Slashdot Mirror

Imagine if a company considered its responsibility to the consumer above all else. Consumers, of course, want the most benefit for the least cost. The company, therefore, provides its products at a fraction of what it could charge because doing so benefits the consumer. In the meantime, the owners/shareholders of the company lose profits and divest. The company now has no capital, no money to reinvest in R&D, and basically becomes a non-profit ran by society.

This is your definition of capitalism? Your website is "iamblue.net" but I'd say you were more green than anything else.

Yes, and each and every one of those terms is so broad and vague that they could apply to almost every political party on the planet.

Follow the link. Ask yourself how the Republicans and the Democrats stack up against these values.

Now if he had insisted that be go back to an agrarian society, or more accurately, a Stone-age society, then he would be a Green.

May I suggest you read up on Bruce Sterling's "Veridian Green" movement? May I suggest you consider the existence of Green technophiles? (Do you think the people who put up Green Party websites want to return to the neolithic?)

The key values of the Green party are: grassroots democracy, social justice and equal opportunity, ecological wisdom, non-violence, decentralization, community-based economics and economic justice, feminism and gender equity, respect for diversity, personal and global responsibility, and future focus and sustainability. None of which require returning to the Stone Age.

The problem is that the American voting system discourages people from voting for what they believe in, and forces them to vote for the lesser of two evils.

The accounting error that placed George W. Bush in office would not have been an issue had a large segment of the liberal population not decided to vote -- for once -- by their consciences. Ralph Nader won about 2.7% of the popular vote in 2000 (Buchanan, the next most popular conservative to Bush, took less than 0.5 percent of the popular vote from Bush). It isn't unreasonable to assume that almost 100% of those people who voted for Nader would have preferred Gore to Bush. If even one percent had voted strategically (for the lesser of two evils), the Florida fiasco would not have been an issue.

I'm a firm proponent of electoral reform, so that people can vote their consciences without jeopardizing their position and letting the greater of two evils seize the power. However, until that time, I hope that the American public votes insincerely so that we don't end up with a repeat of the 2000 election.

Sometimes I'm really upset by our divisive and angry Two Party System; it seems like nothing ever gets done. Other times I am very, very grateful that the government is not one gigantic unified son of a bitch, because then all those manipulative, controlling and totally evil tendencies would be aimed squarely at me.

Hmmm...what if it is aimed squarely at us and the interparty bickering such as this is simply to distract us from the fact that both parties pretty much taste like chicken?

Pepsi and Coke's "cola wars" campaigns did the same thing by squeezing out the small soda manufacturers and turning the soda market into what is basically a shared monopoly. If either one ever came out on top it'd be shut down but as long as there's two of them it's somehow okay and we forget about all the other flavors out there.

This is big pharaceuticals leaning on them to try and limit the ability of people to shop...

I would call "tin-foil hat" on you if it weren't for Viagra. Once the big-name pharma companies decided to enter the it-must-be-lucrative p3ni5 enlargement market, a million spammers suddenly found themselves in the sights of Pfiser & co.

What's next? Big Oil sending me letters asking me to help them "TRANSFER 40 GAZILLION US DOLLERS CURRANTLY IN THE LAST NATIONEL BANQUE OF NIGERIA"?

There is a pretty strong consensus among many US citizens that the PATRIOT Act was a power grab by the government during a time when the populace was vulnerable.

People who are very concerned about the PATRIOT Act:
Libertarians
The Green Party
The EFF
The ACLU
EPIC

The only people who don't seem to be concerned about the PATRIOT Act are the Republicans and Democrats who voted it in and stand to gain the most from it. I hope this concerns you, especially if you are a US citizen.

Megatokyo.com Machall.com

lest we forget how to use the <A> tag:

megatokyo.com
machall.com

and even /. sigs accept HTML:
www.ranttv.com - Educate yourself here. www.gp.org/platform.html - Read their platform here

I think you missed something somewhere.

Check out this article

Bush had nothing to do with the crisis in CA. Spending did. The "bail out" comes in the form of "bonds" which will be paid for by tax payers initially, but RE-PAYED by higher rates by the consumer and in the form of loans will be repaid. See here, and here. The $40 billion "shortfall" doesn't include the energy bail out.

