Greens, anti-corporatist and anti-corruption politics

Post Reply New Topic

Thanks. The Green party already supports these same ideals and in in line with the objectives of these other anti-corruption movements, Occupy, and so on.

Agree with you about overpopulation and the need to confront it. Even if it's not addressed by government policy (which it should be) it should be stigmatized. It is ridiculous that we unquestioningly make celebrities out of these families that have 15 kids. This is really an insane and wildly irresponsible thing to do.

I think another unrecognized value of the Green party is that it can be leveraged against the Democratic Party and used as a mechanism to ho'd the Democratic Party accountable to actually representing its base. This is a win-win. I think the Democratic Party has clearly lost touch with those people it's supposed to be representing, and it's become little more than a second GOP (a second corporatist party) and this disenfranchises a huge number of people and renders the entire system dysfunctional.

nuclear power has killed less throughout history than dies from air pollution alone in singular metropolises a year.(so far fukushima hasnt cost the life of a single individual due to radiation as far as i can tell, though there is doubt about a single case)



there are also many types of nuclear power and some only produce a fraction of the waste others do for the same power.
radiation is also just as natural as anything else, we are used to it under a certain limit and can spend decades in even 10 times the background radiation without any statistically relevant effects.

so yes it carries risk, as does wind power, one of my supervisors lost a toe and i was nearly electrocuted in france when a thunderstorm snuck up on us, the whole tower was humming and sparking before we got down.

then there are all the victims one only hears about, they feel close though, several fatalities, i knew one of them.

so i persoanlly has experienced or met half as many victims of windpower than the whole of fukushima(because of radiation that is), does this mean i think that windpower is unsafe?
no, it means that any action requires risk, we should strive towards minimizing that risk, but we shouldnt condmen something out of hand because of the perceived risks alone, context is needed.

as for genetic manipulation, we have done so for millenia, the grain, corn and apples you eat are all bred further away from their ancestors than we manipulate them with modern methods(though comparing it is quite hard, just like it is impossible to say that it is inherently immoral or dangerous to use genetic manipulation, again context is needed).

also i like papaya.

Ha! This is a joke, no?

Let me see if I have this straight... You are seriously suggesting that the risk of a UTILITY WORKER "LOSING A TOE" is comparable to the risk of a nuclear apocalypse for an entire area, impacting hundreds of thousands of people, and the entire biological ecosystem within a given radius--with the problem remaining for centuries? You do understand that this is a little like comparing being splashed by a faucet, to 3 villages being swept away by a tidal wave, don't you?

I don't know how you honestly expect anyone to reply to this.

Moreover, how can you not appreciate that people (humans) simply don't have the right to do this to other life on the planet. Other life isn't our "property" to jeopardize like this because of our greed, stupidity and mismanagement of our own species. From where do you derive man's right to *EVER* impose this kind of obscene disaster on other life on the planet? This is an entirely odd and ethically deficient attitude.

I don't think you processed my essential point about this. Governments collapse. Earthquakes happen. Yet this radioactive material will essentially be around forever (as far as we here using the energy for a few years are practically concerned) If an earthquake knocks over some some windmills: You have an inconvenient power outage and some material cleanup. When an earthquake brings about the meltdown of nuclear plant, you have unmitigated catastrophe for BIOLOGICAL LIFE. Are you saying that you trust greedy corrupt governments that can't even care for their own people to responsibly set up the right kinds of facilities and safeguard them in a foolproof way beyond their tenure in office for thousands of human lifespans into the future? Sorry, this simply doesn't fly. It is objectively untenable.

I'm guilty of losing faith in the system, I have to say I'm impressed with your determination. The appeal of sea steading is working around environmental restrictions and applying those parallels to other areas (like space), a little geeky but it keeps me going. I hope it doesn't attract the Ayn Rand crowd.

I'm thinking about switching to a green party for future elections, I doubt it'll do more than take a vote from the democrats, but they're a let down too.

I’m certainly not going to pretend like I don’t have some sympathy with Jill Stein and even the Green Party as a whole but, really, what’s your point? Do you expect her to win the election? That will not be happening. Perhaps you expect her candidacy to push the Democrats further to the left? Perhaps you think neither result is likely but you still support her as an agitprop technique? Why do you support Jill Stein?

