Slashdot Mirror

Mapping the Internet weekly will allow us to see major disasters in different parts of the world. The Internet is a huge disaster censor

Wait, I thought that "the Internet regards censorship as damage and routes around it"?

On the other hand, with most Americans turning away from traditional media and on to the various portals, it would be entirely possible for certain disasters to be "censored" by the big players. But there's always someone who won't cooperate.

But Wikipedia came to the rescue. The poster is clearly talking about the Internet taking on the role of a Roman Censor, who was responsible for (among other things) enumerating the Roman people in a Census and setting tax rates. The Internet is a Disaster Censor, in that it goes out and finds problems and helps us figure out how important they are.

Right?

Speaking as a respectibly left wing Democrat,

Feeling lonely these days?

Nader has simply shown zero ability for that kind of a job.

No worries there. Apparently, the Presidency has no requirements whatsoever these days. But seriously, Nader thinks deeply, speaks clearly, and acts decisively. He also happens to be brutally honest, a quality we haven't had in a President since... well, ever.

As a Green, I hope to see someone other Ralph nominated in 2004, and I even started a website to that effect. But I'll always remeber how good it felt to vote for Nader. I have no regrets.

When he says there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, he's either lying, or an idiot.

Go back and check your facts. You never actually heard him say that. You only heard second-hand that he had said it. In fact, what he really said was that the difference wasn't enough to make a difference. Close, but not the same statement.

What we have today is a far-right party up against a center-right party. There's your difference.

Leadership requires the right mix of idealism and pragmatism, and Nader badly fails that test.

Are you kidding? Nader has saved more lives than Gore and Bush added together, or for that matter, multiplied. You have to be an idealist to take on corporate power, and you have to be a pragmatist to win, not just once, but over and over.

There's not an idealist among the Democratic would-bes, and W wouldn't know an idea if it bit him on the nose.

If he actually WON the presidency, he'd be disasterous at it.

Right, he'd probably do disastrous things like see that poor people have health care and education, that wilderness areas are protected, that corporate monopolies are controlled, that foreign conflicts are handled with civility and diplomacy. Not like the enlightened path we're currently on.

And since even he knows that he isn't going to win,

Wrong. The Green Party didn't take the White House in 2000, but we did grow explosively. We became a household word. And in 2002, we ran more candidates (and had more wins) than we did with Nader. That's a win.

running mainly makes him just the Perot-of-the-left, working as a spoiler to get Bush reelected.

Hey, is it Nader's fault the sitting VP of a very popular President couldn't beat an ex-cokehead who's dumber than Dan Quayle put together? Is it Nader's fault Gore couldn't win his own freaking home state? Or Clinton's?

People knew the risks of not voting for Gore. Yet 2.7 million of us took the risk (and probably twice as many again thought seriously about it). The overwhelming majority would do so again, and many who voted for Gore will vote Green next time. You call it spoiling, I call it standing up for what you believe in.

If you want our votes in 2004, here's what to do: steal our platform. Go ahead. We arrived at it in an unusually democratic fashion, but we'd be happy to see you adopt it in any way. Our ideas are what draw people to us, and if you want to draw them back, you now know how.

One last thing... ask a local Green what IRV is.

And what's worse is that everyone is complacent and thinks its perfectly normal!! The Green Party wants seperation from corporations and government. They take no campaign money from corporations!! For more info on the green party visit: http://www.greenpartyus.org/

I disagree strongly with your contention that supporting the Greens is to support the erosion of freedom

Ready for a long message? I better save this one for future reference. Times like this make me wish browsers had vi edit box plugins.

This site for context.

Issue: Political Reform

Greens propose:
Comprehensive campaign finance reform, including caps on spending and contributions, and/or full public financing of elections. Significant lobbying regulation.

Takes away the following freedoms:

Freedom of speech (significant lobby regulation)
Property rights, the freedom to give my money to whoever I choose. (Caps on spending, higher taxes for subsidised programs)

Issue: Political Participation
Greens support:
Free television and mail for every qualified statewide, congressional, and presidential candidate.

Property Rights (free mail and TV ads for candidates, even the ones I don't agree with, paid for with my dollars)


Issue: Foreign Policy

Greens call for:

Military spending to be cut by 50% over the next 10 years, with increases in spending for social programs.

Abolishing nuclear weapons .... Domestic and international regulation must protect the global ecology, utilizing the UNITED NATIONS and related agencies. We believe in the core right of self-determination and the special character and needs of indigenous peoples.