Go ahead. Blame Bush -- who came in to office only WEEKS after the energy crisis was well under way. Blame Bush -- who had nothing to do with Davis's ignoring repeated warnings by many sources with completely unrelated agendas.

This redicules finger pointing between the "left" and the "right" really needs to stop. "It's [insert hated person from the 'other' party here] fault." Geez. Give it a rest.

How about this one?

On another note, take this quiz. be sure to sure to uncheck

17. who have not yet announced their intention to run for President.

to find your disposition.

As much of a generalization as this might be, (hell it might even be borderline bigotry) I really think the problem is that 50% of this country is in the south. I'm reluctant to be so simplistic in my judgement, but I only need talk to my relatives in Kentucky, or visit the barber shop here in North Carolina to see people just gushing about our beloved aristocrat. You should've heard the way they were wow'ed by him landing on an aircraft carrier, 'Oooh! I even heard he flew at the controls for half the trip!' 'Wow!'

To me it's like everyone is insane. No one sees him as putting PR above the reality of a bloody war, and no one seems to notice that every word that comes out of his mouth wreaks of insincerity. And it's not like I'm trying to play favorites, I hate democrats and republicans equally! They're all phonies! The real republicans are the Libertarians, and the real democrats are the Progressives. But Bush is the worst phony I've ever seen at the mic. You can find better acting in a low budget porno. Unfortunately, I think with voter apathy at an all time high (17% of the voting population was enough for Bush, or Gore, or whichever talking head supposedly got elected) he'll probably get re-elected. This time around he has the new neo-patriotic furvor backing him.

*stands on soapbox*

People, making the process of voting physically easier is not the solution to curing voter apathy. Politically apathetic citizens became that way because of one of two reasons:

1. they are genuinely not interested in politics, or they feel it does not affect them in any way
2. they feel there is no candidate worth voting for

In reality, these two reasons are caused by the same thing -- ignorance. Politics DOES affect you, and there ARE candidates worth voting for. Online voting may make the process easier, but it does nothing to cure the problems infecting the system itself.

Here is a quick checklist to see if you, or someone you know, is, in fact, Part of the Problem!!

1. If you vote for the "lesser of two evils", you are part of the problem. You should find a candidate that you actually like, because they are out there (though, admittedly, they may not have a cute icon like an elephant or a donkey). At the very least, you should familiarize yourself with the Green Party and the Libertarian Party.

2. If you vote on a single, smoke-and-mirrors issue, you are part of the problem. E.g. soccer moms who vote Republican because they are "pro life" when Republicans have little interest in outlawing abortion. Its ok to feel strongly about a particular issue, but at least look into whether or not the people you are voting for will actually do something about it. More often than not, hot-button issues like abortion are simply split between the two major parties - Democrats are "pro choice" and Republicans are "pro life" - but abortion remains legal regardless of which is in office. Voting along these arbitrary, marketing-driven lines accomplishes nothing. Do not allow your vote to be "assumed" by a major party because you feel a certain way about an issue - make them show you something.

3. If you do not vote at all because you think there is no one worth voting for, then you are part of the problem. There are many different voices out there, and one is sure to align fairly closely with your own. Whenever possible, one should always vote for third parties because, if for no other reason, you can consider it a vote for more choices and an end to the lock of the two-party system (the first hurdle).

4. And lastly - register yourself as an independant! There is no reason for you to allow yourself to be assumed. They have to earn your vote - every time. The fact that people check themselves off as subscribing to a particular laundry list of stances on issues never ceases to amaze and disgust me. Why allow yourself to become part of some political marketing poll? The fact that certain candidates do not visit certain areas of the country because they have it "in the bag" should disgust you, too.

*steps down from soapbox*

Vote Green. Here's why.

Whichever way you look at it this is the end of the line for corporate deregulation. Regulation is now going to be considered pensioner friendly and stockholder friendly.

Well, at least until the current round of presidential speechifying and toothless legislating subsides Wall Street's fears, and corporate America's hand returns to the cookie jar.