Since you ask...
(Note: this is unedited, and was originally written for another purpose and in a different tone than I would use on a forum like this, but should give you the information you're looking for to understand my perspective)


-----

What I'm doing Election Day 2012: How to force the system take your representation seriously
...And why this is entirely in the hands of center and left leaning voters.


This began as a comment about an article by Steve Kornacki in Salon titled "Why is Obama Winning?" ( http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/why_is_obama_winning/ ). It's expanded into something that might be more practically useful to people. You should check it out and see if you don't think so too.

You don't have any power or any choice--not this year at least. Ah, but you do…

Why is Obama winning in the polls? In a nutshell, people almost universally despise the broken system, and overwhelmingly want progressive reforms (whether or not they understand such labels). We have right-wing extremist corporatist in sheep's clothing, Obama, running against right-wing extremist corporatists in right-wing extremist corporatists' clothing: What gives the appearance to enough people of being "a little better"?--particularly to those disengaged who don't keep up with what's going on, and to the doe-eyed, who remain shell-shocked by the crazy onslaught of the Glenn Becks and the teabag fringe? Here's exactly what someone has to do to beat Obama: TRY. Offer to the people WHAT THEY WANT. How do you think Obama won in '08? Accepting simple "lesser of 2 evils" framing means *you lose*, as I endeavor to explain these dynamics here constantly.

We now have 2 Republican parties: One composed of scary, crazy people. And another (headed by Obama) composed of people who give lip service to something nice every now and again, and to whom the former gives cover. Good cop/bad cop. The problem is, they're still 2 Republican parties working in cooperation to forward the exact same hated and abusive policies at your expense. People don't want that. They don't want corrupt one-party rule. They don't want the Soviet Union, or Mubarak. The artificial two-party polarity is already unwieldy and unresponsive enough as it is--and we don't even have that now. People want representative democracy: They want the people who they vote for to actually, in exchange, represent their interests, and work on their behalf. And they know they don't have that.

Here's what the Republican party is NOT doing now: Trying. Here's the single thing they are doing with the utmost dedication and enthusiasm: Giving Obama cover. The Good Cop is not your friend "protecting" your from the Bad Cop: They are a team, scamming you, and playing you, in coordination. You are wise to be aware of what's going on, and of how you're being manipulated to accept crap that is wildly against your interests, and that you don't have to accept.

It's like you go to a basketball game, and as soon as it begins, your team starts making all its baskets on the other team's side. "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?" All the points are being accumulated by that side, regardless of who has the ball and who the better players are. "WHY AM I HERE ROOTING FOR THIS?" Your team continues to do this and refuses to stop, game after game. It eventually becomes clear at some point that this is all these players are ever going to do. What you DON'T want to do at this point is keep supporting your team as usual, pretending they're great. What you want, as painful as it might be short term, is to get these ridiculous players who are supposed to be representing your organization FIRED and OUT OF THERE so that you can actually then have "SOME" kind of team that is at least PLAYING THE GAME, and scoring for the right side. With this firing comes the recognition by the next set of players, "Hey we better not try this same thing, or we'll face the same fate as them". As ridiculous as this scenario is, it's nothing compared to the real thing carried out in terms of policies that impact on the lives, futures, prosperity, and stability of every citizen. People who imagine there is any other way are fooling themselves. And Democrats: It's to your distinct advantage and it greatly improves your chances for future success IF YOU MAKE IT UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR TO THEM THAT *YOU* ARE THE ONES DOING THE FIRING. The more you wring your hands and remain timidly quiet about it, the worse this is for you, and the more ambiguous it makes what's going on to the system that already has a vested interest in keeping things exactly the way they are. A word to the wise.