Increased social programs.. Social programs mean that people are under the control of the government. Greens bash "big brother" on one hand and then talk about making the public even more dependant on handouts, paid for by the taxpayer's dollars, and administered by an expanded bureaucracy. Which is better, the government taking your money and then giving it back to you if it deems you fit, or letting you keep your money and choose how to spend it? Which is "more free"?

They even go as far as supporting the World Court and giving it more power, a clear conflict with their feelgood plank "We do not place faith in paternalistic big government." What government is bigger than a world government comprised of the UN and World Court?

As far as their stance on nuclear weapons... It just seems plain unrealistic. If we get rid of ours, how will that cause other people to get rid of theirs?

Tuition-free post secondary (collegiate and vocational) public education.

Same argument as above regarding their other socalist positions. The government has already used grants and scholarships to control and punish students (see the NORML battle vs the Higher Education Act). More government involvement means more control, less freedom.

Health care is a human right.

Uh, OK.

We support universal health care and a single-payer insurance program, that is publicly financed at the national level, administered locally, and privately delivered with freedom of choice of provider. It would cover all standard medical procedures, as well as drug treatment, dental care, medication for chronic and terminal illness, equal coverage of mental illness, and abortion.

Thanks for spending my money for me. Lord knows, I wouldn't know what to do with it if my paycheck wasn't 70% taxes. Right now, insurance with low deductibles and co-payments are driving health care costs sky high. Why? Because patients don't know or don't care how much the procedure or drug really costs, and therefore don't make rational decisions as to whether they really need said drug or procedure, or whether an alternate and cheaper procedure or drug would suffice. I've recently seen this firsthand where I work. Our medical insurance was being driven through the roof with drug costs. A restructuring of the co-pay caused people to look critically at their medications and ask the doctor about cheaper alternatives. The result was dramatically reduced drug costs and lower insurance for everyone. I didn't see anyone sick who couldn't afford their drugs either.

This is an example of where the free market can work if not interfered with. The Green's proposal will cause skyrocketing medical costs, which comes out of every taxpayers pocket and into the pocket of large corporations. Not a very consistant thing to happen considering the Green's overall anti-corporate position.

All people have a right to food, housing, medical care, a living wage job, education, and support in times of hardship.

Sounds an awful lot like socialism to me. A right to a job means that as a business owner I will be compelled to hire incompetant people? After all, the person applying for the job has a right to it!

Alternatively, I guess they mean they would give government jobs to people who have no skills, which means I would be bankrolling people to do absolutely nothing, with my tax money.

Again, the standard objection to this socialist stuff... Socalism=more government, bigger government, with more control over the people.

We call for a graduated supplemental income (negative income tax) that would maintain all adult incomes above the poverty level.

Great! I can quit my job as soon as a Green is elected. In fact, why would anyone keep their job? I sure wouldn't be motivated to work if I could get everything free, including food, housing, medical care, entitlements to keep me above the poverty level, etc. What would be the point of working at all? I think the economy would collapse.

We support independent civilian review of police misconduct and carefully considered gun control.

Gun control is a direct "erosion of rights". Law abiding citizens should be able to own and use guns how they please, so long as they do nothing illegal.

Decriminalization of "victimless" crimes, for example, the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Oh, but not the victimless "crime" of owning a gun and using it for sport/defense? This is where the Greens really lose me. I don't see how they can support MJ legalization but also support gun control. One implies the assumption that responsible and law abiding adults should be trusted, and the other does not.

We support affirmative action and reparations for people of color in the form of monetary compensation.

Yeah, especially since most of the people that were around during the worst descrimination are dead or dying (or at least retired and not paying taxes). Reparations paid to the children of the descriminated against, by the children of people who may or may not have descriminated. Sounds fair to me. A very Klingon way of thinking.

Aggressive prosecution of hate crimes.

Hate crimes are inherently thought crimes. They punish the perpetrator above and beyond the normal punlishment for their actions, because of what they thought, because of what they were (allegedly) motivated by. I thought Greens were against big brother? A free society punishes damaging actions, not damaging thought. Punishing thought is a direct attack on free speech.

We support the creation of consumer advocacy agencies

More governmental bloat. More taxes.

The scope of the First Amendment is extensive and prohibits any law which would abridge the freedom of speech or press, most clearly in reference to political matters.

Except that the government determines what is "hate speech" and censors it through hate crime laws.

