuff said?
 Brian Rodgers
 
 Not 'nuff said. The massive overpopulation problem on this planet
is
 a myth. From a previous message, rather than having to thrash it
out
 all over again:
 
 The overpopulation problem is more realistically a
marginalisation
 problem. There's plenty of room and resources for everyone and
 everything else too, except the greedy. Check it out -
 eco-footprinting's a not-bad place to start, it's developed a
lot
 in recent years. Look at which

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and comments

2005-08-06 Thread Mike Weaver
 at the time. Nobody can expect a country which is mired 
in a recession, for example, to give as freely as the good times. 
But if we all could give as much as humanly possible it would be 
great. If the naysyers of foreign aid say that we should only take 
care of own, we should appeal to their greed instead. We should tell 
them that foreign aid is just an investment for third world 
countries to get on their feet to become future consumers of our 
products like refridgerators, stoves, nuclear power reactors, and 
gas guzzling SUV's. I'm sure the oil industry would like that!


It just seems that when we try to help the third world, and get 
their feet on the first rung of the ladder, a disaster like famine 
or sunami, or earthquake kicks them off the ladder again.
As for the UN. You are absolutely right. There needs to be reform in 
a big way. But we shouldn't despair because just like any other huge 
political organization misuse and scandal do hapen. But we must not 
drift away from our goal of the perfect planet. Even in Canada, we 
are bombarded with government scandal and corrupt behaviour from 
time to time. And as Canadians, we are supposed to hold ourselves to 
high moral standards. Yeah, right.


But that should certainly not deter us from trying to help in our 
own way, no matter what that help entails.


Thanks for your comments, Dale




From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:45:33 +0200


Dale,

It is difficult and 2% is a very high value. European countries have
a 1 % goal and several of them give around 0.8% of GDP. For most
European countries, it is a true 0.8% with little hooks, like that
they have to spend the money in purchases from the donor Country.

US give 0.2% of GDP and have spending rules, which forces US
purchases. Even if you consider that US GDP is 1.5 to 2 times higher
than many European countries, the US aid is less than half of most
European Countries per capita. In real term it is larger than any
other individual country, but significantly lower than EU together.
US have the advantage of its size and population, when they say that
they are the largest contributor and Europe do not yet count as a
nation in this respect.

To be able to get a more peaceful world, it helps if the nations
recognize, respect and obey international law. It would help a lot
if US recognized and participated in the International Court. US
says that they do not want to give anyone else the right to judge US
citizens than US courts, the rules for the International court give
however the members preferred right to persecute any crimes. It is
only if the member do not do this, that the International court can
come into play.

We all know about the UN problems and the food for oil scandal etc.,
in which many  US corporations were the real beneficiaries. I like
very much Galloways speech, when the US called him to testify and
announced that he would be harshly interrogated. The reality was
that the US representatives and US was truthfully exposed in all
their own corruptness. I saved the speech and it is great, brought
it up on my server for a while, if someone missed it,
http://hakanfalk.com/msnbc_uk_galloway_blisters_us_on_iraq_050517-01b.wmv 


Big file 2.5 Mb, but really worth downloading and look/hear at. It
is not often the US representatives look like disoriented school
kids.

Talking about corruption,
http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2004/cpi2004.en.html#cpi2004

US is today talking a lot about UN reforms, but show no signs of
willingness to deal with its own corruption problems. It is quite
telling, how Bush appointed the new UN ambassador, by in a
calculated manner utilizing an emergency rule instead of going
through the process. I cannot imagine that this rule was created for
this purpose and it looks as a corruptive way to do it.

Hakan


At 04:10 PM 8/2/2005, you wrote:

This is a very wise and informed comment that Keith made, and I
totally agree. I hope someday that the UN will ingrain and apply
four basic rights for every human on this planet, and they are;

1)  access to food

2) access to clean water

3) access to shelter

4) personal security



I also beleive that all wealthy countries be required to donate
just 2% of their GDP to a fund to help accomplish this. Just think
of all the extra money we are spending on counter terrorism that
could be put towards this goal. It would also thwart terrorism
because terrorists would not  be able to get a foothold or seek
refige in the countries that our goodwill has touched. But our help
must be unconditional. We must not get involved, or tell their
country how to run it. All we would ask is that they be peaceful
and abide international law. I know that this is just pie in the
sky and whishfull thinking, but its just a dream of mine.

Best wishes, Dale


 From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and comments

2005-08-06 Thread Keith Addison

Hello Mike

Joseph Stiglitz (and my father, who is a development economist) make 
the following points:

Globalization is not going away, nor can we wish it away.


I don't know of anybody who does wish it away. I don't know why you 
might think that I'd like to - because I said this?


It all comes down to the same thing, the one single reason that 
development and aid are needed in the first place: the reason 
poverty and hunger exist on such a vast scale in a world of plenty 
is an inequitable world economic system. Any effort to change that 
at any level might accomplish more than many bilateral aid 
programs do. Hence the ongoing worldwide protests, it's a major 
item on the agenda of the Other Superpower.


The Other Superpower, when it protests at WTO or G8 meetings, is 
invariably dubbed anti-globalisation by the mainstream media, 
though that is not their message, they're not anti-globalisation, 
they're anti corporate globalisation, a very different matter, not an 
inevitability, and it will indeed go away.


There's quite a lot about Stiglitz in the list archives, including this:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8835
TomPaine.com - The Way Ahead

From Globalization and Its Discontents, by Joseph E. Stiglitz

Today, globalization is being challenged around the world. There is 
discontent with globalization, and rightfully so. Globalization can 
be a force for good: the globalization of ideas about democracy and 
of civil society have changed the way people think, while global 
political movements have led to debt relief and the treaty on land 
mines.


