Linux advocacy is no more "passive" than Gandhi was. Both are highly active resistance, in that rather than simply complaining all the time (as you baselessly imply), we are going out and building and promoting a viable alternative. Just as Gandhi did.
Microsoft is successful because it puts most of its efforts into perpetuating market failures. Attempts to crush Linux are a prime example.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1
This long ago ceased to be productive, but in an attempt to set the record straight, here goes...
Gee, a spelling flame! Wow, the last resort of those with no logic, facts nor reason.
Not spelling. "Irregardless" has no proper spelling, because it's not a word.
The green party platform I'm referencing implements all the goals given by the rest of the green parties.
Um, no, it doesn't. A platform cannot implement goals, only people elected to office can do that. More to the point, There are marked differences between the one you talk about the platform that nearly all Greens in the USA use. Granted, there are similarities as well, but the more extreme cases you picked out tend not to be among them.
That you guys have no standard platform (other than the one I'm pointing to) is your problem,
What does it take to get through to you? The link was posted, and is still there for you to see. That is the standard platform.
not mine. Nadar ran on the platform so its worth knowing what he endorsed, even if he didn't have the guts to admit it.
You YOURSELF said on your site that Nader (insert spelling flame here) did not run on the platform you talked about.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1
Nope,the platform reviewed is STILL the official platform on the party web pages.
Here's a hint: www.greenpartyus.org is the real Green Party. www.greenparty.org is a tiny Green faction. The former has the platform endorsed by 99% of Greens in the USA.
Its so pathetic, Nadar created his own platform to run on-- but the official party platform is there for everyone to see.
The fact is, Nader had nothing at all to do with the creation of the Green Platform (the real one or the one you insist on). It is a grassroots Green project. I know it's fun to make things up, but you need to be careful when presenting made-up things as fact, because there's probably someone out there who knows better.
you think military spending is half the federal spending, it isn't.
Let me correct myself - it's half of the discretionary funding Congress allocates each year. It still dwarfs welfare, OSHA, the EPA, and all the other programs right-wingers love to hate. More info...
irregardless
You may want to check a dictionary before posting to Slashdot.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1
Let me be the first to point out how stupid this all is. Oh wait... eight other people have beaten me to it.
Check out what the greens really believe in: http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html
Right, because you certainly know what we stand for better than we do. Hard_Code has already included the correct link. It took you three pages to get around to admiting that you were citing the wrong platform on your page, but it didn't occur to you to CORRECT your own ADMITTED error.
Private and coroporate pollution is almost nil by comparison.
Right, that whole incident at Three Mile Island - practically nil. Bhopal, Love Canal, the Exxon Valdez, Lake Erie's near-death experience, the Cuyahoga catching fire... all mere trifles.
And the greens want MORE government, not less.
Not so. What we want is more RESPONSIBLE government. If you read our platform, you'd see that we want to drastically reduce the military budget, which is fully half the money the US government spends, dwarfing all social and environmental spending. We could spend half as much as still be the world's leading miltary power. How's that for less government? (And by the way, to the extent that the government is, in fact, a major pollutor, the military does the most damage. No other department compares, in either relative or absolute terms.)
A company wrongs you, you can sue them. When the government does it, you have no recourse.
I have nothing to add to what other people have said to this, except to reiterate that you're just plain wrong.
If you DO understand economics, and you want to protect the environment, you vote libertarian.
I refer to this as the "Argument by Arrogance": If you understand, you agree with me. If you don't agree with me, you don't understand. This argument should be studiously and energetically ignored.
This country is heading towards tyranny and socialism,
Tyranny, yes. Socialism - only for the corporations.
And if this were true, it would justify what's happening in China?
As it happens, I don't think that the Phillipines and India are as democratic as you think they are. But then, I don't think the United States is as democratic as a lot of people think it is.
Um, you may want to keep in mind that Luke and Leia (note spelling) won't be born until late in, or possibly after, Episode III. And Han is somewhat older, but that would still make him a teenager at most by the time of Episode III, which is after this series.