So what about the freedom to spend my money the way I see fit? Under a Green system, if I work, it will all be taxed away to nothing, so I can never get ahead. If I don't work, I am guaranteed a pretty nice life (at least until the economy collapses from other people also not working), but I can still never get ahead.

Some of us voted for a third party that actually wins some races. (not to mention having a coherent platform, strong candidates, etc.)

You are wrong. The Green party has had steady growth. In California they elected 13 green's last election. see here

We have a similar thing here in the U.S. The Green Party. Many people would argue that they are a "special interest" group. I would argue that any group can be labeled a "special Interest" the question is really what special interests are on my side?

And the greens want MORE government, not less.

A fundamental Green principal is decentralization of control, including governments: "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 think that's something Greens and Libertarians could agree on, no?

Perhaps you should base your criticism on facts?

Most geeks are actually libertarians, though the geeks on slashdot seem to be mostly socialists

The two are not incompatable, indeed the "libertarian" label was used by socialists first before it was stolen by capitalists.

I think the phrase you're looking for is `Watermelon' (green on the outside, red on the inside). At least, that's the impression I get when I note that the party platform of the Greens includes such ``environmental'' issues as redistribution of wealth and race-based quotas for hiring (not sure that these are part of the Green platform? Don't take my word for it.

And remember, the BIGGEST polluter in the world is the US government, and the worst one in this country is the all the federal and state governments. Private and coroporate pollution is almost nil by comparison.

And the greens want MORE government, not less.

A company wrongs you, you can sue them.

When the government does it, you have no recourse.

Best solution for the environment is privatization of land and a rational court system to sue for damages. You pollute my drinking water, I sue you. EVen if you are the government.

And, while we're at it, how many jobs would exist if all the large and small companies in the country were destroyed? Where would the tax money come from?

And remember, the BIGGEST polluter in the world is the US government, and the worst one in this country is the all the federal and state governments. Private and coroporate pollution is almost nil by comparison.

And the greens want MORE government, not less.

A company wrongs you, you can sue them.

When the government does it, you have no recourse.

Best solution for the environment is privatization of land and a rational court system to sue for damages. You pollute my drinking water, I sue you. EVen if you are the government.

And, while we're at it, how many jobs would exist if all the large and small companies in the country were destroyed? Where would the tax money come from?

Vote Green.

Vote Libertarian.

Just don't get confused and vote Libertarian National Socialist Green.

As for alternative voting systems, don't be too quick to say they couldn't work in the US. The city of San Fransisco just adopted it. Several others cities have it, or had it in the past, such as Ann Arbor. Also, a wide variety of companies and organizations, including the American Political Science Association, use IRV.

The Green Party has always supported IRV as a superior system to the plurality system we have now.

Of those four, I disagree (to some degree or another) with all four, or at least with the specifics of the pillars.

"Grassroots Democracy." As spelled out by the manifesto on the Green Party website (yes, I actually read it, in its entirety), the Party wants to make everything a direct democracy. I am wholly opposed to the idea; the Founding Fathers were careful to avoid it because direct democracy is functionally equivalent to mob rule. Consider this: the abolition of slavery, and, later, the civil rights legislation of the 1960's, was highly unpopular; it was pushed through, despite heavy opposition, because the elected leadership was able to do its job, instead of having the people directly vote on the bills. Indeed, if everything is a direct democracy (an absurd idea, given the volume of legislation considered each year), what would even be the point of having representation? All we'd need is ballot counters.

"Social Justice." Generally an emotionally-loaded term for Communism (that's with a big 'C,' the way Marx described it, not like the Soviets implemented it), the Greens' definition of "social justice" lives up to the reputation. Here's my definition of social justice: unequal rewards for unequal efforts; that's derived from the basic concept of justice, letting the consequences (positive or negative) of an action be proportional to the action itself.

"Non-violence." Again, loaded words--who in his right mind is in favor of violence? And again, the devil is in the details. I am opposed to wanton use of the military, but I do recognize the need for one, and I think that if we're going to have one, it needs to be the most capable, most effective, most overwhelming force possible. Indeed, such a force would have a deterrent effect; "the best defense is a strong offense." I also believe that we owe it to the persons who make up that force to make them as powerful as possible: the greater their effectiveness, the less the risk to which they are exposed when called upon to do their duties. Additionally (this seems like a logical place to put it), I don't agree with their position on gun control. The Brady Law was a terrible idea which has been wholly ineffective in preventing crime (details available upon request, but would be offtopic here), has led to major violations of civil rights (i.e. the gov't illegally maintaining records of background checks, creating a de facto database of gun owners), and, while not explicitly defined, the "reasonable gun control" they propose would probably be distasteful, particularly in light of their stance on the Brady Law.