In and of themselves, public scandals tend not to result in meaningful and structural change. To move beyond political grandstanding and weak legislation (and the bills being looked at currently are very weak -- see CitizenWorks for more info) requires a significant, independent-minded citizen's movement. A corporate accountability movement of this type could begin with demanding reforms in governance and accounting practices (like forcing corporations to expense stock options, a measure rejected by congressional Democrats), and move on to demanding serious and structural changes, such as taking corporate money out of politics (which will require public financing of elections, and breaking up the corporate strangehold over the news media.

But expecting a significant trend to reverse deregulation to suddenly spring up amongst politicians who continue to take their orders from major corporate donors is, unfortunately, too optimistic.

At the very least we will see the sweatheart deals arranged by Enron and the Gramms to exclude energy derivatives from oversight being swept away.

Don't count on it. As far as I remember, the current legislation doesn't repeal Gramm's Enron bill.

But at the deeper level I think that politicians are not going to be able to score easy votes by dennouncing regulation.

No, few voters are going to get hot and bothered about changes in corporate accounting regulations. However, most of them know, pretty intuitively, that they're getting screwed by big business. Frankly, most of the world understands that the current economic order doesn't operate for their benefit (particularly folks in the two-thirds world who don't just lose money on Enron stock, but get displaced by Enron-financed dams).

And no, that's not Marxist babbling -- take a look at some polling numbers: 67% think most corporate executives are dishonest, 57% think white collar crime happens very often, and the percentage who name big business as the largest threat to America's future is at an all-time high (38%).

However, the public doesn't trust politicians to solve these (or most) problems, probably a leading cause of why fewer and fewer of them bother to vote. And nobody's going to trust grand-standing Democrats like Lieberman (who spends most of his time on his knees before the insurance industry) to take a firm stance against over-reaching corporate power.

IMHO, the only way we're going to see a viable political movement for corporate accountability is with a strong, progressive, independent third party. At the moment, both in the U.S. and around the world, that's the Green Party. Provided we continue moving beyond feel-good environmentalism, the Greens can be a grassroots and effective voice for change, by bringing up these issues when people are paying some attention to them (during the election season) and offering bold solutions, rather than more of the same focus-grouped bullshit. The Green Party in the U.S. is now organized in almost every state, and has a platform full of creative ways to advance real, grassroots democracy.

In closing (and for the purposes of extending my pomposity a bit further), I'd like to remind folks that corporate abuse of power affects everyone, in millions of ways -- whether you're a white-collar type whose 401(k) is suddenly worthless, a software developer who's forced to deal with ludicrous patents, or a worker whose job just got shipped to Mexico. And it will take all of us to effect the changes so desperately needed.

(P.S. Another great resource on corporate power is the Program on Corporations, Law, and Democracy.)

Nader - on his positive side, he's addressing issues that the others have barely considered in hindsight: Cable-and-Internet Content Discrimination, Corporate Crime and Anti-Trust, present issues with poisoning neighborhoods in further discrimination... He'd have kicked serious butt in the debates! His running mate, Winona LaDuke, is even more cool to vote for... a Minnesota Chippewa woman whose strong record stands for minority equality and opportunities. If there's any downside to this platform, it's the implication that the Green Party which has such cool people (and there are two parties of Greens, one he runs with and one he doesn't) is sometimes called the watermellon party, green on the outside, red on the inside. Still, since it is near impossible to agree with a party 100%, I see them as less an evil.

Hagelin- A learned man who can stately present the issues. His positions seem similar to Nader on some topics, but they're stated will less angst and more educated finnesse. My only qualm with him is his overuse of Transcendal Meditation(tm) as the answer: Kosovo got you down? Let's send 4000 TMtm Instructors to pacify things. Naivate' aside, I like to see such a civil, refined highbrow in the choices.

Browne- true to the principals of liberty this counrty was founded on. The Libertarian Party in general can be taken more seriously than most third party options: There are more Libertarians in career political offices than the other third parties (Green, Natural Law P, etc.) combined!

...But in the long run I voted for Nader. Strategically, he's fighting the states for the freedoms we need if we're to see these 'Third' Choices given a fair shake. Why can't the "big two" parties come up with such plausible choices without the obvious coattail-riders?