Wrong on both counts. There are a variety of "third parties": the Reform Party, the Taxpayers Party, the Libertarian Party, and the fastest-growing (actually, the only growing party in the US), the Green Party.
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.
As spelled out by the manifesto on the Green Party website
Well, you get credit for not only reading the site, but reading the right one, unlike the other person who responded (and many others).
the Party wants to make everything a direct democracy.
I think you're thinking of this line...
Greens advocate direct democracy as a response to local needs and issues,
... which clearly does not call for everything to be a direct democracy. Do we want more democracy than we have now? Certainly. But it's a caricaturization of our position to say we want everybody involved in every decision.
the abolition of slavery, and, later, the civil rights legislation of the 1960's, was highly unpopular
True enough. But consider that we also advocate both electoral and direct action at the local level to get rid of social evils of these sorts. Also consider that there have been a great many things that the government has done that were extremely unpopular (the Vietnam War, funding the contras, ten years of bombing Iraq, a new war on Iraq, and the list goes on). With greater accountability, these would not have happened, either.
what would even be the point of having representation?
Notice that Greens are running for representational office, and have made no comments about abolishing them.
"Social Justice." Generally an emotionally-loaded term for Communism
Um... not on the Earth I live on. To me it means basic fairness. If you think the world we live in is fair, then we have no further basis for discussion. If not, then the question becomes why not, and what can we do about it?
"the best defense is a strong offense."
Well, I'd say we've been pretty offensive. What say we invite every nation where we have a military base to open a military base of their one on our soil? Turnabout is fair play. Or is fair play Communist?
The Brady Law was a terrible idea which has been wholly ineffective in preventing crime
I'll have to look up the numbers and see if it's been as ineffective as the death penalty...
I feel that, while renewable sources are the best long-term option
How can something that's best in the long run not be the best in the short run? Or at the very least, if we're planning for the long run, we need to start investing in renewables now. Otherwise, the long run never gets any shorter.
As for nuclear, it has no redeeming value that I've seen. It's incredibly expensive to run, it's hazardous (compare the most minor nuclear accident to the most catatrophic solar accident), and it creates waste that no one knows what to do with. Renewables are safe, clean, and create little to no waste. Yes, the manufacturing process for photovoltaics is messy, but once they're made, they last essentially forever.
but please don't ask unless you really can't find it
I know what's in the Platform. I voted to approve it.
f you're going to put words in my mouth and accuse me of making accusations
Sorry, it's just that I'm not used to people being able to discuss politics calmly and lucidly. It's nice to find an exception.
...And it's the Green Party. The Greens do not take any corporate donations at any time, for any reason. That's one of the reasons it's the ONLY party to have grown during the last year.
In fact, the Green Party is the only one that thinks corporate power is a problem. And we are the only party whose values line up with the open-source commuity. See for yourself at http://www.greenpartyus.org/
I'm a web designer, not an engineer, but I'm doing my traveling now. I live in Managua, Nicaragua, where I run a newsletter and several websites for an NGO. If you want to be happy, look for a job that you can believe in, while applying your skills. I strongly recommend living overseas - everyone should have an idea how the rest of the world perceives their country, and that goes double for the US, especially under the current regime.
We need this here in Managua. There was a report that a major earthquake was expected last week, but it didn't happen. Bizzarely, the media then said the danger was over. Given the history of this town, I don't buy that for a second. We are in danger of losing hundreds or thousands of lives (potentially including mine) at any moment, so any help is a big help.
The Democrats have been cutting military funding and criticising the Republicans for increases in military funding.
Could be there are some who recognize that we are amazingly wasteful with the way we spend money on the miklitary. But none are talking about cutting the military budget in half, like we are.
The shadow government has been around for DECADES. It was NOT news, regardless of who announced it.
And when is it we'll hear the Republicans denounce it for being unconsitutiuonal?