Globalization has helped hundreds of millions of people attain 
higher standards of living, beyond what they, or most economists, 
thought imaginable but a short while ago. The globalization of the 
economy has benefited countries that took advantage of it by seeking 
new markets for their exports and by welcoming foreign investment. 
Even so, the countries that have benefited the most have been those 
that took charge of their own destiny and recognized the role 
government can play in development rather than relying on the notion 
of a self-regulated market that would fix its own problems.


But for millions of people globalization has not worked. Many have 
actually been made worse off, as they have seen their jobs destroyed 
and their lives become more insecure. They have felt increasingly 
powerless against forces beyond their control. They have seen their 
democracies undermined, their cultures eroded.


If globalization continues to be conducted in the way that has been 
in the past, if we continue to fail to learn from our mistakes, 
globalization will not only not succeed in promoting development but 
will continue to create poverty and instability. Without reform, the 
backlash that has started will mount and discontent with 
globalization will grow...


[more]

I think the most realistic approach is to work hard to put as human 
a face as possible on it.  Work to make it more equitable, and keep 
track of companies who do not follow reasonabley socially and 
environmentally responsible business practices.  Think Nike and 
their sweatshop problem.  I personally boycott a number of 
companiesL Walmart, Exxon and others - I just can't stomach their 
business ethics.  One of the reasons I home brew is that I don't 
want make the oil situation worse, support the petroluem system, 
perpetuate a world where we have to import insanely expensive oil 
from people who finance those whom want to kill us.


Are you quite sure that's the way it is? A bit context-free isn't it?

Keith

Also I'm a cheapskate and 46 mpg on near-free fuel appeals to me! 
Lower emmisions too!


-Mike


Keith Addison wrote:


Hello Mike


Have a look at http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/factsheet.htm

I was in and out of the development world for years, though never 
as a program manager nor direct architect of projects.  I did 
spend a fair amount of time

reviewing and visiting projects, almost all in Africa.
My thoughts are, and it is still not fashionable to say it,



In some circles it's well known and acknowledged. I'd hope that 
this could be one of them.


that aid projects are generally hopeless.  This is not to say that 
for instance building a well or constructing a road is a bad idea, 
it is not, but simply handing out money to the governments of 
developing countries is a loss.  I have also observed that when 
simply handing out funds as a grant many times results in the 
group collecting a salary until the grant runs out, then the 
projects fade away.  I would hasten to say this is not always the 
case and some projects do take root ans succeed.



Bilateral aid is generally a dead loss, as I was saying - that is, 
it's often a dead loss as far as the purported beneficiaries are 
concerned, the target group, but usually not as far as the real 
target group is concerned, which far too often is still business 
interests in the donor country. And of course 

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

2005-08-05 Thread Dale Seto
 of mine.Best wishes, 
Dale From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 11:47:03 +0900  uphold and fight for some snails life, being of great importance and right to live, yet believe it is okay to kill babies.  I would have to say "I disagree!"the Netiqutte rules govern my language. There is a massive over population problem on this planet and it is not the snails. Nuff said? Brian Rodgers  Not 'nuff said. The massive 
overpopulation problem on this planet is a myth. From a previous message, rather than having to thrash it out all over again:  The overpopulation problem is more realistically a marginalisation problem. There's plenty of room and resources for everyone and everything else too, except the greedy. Check it out - eco-footprinting's a not-bad place to start, it's developed a lot in recent years. Look at which societies exceed their due allotment and which don't, check the groups within those societies which exceed their due allotment and which don't.  "Myth 3 - Too Many People. Reality: Birth rates are 
falling rapidly worldwide as remaining regions of the Third World begin the demographic transition -- when birth rates drop in response to an earlier decline in death rates. Although rapid population growth remains a serious concern in many countries, nowhere does population density explain hunger. For every Bangladesh, a densely populated and hungry country, we find a Nigeria, Brazil or Bolivia, where abundant food resources coexist with hunger. Costa Rica, with only half of Honduras' cropped acres per person, boasts a life expectancy -- one indicator of nutrition -- 11 years longer than that of Honduras and close to that of 
developed countries. Rapid population growth is not the root cause of hunger. Like hunger itself, it results from underlying inequities that deprive people, especially poor women, of economic opportunity and security. Rapid population growth and hunger are endemic to societies where land ownership, jobs, education, health care, and old age security are beyond the reach of most people. Those Third World societies with dramatically successful early and rapid reductions of population growth rates -- China, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Cuba and the Indian state of Kerala -- prove that the lives of the poor, especially poor women, must improve before they 
can choose to have fewer children." http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html 12 Myths About Hunger  There's a very large amount of evidence for that.  "A smaller increase in production would suffice if its growth were accompanied by more equitable access to food. This could be achieved through redistribution - of food itself, of the means of producing it or of the purchasing power needed to buy it -- to those currently on the lower rungs of the food access ladder." Unfortunately, the experience of the past thirty years shows no significant decline in inequity of access among households in 
most countries." -- FAO http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/OIS/PRESS_NE/PRESSENG/2001/pren0169.htm  "Overpopulation" is a symptom, just as poverty and hunger are symptoms, and the cause is an inequitable economic system. If overpopulation were a reality it would indeed be an intractable problem; if poverty and hunger existed, and increased as they do, because there just wasn't enough to go round, that too would be an intractable problem. But a dysfunctional economic system is not an intractable problem.  http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg32911.html Re: [biofuel] The Oil we eat 
(Harper's)  Best wishes  Keith___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch 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/



  1   2   >