Here is the the link that describes Ralph's Platform that was ratified at the Green Party National Convention.

No, actually, that's just about right. Read Nader's and the Green party's platform! "Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage." Now do the math. It may not be exact, but it's close enough.

No, YOU read the Green Party Platform that was ratified at the Green Party National Convention, June 2000.

As you will see, Ralph Nader's platform mentions NOTHING about the progressive income tax that you described....

Take a look at http://votenader.org or http://www.gp.org/platform_index.htm/a& gt;

Sure you will gain freedom. That's one of the fundamentals under which the Green Party operates:

from the Green Party platform --


We believe in empowering citizens and communities.


That means more freedom for you and me. The Gerens want to decentralize power, not take away freedoms. If you happen to be a billionare corporate CEO, however -- you might be very afraid. Another quote: Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. [...] Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

I admit, I was confused. I had entered http://www.greenparty.org into my web browser, found the Green Party USA's web site, and read their platform. In that platform, it calls for a maximum wage and the nationalization of large corporations.

I should have realized that I wanted http://www.gp.org, the Association of State Green Parties. Their platform is more moderate.

Of course Nader/LaDuke don't fully agree with either, so that's a little bit confusing.

Silly me, my bad. ;)

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...almost as fractious as the Reform Party...

You got Ralph Nader confused with Jello Biafra who was a candidate for the Greens nomination, but lost it to Nader.

Perhaps the reason why you got confused was you also failed to read the disclaimer on the beginning of the Greens website here that states "This platform is not binding for candidates on any level".

For more information on the Green party, check out this link. Notice on this website that it has a link to Ralph Nader's platform, as ratified at the Green Party National Convention, June 2000.

This is the platform Ralph Nader supports, don't believe the rumor mongers.

1. We affirm the importance of access to a livable income.

2. Job banks and other innovative training and employment programs which bring together the private and public sectors must become federal, state and local priorities. People who are unable to find decent work in the private sector should have options through publicly funded opportunities.

3. Workforce development programs must aim at moving people out of poverty - a "living wage" campaign and "living wage" standard will go a long way toward achieving this goal.

4. We urge that a national debate be held and broad public mandate be sought regarding (fiscal and monetary) economic strategies and policies as they impact wages. This debate is long overdue. The growing inequities in income and wealth between rich and poor; unprecedented discrepancies in salary and benefits between corporate top executives and line workers; loss of the "American dream" by the young and middle-class - each is a symptom of decisions made by policy-makers far removed from the concerns of ordinary workers trying to keep up.

5. A clear living wage standard should serve as a foundation for trade between nations, and a "floor" of wage protections and worker's rights should be negotiated and set in place in future trade agreements. The United States should take the lead on this front - and not allow destructive, corporate predatory practices under the guise of "free" international trade.

Bush gets my vote. I am tired of working 4-5 months for free to pay the government each year. We need a tax cut for everyone. I don't get one under the Gore plan, even though I consider myself middle class. I know social security will be gone when I retire, but maybe 2 percent privatization my get our generation something. It is better than hoping. Also, my second amendment rights mean a lot to me. They mean nothing to Gore.

Also, for those of you voting Nader, check out the Green Party Platform. They believe in extra taxation for people like us who make money, and negative taxation for artists, teachers, etc. That is redistribution of wealth. aka Communism

1. We affirm the importance of access to a livable income.

2. Job banks and other innovative training and employment programs which bring together the private and public sectors must become federal, state and local priorities. People who are unable to find decent work in the private sector should have options through publicly funded opportunities.

3. Workforce development programs must aim at moving people out of poverty - a "living wage" campaign and "living wage" standard will go a long way toward achieving this goal.

4. We urge that a national debate be held and broad public mandate be sought regarding (fiscal and monetary) economic strategies and policies as they impact wages. This debate is long overdue. The growing inequities in income and wealth between rich and poor; unprecedented discrepancies in salary and benefits between corporate top executives and line workers; loss of the "American dream" by the young and middle-class - each is a symptom of decisions made by policy-makers far removed from the concerns of ordinary workers trying to keep up.