Increasing government control does not show that Greens want to remove government control.
Where have you heard me call for more government control? You're still operating under the idea that Greens are liberals. Not so. In fact, two of our ten key values are Community Economics and Decentralization. These mean control, such as it, should be local, democratic, and subject to the consent of the governed.
Based on what?
Based on the knee-jerk defense I hear every so often of companies, regardless of what they do.
I don't know where you are getting that from. Democrats are both anti-corporate and anti-military.
I get this from Gore and Bush debating how much the military budget needed to be increased. Democrats don't question the staggering amounts of money we spend on our military, nor the reasons for doing so.
Our previous President broke down the military and signed and encouraged numerous laws against corporations (Telecomm act, tobacco, Microsoft, etc).
He also pushed for NAFTA and GATT. For every attack on a corporation, his administration approved dozens of corporate mergers. And I shouldn't even have to tell you how much money the Democrats take from corporations in campaign donations.
The Green plan is going further from the intentions of the founders of this country.
Not at all. The founders wanted local markets and local democracy. That's what we want. Are you aware that when this country was founded, corporations were given a charter that was not only narrowly-defined, but time-limited as well? That's what the founders wanted.
The Republicans have certain correct ideas about "constitutionality",
Ah, you must be refering to some other Republicans than the ones who revealed the existence of the shadow government after 9/11.
Libertarians are the only ones who want to return the country to its basic roots, and let people in the country live their own lives.
Greens want that, too, but we recognize that corporate domination is every bit as controling as government domination. Libertarians seem to think that money can do no wrong.
Anyway, Microsoft will be handled by the market, IMHO.
Yeah, right. The market has done such a good job of restraining Microsoft so far.
Because war *does* happen. Not necessarilly with us, but it does happen--and when we just leave warlike people along long enough, we eventually get bombed.
What, spontaneously? Don't kid yourself. People who hate us do so for a reason. This latest stunt with Microsoft is an example of why.
Here's a real kicker: the www.gp.org site was created using (ready?)Microsoft FrontPage!
What kind of kicker is that supposed to be? I said many sites were made with OSS, not all. Most Greens are not technical people, and fall back on what they know.
In other words, the Greens are not much different from the Democrats, they are actually much more liberal.
Greens are indeed very different from Democrats, and most of us stopped thinking of ourselves as "liberal" long ago.
Democrats are pro-corporate and pro-military. Greens are opposed to both, except in minimalist, democratically-controlled forms.
Liberals tend to see things in terms of how the government can take the edge off the damage the economy does to working (or non-working) people. Greens want the people to control the economy directly, whether through worker-managed companies, the corporate death penalty, or other ways.
The basis of the Democratic Party's actions used to by liberal white guilt, though now they don't even have that, just corporate cash. The basis for Green action is self-emowerment.
We might just stick around in our current form forever--especially if we succeed in (somehow) bringing the third world up to the standard of the first.
Not gonna happen. Why? 'Cause we in the "developed" world like the poor to be poor. Otherwise, they wouldn't pick our fruits and vegetables for next to nothing, or put our clothes together for next to nothing, or keep those quaint little countries of theirs just the way they were when Spain left.
Refusing to take the means that get the big two elected is probably what keeps the Green Party from wining.:( Then again...
Organized people can defeat organized money. Corruption, by definition, means that the system is not working as it should. If we demand that the rules be followed, and that officials base their decisions on democratic principles, we can have a huge impact.
Actually, as long as war is going to happen, I'd rather it be over there than over here.
But why should we assume that war is going to happen? Most wars are completely preventable. Reducing the power of arms corporations over the government would be a big first step to doing so.
Well, that's intersting. What, pray tell, does the government have to do to change that?
To being with, hold the rights of workers, consumers, and communties, and the care of the environment, above the interests of corporations.
Then, stop the so-called Patriot Act, which only serves to push this counry down the slope towards a police state. Then, curb the power of the FBI and the CIA.