This is what I'm going to be doing in '12. And this is why I'm taking such pains to make it crystal clear exactly what I'm doing. I'm giving people the solid theory, and the practical means to initiate the changes for representative accountability and anti-corruption that they actually want to see happen. I'm trying to set a clear example for others to follow in this. If only a small number of people do this, it's a waste and nothing happens. If a lot of people do it, it can have the desired effect as the party tries to analyze its failure, rise from its ashes and reformulate itself into something people will support. But if nobody does it at all, then the chances for success are zero. That's why I'm standing up and saying: "I AM DOING IT". I'm asking people who care about these progressive policy priorities--and even those who see that they have a broken system and are not being represented--to join me in this. Reject this inane and manipulative "lesser of two evils" model that maddeningly produces the identical outcome, election after election, and the same abuses on the backs of the people, only becoming bolder and more egregious as time goes on. Think strategically, long-term, like the future is actually ahead of us, and join in this effort: Fire Obama in the 2012 election. Kick him out of office. Fire your Democratic senators who and representatives who support gutting Social Security, SOPA, etc. And most importantly DON'T DO IT QUIETLY: TELL THEM WHO YOU ARE AND *WHY* YOU ARE DOING IT. Shout to the press, to your friends and family members, and anyone who is listening why you are doing it. Want "hope"? Want "change"? Want your priorities taken seriously? I present to you the means to that end. Everyone will tell you you're crazy--and not a single one of them, high or low, have ever produced a credible, workable alternative. The system is broken: Following the rules that assume it isn't is what is crazy, and what is guaranteed to get you exactly what you don't want. Realistically your choice is this: Do something a little painful and risky but well-conceived and with real positive potential long-term, or else do the standard expected thing, complicit with the oppressive meme "I have no choice", and hope that what you already know is going to happen, doesn't.

Remember, None of this works without deliberateness, organization and vocality.

Glad you're here MDD123 and nice to hear the voice of someone who isn't a belligerent Rand-worshipping troll. Your comments are really welcome. Thank you for participating.

From my perspective, I would just suggest that the time to vote Green is precisely in THIS election--when the Democrats are relying on you (those they consider to be "their" base) most, is precisely when you have the most power, and the greatest potential to make them actually fear you. When I say "fear" I don't mean this in a negative way--I mean "fear" that they really need to work on your behalf or else it will cost them power. This is where we want them, and this is what makes democracy representative, and functional. It is precisely the narrow margins of elections that give us a lot of power in these particular situations--and I think we're very stupid not to take advantage of this.

If the Dems think you're playing a game with them ("I'll only vote for the Greens when it won't cost the Democrat anything", then you've essentially given it away that you're only playing a bluffing game. And this will have zero impact on them, or on the system, because they will realize that your vote is a "sure thing" and they have to do nothing in exchange for it.

My perspective is that Democrats have become entirely corrupt and refuse to represent their base, or even mainstream America, which I see as being far more progressive than the political system or media indicate.

I advocate going this route not to be petulant or "take your ball and go home", but for quite the opposite reason: Because it is good and practical strategy for the long term. Whether the Green candidate wins or not is not actually the significant thing for what I'm advocating. What is important is that the Democratic party learns that it must actually earn the votes of progressive people in order to hold power. This itself will go a long way toward un-corrupting the system. But to work, people have to actually do it.

no i dont think its comparable(and you clearly misunderstood the whole point of my post, try reading it again without your critical of any criticism glasses on), but i do think it puts accidents into perspective, somewhat, the main point however was that there is risk in anything, try looking up a comparison between the deaths pr year from air pollution in single cities and the number of deaths ifrom the whole history of nuclear power.

if we could avoid any downside to our power generation methods then we would, but it simply doesnt exist, which is where my point of eternal self improvement comes in, unfortunately that doesnt allow us to ignore something because of perceived vs real dangers.

fukushima had several faults we can all agree on that, should these things happen?, no.
but that isnt to say that nuclear power is inherently bad, molten salt reactors for one are a completely different concept, read up on them.

and before you star with any ideas about me not supporting enviromentalism,
i have worked since age 16 putting up wind turbines, i know them better than many twice my age.
i still work in the central office of the same company, all my power usage is offset by windpower as well.

unfortunately even wind turbines produce carbon, they are large machines and the parts and machining needed to make those parts all emit co2 and other even more harmfull gasses at one point in their production.

a molten salt reactor would be far more enviromentally friendly than a wind turbine ever could be, they are simple, require no pressure vessel, they cantmelt down since any failure means an immediate melting of the emergency plug, again look it up.

as for radiation,

here is some easy perspective for you,
perspective

there is also good evidence for the partial immunization theory since there are people in tibet living with 5 times the maximum dose allowed by us nuclear workers, with an average age of 65 in a pre industrialized society and no statistical signs to show for it.


so no its not a joke, the heavy metals in the water is of far greater concern than fukushima ever will be, it released less radioactive elements than the kursk and we havent been able to detect any direct ill effects from that, diluted in the vastness of the sea(which in itself is the worlds best radiation shield) these ammounts really doesnt matter, cumulative effects could happen if we dont switch out the older generations of reactors with safer alternatives, even that requires multiple incidents to happen as well.

a pregnant woman eating fish 3 times a week will have a far greater chance of birthing a child with developmental disorders or outright deformity, all due to mercury and lead in fish.

