Since I don't have a lot of time to sit down and write many different responses,I thought I'd tie four of them up into one.
First Frank questioned my attack of The Nation:
>Jealous much? "The Nation" has been around for almost 135 years.
Jealous? OF THE NATION? You've got to be kidding. Like I said, I could get
more news from the National Enquirer.
As for it being around 135 years, well, only the good die young.
>It
>started out as a leftish, abolitionist, and investigative paper. It continues
>to do so (I read it for Alexander Cockburn's columns).
Well, it continues to be one out of the three. (Care to guess which one,
Frank?)
>I don't think there are many conservative publications that can
>boast a long history like that.
Or any that would want to.
Next came Frank's response to Brian which I had to comment on one point:
>I will explain to you the way I explained it to John Pak. The rain-
>forest is EVERYONE'S problem. Not just an ideological one. If the rainforest
>is destroyed, then our oxygen won't be as clean.
Frank, while you're in school, please take a class in either Chemistry or Bio-
logy. The rain forest doesn't "clean up" our oxygen. It converts CO2 into
oxygen, by that little process called photosynthesis. And it doesn't even di
(make that do) it that well, since only the tops of the rain forest trees catch
enough sunlight to undergo photosynthesis. Loss of the rain forest would in-
crease the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, thus having an effect on the
temperature, since CO2 absorbs IR radiation, but not have a dramatically huge
effect.
Next was Frank's attack at my "defense" of corporate power:
>The word "corporate" should be a dirty word. Corporations wield
>more power in almost every aspect of life than anything else.
No, government does. Especially in the 50 states. And the word "corporate"
should not be a dirty word. Go back and read what the definition of a
"corporation" is.
>1. Corporations are very influential in our political process( the
> petroleum and tobacco industries help pour millions of dollars into
> the war chests of candidates who are favorable to them through their
> PACs.
So are unions and lawyers, who pour millions of dollars into Democratic coffers
every year.
And a lot of the PACs you mention contribute quite heavily to Democrats. Are
you sure your side wants to get rid of PACS?
Surprisingly, Frank, you didn't mention that many corporations donate money to
your favorite environmental groups, who end up boning them over when it comes topushing for regulations that will hamper the corporations that essentially give
them blackmail money. Gee, I wonder why...
> 2. Corporations these days are transnational, and there aren't a lot
> of laws to stop them. They can go wherever it is cheaper to work, and
> exploit the local population, and destroy their environment(e.g.
> Union Carbide in Bhopal, India).
Exploit the local population by giving them work? "No thanks, we don't need
the jobs, just send the money."
As far as destroying the local environment, shouldn't that be the job of the
individual countries to prosecute in their own jurisdictions, instead of you
sitting back here 10,000 miles away telling India what to do?
> 3. Corporations actually aren't very conducive to free-market
> economics. They monopolize, and that keeps out entrepreneurs and
> innovative thinking. Something that isn't really discussed is Adam
> Smith's disdain for corporations(he called them "joint-stock
> companies").
You a defender of free-market economics? Well, ain't that a kick in the head!
And I never thought I'd see you use the word "entrepenuer." Isn't that another
word on The Nation's shit list?
How do they monopolize, Frank? They only do so if government lets them. And
them only if it behooves individuals within the government to keep monopolies
going. And right now the group that needs to keep big business going are
liberal Democrats. Why? Because for the last few years, big business hasn't
been hiring anybody. Who has? Small business. But if they're hiring people,
that's taking them off the unemployment lines and welfare rolls, where they're
beholden to the Democrats, who always want to "increase their benefits." So
if you want to maintain power in America over the people, are you going to
back the group that's freeing people up by giving them jobs or the ones that
are downsizing right now, especially if it's your goal to keep them poor.
I don't tend to believe that all corporations are saints. They're not all
devils, either, as you seem to want to categorize them. If a corporation is
genuinely harming the environment or genuinely exploiting, fine them. BIG.
But if they fail to turn in one form to the government over the years or they
put out x+1 ppbs of a compound when the legal limit (usually never tested
scientifically and never cost-analyzed) is x ppb, then LEAVE THEM THE HELL
ALONE! We could probably do away with 90% of the regulations on business,
stiffen the penalties by 10-fold on legitimate infractions, and make money
because we'd get rid of hundreds of thousands of stinking bureaucrats whose
job it is to make sure that Form X4375/J1276-537Y is turned in in triplicate
with 8 1/2 X 11 color glossy phots with circles and arrows showing the exacty
location of the mother-rapers and father-killers and father-rapers hanging out
on the Group W bench. (You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant,
excepting Alice...)
And finally, regarding our plans to ship Frank to Holland:
>My fiancee will not allow me to go to Holland. She doesn't
>want a bunch of strangers paying for my ticket.
What'd you do, manage to convince a conservative girl that you weren't that
bad? What if we told her we were from the government? Would she let you go
for free, then?
Just remember "we don't want strangers paying our way" when it gets down to the
welfare discussion.
>So, keep your money, or
>even better, give it to Greenpeace, ACTUP or Food Not Bombs.
I think I'll keep it. It'll do a helluva lot better in my IRA than it will
trying to interfere with whaling boats, running around naked on the Washington
Mall while listening to a bunch of people declare how evil Republicans are
because they don't think homosexuality should be the norm in this country, or
getting people addiucted to the idea that food is a right.
Besides, I was going to voice the suggestion that we could save a lot of money
if we didn't pay for your plane fare over there and instead ship you over in a
crate fourth class Snail Mail postage due. (I didn't want to use UPS, they'd
get you there too fast and wouldn't give you time to think about how stupid
liberalism really is.) The only problem would be that no one in Holland would
have enough money to pay the postage (especially considering how high taxes are
over there and who needs money anyway when the government's giving out free
needles and free condoms?), which means we'd get you right back again, with
you none the wiser for your travels.
Maybe if we left the return address off... Nah, Frank would leave a trail of
bread crumbs. Can't use cereal, of course, since Chuckie Schumer's declared
it to be hazardous to your wallet. Oh, well, we'll think of something. Frank,
keep practicing that Dutch.
G. M. Finniss
Michigan State University 17-7-3, 22-10-3
First round of CCHA playoffs; best of three- Illinois-Chicago at Michigan
State, tonight, tomorrow, and (hopefully not) Sunday at Munn
A new label I picked up off of alt.politics.clinton
"The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse" according to Chuckie Schumer- Quaker,
Post, General Mills, and Kellogg's. Hey, maybe Janet Reno will nuke Battle
Creek! Mr. Gorentz, RUN! Here's comes the BATFC (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Cereal)! Now all Kellogg's products will be toasted!
|