For the moment, there's not much there. That's why I said it was for the next version of the platform. We are very much in the discussion stage, but some of have been plugging free/open-source software for a long time. Most GP sites are created with and run on OSS, and a number say so prominently. Those Greens with enough technical background to understand the issues are solidly with the OSS community on every topic I can think of. Now we just need to explain it to the rest!:)
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).
That's why there's a Green Party. We accept no corporate money. That keeps us focused on the things the US really needs: renewable energy, taxes on "bads," not goods, an end to overseas military bases, a government that sees people as citizens, not consumers (and increasingly, prisoners), and so on. For more info, see http://www.greenpartyus.org, or for the Platform, http://www.gp.org.
To veer this back on-topic, I should mention that there is a movement within the Greens to include a detailed plank on software rights and DRM in the next major release of our platform.
OK, what am I supposed to do? I live in Managua! (That's Nicaragua, Central America, for those of you not keeping score at home.) I'm not on the invitation list...:(
Slashdot Mirror
Linux advocacy is no more "passive" than Gandhi was. Both are highly active resistance, in that rather than simply complaining all the time (as you baselessly imply), we are going out and building and promoting a viable alternative. Just as Gandhi did.
Microsoft is successful because it puts most of its efforts into perpetuating market failures. Attempts to crush Linux are a prime example.
This long ago ceased to be productive, but in an attempt to set the record straight, here goes...
Gee, a spelling flame! Wow, the last resort of those with no logic, facts nor reason.
Not spelling. "Irregardless" has no proper spelling, because it's not a word.
The green party platform I'm referencing implements all the goals given by the rest of the green parties.
Um, no, it doesn't. A platform cannot implement goals, only people elected to office can do that. More to the point, There are marked differences between the one you talk about the platform that nearly all Greens in the USA use. Granted, there are similarities as well, but the more extreme cases you picked out tend not to be among them.
That you guys have no standard platform (other than the one I'm pointing to) is your problem,
What does it take to get through to you? The link was posted, and is still there for you to see. That is the standard platform.
not mine. Nadar ran on the platform so its worth knowing what he endorsed, even if he didn't have the guts to admit it.
You YOURSELF said on your site that Nader (insert spelling flame here) did not run on the platform you talked about.
Nope ,the platform reviewed is STILL the official platform on the party web pages.
Here's a hint: www.greenpartyus.org is the real Green Party. www.greenparty.org is a tiny Green faction. The former has the platform endorsed by 99% of Greens in the USA.
Its so pathetic, Nadar created his own platform to run on-- but the official party platform is there for everyone to see.
The fact is, Nader had nothing at all to do with the creation of the Green Platform (the real one or the one you insist on). It is a grassroots Green project. I know it's fun to make things up, but you need to be careful when presenting made-up things as fact, because there's probably someone out there who knows better.
you think military spending is half the federal spending, it isn't.
Let me correct myself - it's half of the discretionary funding Congress allocates each year. It still dwarfs welfare, OSHA, the EPA, and all the other programs right-wingers love to hate. More info...
irregardless
You may want to check a dictionary before posting to Slashdot.
Let me be the first to point out how stupid this all is. Oh wait... eight other people have beaten me to it.
Check out what the greens really believe in:
http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html
Right, because you certainly know what we stand for better than we do. Hard_Code has already included the correct link. It took you three pages to get around to admiting that you were citing the wrong platform on your page, but it didn't occur to you to CORRECT your own ADMITTED error.
Private and coroporate pollution is almost nil by comparison.
Right, that whole incident at Three Mile Island - practically nil. Bhopal, Love Canal, the Exxon Valdez, Lake Erie's near-death experience, the Cuyahoga catching fire... all mere trifles.
And the greens want MORE government, not less.