5. A clear living wage standard should serve as a foundation for trade between nations, and a "floor" of wage protections and worker's rights should be negotiated and set in place in future trade agreements. The United States should take the lead on this front - and not allow destructive, corporate predatory practices under the guise of "free" international trade.

according to the green party platform, which Ralph Nader has endorsed: The Green Party supports: [snip] b.) Eliminating all laws which seek to restrict or censor artistic expression, including withholding of government funds for political or moral content. [snip] 6. Although we see regular assaults on the freedoms of speech enshrined in our nation's founding documents, we oppose censorship in the arts, media (including the World Wide Web and Internet), and press. We encourage individual and social responsibility by artists, creative media, writers - and all citizens. [snip] 6. Advanced telecommunications technologies (many of which came originally from defense applications) such as fiber optics, broadband infrastructure, the Internet and the World Wide Web hold great promise for education, decentralized economies, and local control of decision-making. We believe we must move toward decentralization in these efforts - carefully protecting our individual rights as we go forward.

1. We affirm the importance of access to a livable income.

2. Job banks and other innovative training and employment programs which bring together the private and public sectors must become federal, state and local priorities. People who are unable to find decent work in the private sector should have options through publicly funded opportunities.

3. Workforce development programs must aim at moving people out of poverty - a "living wage" campaign and "living wage" standard will go a long way toward achieving this goal.

4. We urge that a national debate be held and broad public mandate be sought regarding (fiscal and monetary) economic strategies and policies as they impact wages. This debate is long overdue. The growing inequities in income and wealth between rich and poor; unprecedented discrepancies in salary and benefits between corporate top executives and line workers; loss of the "American dream" by the young and middle-class - each is a symptom of decisions made by policy-makers far removed from the concerns of ordinary workers trying to keep up.

5. A clear living wage standard should serve as a foundation for trade between nations, and a "floor" of wage protections and worker's rights should be negotiated and set in place in future trade agreements. The United States should take the lead on this front - and not allow destructive, corporate predatory practices under the guise of "free" international trade.

Nader does NOT support a "maximum wage." This is a FALSE rumor being spread by people who do not like Nader, probably because they know of no other way to slam what he says. Go read the Green Party Platform and try again.

People, if you want your vote to matter, DON'T vote for the lesser of two evils, go out and educate your selves about the options. Then vote for who you believe is right. It's as simple as that.

Here are a couple of links that I find relevant:
The Libertarian Party
The Green Party
One of Nader's sites.

Those, of course, are only a limited sampling from my bookmarks, but they're a start.

~~Galen~~

Since when is a TROLL moderated "interesting"? How about posting a source for that lie? You won't find it in the GP platform.

ASGP was founded after the 1996 elections. They are the partner of the european greens, and they nominated Nader/LaDuke.

Part of the problem is that Green Party USA (the more radical group, but older) is supporting Nader, and make almost no mention of the difference, so most people can't tell.

There was an article in the New Republic some weeks ago, and the writer made the same mistake in confusing GP USA with Nader's green party.

More on the history of ASGP here.

Here's a quote from the platform about the public airwaves:

As Greens, we support those who urge the public to "reclaim the public airwaves." The privatization of the broadcast airwaves - one of our most important taxpayer assets - has caused serious deformations of our politics and culture. The basic problem is that private broadcasters control what the public owns. And in return for free licenses to use taxpayer property, broadcasters give us a steady stream of increasingly coarse, redundant, superficial programming and, of course, exclusively decide who says what on our public airwaves.

and another on censorship:

Although we see regular assaults on the freedoms of speech enshrined in our nation?s founding documents, we oppose censorship in the arts, media (including the World Wide Web and Internet), and press.

JMC

More importantly, the guy is way ahead of all the other third party candidates, is on the ballot in 30 states already (including Montana :-) Thank you Mr. Wachs and co.) with more to come, and he has eight percent popularity. If enough people vote for him, the Green Party (I was a staunch Democrat before I found the Greens) will become a "recognized" political party.

The concept of open-source fits well with the green party's ideals, but the concept of making money does not seem to fit in anywhere.

http://www.gp.org/platform_index.htm

So, they might be a little too anti-corporate for some of the more wealthy around here.