^Ha! Difficult to understand people's love of red herrings.

I am here supporting a *green* agenda. This is clearly the entire point of the thread: I would challenge anyone to inform me when they recall me indicating support of any kind heavy metals in water. Likewise, when did I express enthusiasm for air pollutions? When did I applaud carbon emissions? Here is when: *NEVER*

The idea that my rejecting the proliferation of nukes is some sort of indicator that I am *NON-geen* is frankly too rich. I don't think I stuttered in any of the arguments I made or any of the specific positions I upheld, or rejected.

Nukes are dirty and disastrous--necessarily. Allow me to say that again: Nukes are dirty and disastrous--necessarily. They are a very shortsighted and horrible technology to adopt for this purpose. This has nothing to do with "Aspie Pride" or some sort assault on it. Einstein was fantastic. I am not denying the advanced nature of this technology or that it's development was not a major feat. I am not "against science" and I frankly resent having to point this out. I'm talking about the use of this technology on this kind of basis here and now, and prohibitive practical problems with doing this. I'm saying WE MUST have something CLEAN and sustainable, and (here's the no-brainer) NOT fraught with that little "technical problem" of causing cataclysmic biological disasters. Sorry people seem to think this is setting the bar too high. I would suggest: It is not. It's setting the bar EXACTLY where it needs to be set.

nuclear power is not nukes and any hint at it is a blatant intelectual fallacy.

red herring where?

have you even researched anything i wrote?

do you know what you are talking about when it comes to radiation?
or any of the other points i made for that matter.

frankly i find your behavior to be sub par, your message is not.
perhaps a tad misinformed, but arent we all in some ways?

again you are talking to someone that so far has worked his entire adult life to bring alternative energy out as a viable option, today i reap the benefits of it by offsetting all my power usage with wind and we made it possible to offer wind power at the same price as coal power, meaning that in denmark you find quite a lot of people doing excactly what you asking, on a personal level.

industry is quite another matter, you probably dont have a clue about just how much industry and shipping is required to put up a turbine, they work great as a distributed low level power source, as does solar, hydro is the only real alternative capable of providing the bulk power needed, hydro is in turn a danger to certain types of habitat and is geographically limited.

wave power is on its way, it shows promise but maintenance and long time operation in adverse seas are a continous problem, they are at the moment testing some that use the already active wind turbines by sharing their foundation and power lines.

but all of this produces radiation today, in fact coal power releases far more than a nuclear plant does for the same ammount of power, that is if the waste is properly stored, in the short term we then have the issue of bulk power, should we continue running on coal, pumping co2 plus radiation and sulphur into the atmosphere or should we use a molten salt reactor that cant melt down, produces far less waste, most of which can be bred for another run the reactor and only lets out steam?.

that is why i am even arguing for nuclear power, the wind power sector is at capacity and constantly growing, it can barely keep up and unfortunately its not something you simply throw people at, it requires a rather large support structure, especially now where ocean turbines are the better option.

as it is we are barely holding up to our increase in energy use (something we shoulld probably have a look at long before any of the above becomes relevant)

Sounds like someone want to apply the Tea Party game plan to the Democrats.

In terms of deaths per kilowatt hour, nuclear power wins by a long way. Nobody died and only the workers on site may possibly have been harmed as a result of Fukishima, the people who flew away on planes received more radiation from the altitude than those who stayed. At Three Mile Island, residents up to 10km away effectively had a chest x-ray and workers inside the plant received a third of a year's natural radiation, all in all it is estimated that there will literally be one or two extra cases of cancer.

The biggest cause of death following Chernobyl is suicide, because people were told they were sick and made to feel dreadful. There was an increase in the cases of thyroid cancer, but this could have been prevented if the Soviets had handed out iodine tablets, and most of the cases were cured by operations as thyroid cancer isn't remotely as deadly as most cancers. Besides which, that was a case of recklessness- if the workers had followed safety procedures the accident would never have happened.