Not so. What we want is more RESPONSIBLE government. If you read our platform, you'd see that we want to drastically reduce the military budget, which is fully half the money the US government spends, dwarfing all social and environmental spending. We could spend half as much as still be the world's leading miltary power. How's that for less government? (And by the way, to the extent that the government is, in fact, a major pollutor, the military does the most damage. No other department compares, in either relative or absolute terms.)
A company wrongs you, you can sue them. When the government does it, you have no recourse.
I have nothing to add to what other people have said to this, except to reiterate that you're just plain wrong.
If you DO understand economics, and you want to protect the environment, you vote libertarian.
I refer to this as the "Argument by Arrogance": If you understand, you agree with me. If you don't agree with me, you don't understand. This argument should be studiously and energetically ignored.
This country is heading towards tyranny and socialism,
Tyranny, yes. Socialism - only for the corporations.
And if this were true, it would justify what's happening in China?
As it happens, I don't think that the Phillipines and India are as democratic as you think they are. But then, I don't think the United States is as democratic as a lot of people think it is.
The word "ewok" is a tribute to merchandising.
It is never said in Return of the Jedi.
Um, you may want to keep in mind that Luke and Leia (note spelling) won't be born until late in, or possibly after, Episode III. And Han is somewhat older, but that would still make him a teenager at most by the time of Episode III, which is after this series.
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.
Well, you get credit for not only reading the site, but reading the right one, unlike the other person who responded (and many others).
the Party wants to make everything a direct democracy.
I think you're thinking of this line...
the abolition of slavery, and, later, the civil rights legislation of the 1960's, was highly unpopular
True enough. But consider that we also advocate both electoral and direct action at the local level to get rid of social evils of these sorts. Also consider that there have been a great many things that the government has done that were extremely unpopular (the Vietnam War, funding the contras, ten years of bombing Iraq, a new war on Iraq, and the list goes on). With greater accountability, these would not have happened, either.
what would even be the point of having representation?
Notice that Greens are running for representational office, and have made no comments about abolishing them.
"Social Justice." Generally an emotionally-loaded term for Communism
Um... not on the Earth I live on. To me it means basic fairness. If you think the world we live in is fair, then we have no further basis for discussion. If not, then the question becomes why not, and what can we do about it?
"the best defense is a strong offense."
Well, I'd say we've been pretty offensive. What say we invite every nation where we have a military base to open a military base of their one on our soil? Turnabout is fair play. Or is fair play Communist?
The Brady Law was a terrible idea which has been wholly ineffective in preventing crime
I'll have to look up the numbers and see if it's been as ineffective as the death penalty...
I feel that, while renewable sources are the best long-term option
How can something that's best in the long run not be the best in the short run? Or at the very least, if we're planning for the long run, we need to start investing in renewables now. Otherwise, the long run never gets any shorter.
As for nuclear, it has no redeeming value that I've seen. It's incredibly expensive to run, it's hazardous (compare the most minor nuclear accident to the most catatrophic solar accident), and it creates waste that no one knows what to do with. Renewables are safe, clean, and create little to no waste. Yes, the manufacturing process for photovoltaics is messy, but once they're made, they last essentially forever.
but please don't ask unless you really can't find it
I know what's in the Platform. I voted to approve it.
f you're going to put words in my mouth and accuse me of making accusations
Sorry, it's just that I'm not used to people being able to discuss politics calmly and lucidly. It's nice to find an exception.
OK, then, which of the Four Green Pillars do you disagree with? They are...
Grassroots Democracy
Social Justice
Non-violence
Ecological Wisdom
If you're going to make wild accusations about what the Greens stand for, you better have documentation.
In fact, the Green Party is the only one that thinks corporate power is a problem. And we are the only party whose values line up with the open-source commuity. See for yourself at http://www.greenpartyus.org/
I'm a web designer, not an engineer, but I'm doing my traveling now. I live in Managua, Nicaragua, where I run a newsletter and several websites for an NGO. If you want to be happy, look for a job that you can believe in, while applying your skills. I strongly recommend living overseas - everyone should have an idea how the rest of the world perceives their country, and that goes double for the US, especially under the current regime.