"Ecological Wisdom." Wisdom is good, right? Nobody wants to be a fool. Well, yet again, the name of the pillar is good, but the stones comprising the pillar need examination. First of all, I am all in favor of preserving the environment; I'm a backpacker, hunter, fisherman, sailor, camper, and probably spend more time outside than 95% of the Slashdot population. Nonetheless, I disagree with some of the Greens' proposals for maintaining the environment. For example, I disagree with their position on nuclear power (they're wholeheartedly against it, and call for the complete shutdown of all plants in five years, if possible); I feel that, while renewable sources are the best long-term option, they're not ready yet, and, until they are, nuclear power is one of the best interim options available. Yes, I know of the hazards, and of the accidents; I also know the why and how on many of the accidents, and recognize that most of them were results of nuclear power being pushed ahead before its time; now, with a more relaxed political climate (no more Cold War), and another thirty to forty years' experience, I think we're in a better position to handle nuclear power.

So, there's the short version: I disagree with all four, to some degree or another. Documentation is happily provided on the Greens' own web site; if you really need me to, I'll be happy to reply with chapter and section, but please don't ask unless you really can't find it. And, just for the record, I didn't make any accusations about what their positions are, I just said I didn't agree with them. If you're going to put words in my mouth and accuse me of making accusations, well, documentation would be nice.

Yeah, I suppose a new party has a much better chance of success in a third world country than one in the US. The Green Pary is certainly a viable choice (superior IMHO)in many elections but it is ignored by the press and cannot garner enough votes to get funding.

Sigh. The predictable two-party system is continued, regardless of the number of parties.

Guess what! The Democrats and the Republicans both have significant influence from corporations
(as indeed you have said).

You should consider voting for a party that does not have such corporate influence such as the
Libertarian Party or the Green Party, or perhaps even an independant candidate.

Oh well, that won't stop people voting Republicrat.

Too many people have been brainwashed into believing that there are only two political parties.
Wake up! Democrat and Republican politicians will continue to abuse your rights while you let them
stay in power.

This is not how I read the platform. Greens disagree with the corporate control of these initiatives. They merely wish to renegotiate NAFTA, I gather to root out corporate oligarchy, for example: the platform indicates that these initiatives "effectively limit the participation of citizens in decisions. Instead, they create administrative bureaucracies which will be run by corporate interests unaccountable to public input or even legal challenge."

I don't think they're against helping 3rd world countries, they'd just prefer not to see corporations line their pockets on the backs of those citizens.

This is not how I read the platform. Greens disagree with the corporate control of these initiatives. They merely wish to renegotiate NAFTA, I gather to root out corporate oligarchy, for example: the platform indicates that these initiatives "effectively limit the participation of citizens in decisions. Instead, they create administrative bureaucracies which will be run by corporate interests unaccountable to public input or even legal challenge."

I don't think they're against helping 3rd world countries, they'd just prefer not to see corporations line their pockets on the backs of those citizens.

From what I know, these guys were a minor issue-party, but have evolved into a serious, well-rounded party fighting corporate control of the government and the political process. They even had a good candidate for president in 2000, who bothered to answer (some) questions from Slashdot.

The democratic and anti-corporate nature of the Green movement is very much in line with the values of the free software/OSS movement.

As for not winning elections, over 100 Greens hold local office throughout the US. The two things that stand between us and higher office are the fact that we are actively prevented from taking part in public debates and the "first past the post" voting system (which has many fully Constitutional alternatives).

The democratic and anti-corporate nature of the Green movement is very much in line with the values of the free software/OSS movement.

As for not winning elections, over 100 Greens hold local office throughout the US. The two things that stand between us and higher office are the fact that we are actively prevented from taking part in public debates and the "first past the post" voting system (which has many fully Constitutional alternatives).

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.)

Vote Green!

GlobalGreens seems to run the only world conference of Greens, who are in most democratic countries as a full party. They recognize the Green Party of the US (Association of State Green Parties), Nader's org, and run those press releases on their web site. So that's the Greens' idea of who the US Greens are. The old party is leftists.