There were a lot of deformities in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl in the years immediately after the accident, but today it is a normal, thriving area. If anything it is doing better than before the accident because humans are scared to go there.

Bhopal wasn't a nuclear accident, it was chemical.

Banning nuclear power because of things that happened at antiquated nuclear plants is like banning cars because nearly everyone died in car accidents before we had seatbelts and airbags.

If you don't want to use nuclear power, how else will you provide energy in the future? Some more dangerous way that will be worse for the environment? Or should we live frugally, not enjoying a higher quality of life and made to suffer by an ignorant government that doesn't listen to facts?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for genetic engineering (we will stick to crops for simplicity), I agree that Monsanto are not good. If I believed in evil then I would probably say that they are. "Terminator" genes are wrong, and we shouldn't allow the copyrighting of life forms or exploitation of third world farmers.

A gene codes for a protein. If that protein has an effect in one food, it will have it in all foods. If I take a gene from wheat and put it in cabbage, the effect of that protein on a human will be the same.

To answer your points:
1) We do consider the consequences. We have a nifty tool called science that we have been using to look into the consequences. We might lose a gene here or there, but that happens naturally anyway (in fact that's the driving force behind evolution) and we have been doing it using selective breeding for years. Now selective breeding has downsides, but genetic engineering is more controlled so we can manage those downsides.

2) We do know the consequences. Particularly after GM foods have been eaten so widely in North America for so long. We know that we can accidentally trigger allergic reactions if we transfer a gene from peanuts to another species, for example- which means we can avoid using that gene, or we can put warnings on labels.

3) I agree that this is terrible, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

4) Local farming is better because the food is not transported as far and it creates jobs, but non-organic farming is better than organic farming if done with consideration for the environment. An organic farm has half the yield of a non-organic farm, which means non-organic farms have to be twice as big to support the same number of people. Currently we use 12% of the world's non-ice covered land for agriculture. Environmental groups estimate that the most we can use sustainably is 15%. If we converted all our farming to organic, we would go well over that and damage natural biodiversity.

One of the best ways to make sure a non-organic farm is considerate is to genetically engineer the crops. Crops can be engineered to secrete natural pesticides, meaning that farmers do not have to spray fields with excess pesticide, which can cause bio-accumulation. Also, biologists hope to have the nodules found in the roots of legumes, which are the home to bacteria that release nitrogen compounds into the soil, genetically engineered into different crops, which would mean we wouldn't need to apply nearly as much fertiliser, avoiding algal bloom.

5) Not sure how true that is. I would suggest that people would be more willing to eat GM food if there wasn't a ridiculous amount of scaremongering and misinformation about them out there. In any case, people always have a choice. There are currently organic foods sold in supermarkets, for a much higher price of course, I don't see why that would change if we relaxed about GM foods.

As for morals, Plato thought that government should be done by people who would do what was right, even if it wasn't popular or would harm them personally. Bentham, Mill and the utilitarians thought that the right thing to do was that that caused the greatest happiness (though Mill added an asterisk). I would argue that it is highly immoral to allow people to starve when we have the technology to prevent that.

6) I don't think people should be allowed to own genes. Again, baby, bathwater.

Absolutely. But we allow people to starve when we have the food to prevent it - the problem is systemic.

it aint excactly like people arent trying, how do you think indias food crisis was sorted?

it was in the end down to a single team with the right tools to do anything about it, a billion people were saved from starvation by most counts.

if that will lead to other troubles is still unknown.

The problem cannot be waved away as purely systematic or purely technological. Simple redistribution of food alone would either increase starvation in the west, or not be sufficient to solve the problem in the third world. In any case, that would involve transporting food thousands of miles, which was one of the things haidouk spoke out against so passionately.

As the person who originated the thread, I'd like to bring it back to the topic: Greens, anti-corporatist and anti-corruption politics

It wasn't intended to be a back and forth about nuclear energy with nuclear-power fanatics debating conscientious people interested in clean energy.

Nor was it intended to be a debate with libertarian Aynians, right-wingers and people un-interested in these subjects.

Lets move off this and back onto topic please, OK? Thanks!

Also, if you specifically ask me for detailed information, and I go to the trouble to provide it for you, some sort of respectfully substantial comment or acknowledgement on your part would be nice. Thanks.

Edit: Please note this comment is not directed at all posters by any means, just those who have been fixating on endlessly debating these tangential topics.