We need this here in Managua. There was a report that a major earthquake was expected last week, but it didn't happen. Bizzarely, the media then said the danger was over. Given the history of this town, I don't buy that for a second. We are in danger of losing hundreds or thousands of lives (potentially including mine) at any moment, so any help is a big help.
Vote Green. Here's why.
Could be there are some who recognize that we are amazingly wasteful with the way we spend money on the miklitary. But none are talking about cutting the military budget in half, like we are.
The shadow government has been around for DECADES. It was NOT news, regardless of who announced it.
And when is it we'll hear the Republicans denounce it for being unconsitutiuonal?
Increasing government control does not show that Greens want to remove government control.
Where have you heard me call for more government control? You're still operating under the idea that Greens are liberals. Not so. In fact, two of our ten key values are Community Economics and Decentralization. These mean control, such as it, should be local, democratic, and subject to the consent of the governed.
Based on what?
Based on the knee-jerk defense I hear every so often of companies, regardless of what they do.
I get this from Gore and Bush debating how much the military budget needed to be increased. Democrats don't question the staggering amounts of money we spend on our military, nor the reasons for doing so.
Our previous President broke down the military and signed and encouraged numerous laws against corporations (Telecomm act, tobacco, Microsoft, etc).
He also pushed for NAFTA and GATT. For every attack on a corporation, his administration approved dozens of corporate mergers. And I shouldn't even have to tell you how much money the Democrats take from corporations in campaign donations.
The Green plan is going further from the intentions of the founders of this country.
Not at all. The founders wanted local markets and local democracy. That's what we want. Are you aware that when this country was founded, corporations were given a charter that was not only narrowly-defined, but time-limited as well? That's what the founders wanted.
The Republicans have certain correct ideas about "constitutionality",
Ah, you must be refering to some other Republicans than the ones who revealed the existence of the shadow government after 9/11.
Libertarians are the only ones who want to return the country to its basic roots, and let people in the country live their own lives.
Greens want that, too, but we recognize that corporate domination is every bit as controling as government domination. Libertarians seem to think that money can do no wrong.
Anyway, Microsoft will be handled by the market, IMHO.
Yeah, right. The market has done such a good job of restraining Microsoft so far.
Cops first. Then the general populace.
Because war *does* happen. Not necessarilly with us, but it does happen--and when we just leave warlike people along long enough, we eventually get bombed.
What, spontaneously? Don't kid yourself. People who hate us do so for a reason. This latest stunt with Microsoft is an example of why.
What kind of kicker is that supposed to be? I said many sites were made with OSS, not all. Most Greens are not technical people, and fall back on what they know.
Greens are indeed very different from Democrats, and most of us stopped thinking of ourselves as "liberal" long ago.
Democrats are pro-corporate and pro-military. Greens are opposed to both, except in minimalist, democratically-controlled forms.
Liberals tend to see things in terms of how the government can take the edge off the damage the economy does to working (or non-working) people. Greens want the people to control the economy directly, whether through worker-managed companies, the corporate death penalty, or other ways.
The basis of the Democratic Party's actions used to by liberal white guilt, though now they don't even have that, just corporate cash. The basis for Green action is self-emowerment.
Not gonna happen. Why? 'Cause we in the "developed" world like the poor to be poor. Otherwise, they wouldn't pick our fruits and vegetables for next to nothing, or put our clothes together for next to nothing, or keep those quaint little countries of theirs just the way they were when Spain left.
And we wonder why they resent us.
Organized people can defeat organized money. Corruption, by definition, means that the system is not working as it should. If we demand that the rules be followed, and that officials base their decisions on democratic principles, we can have a huge impact.
Actually, as long as war is going to happen, I'd rather it be over there than over here.
But why should we assume that war is going to happen? Most wars are completely preventable. Reducing the power of arms corporations over the government would be a big first step to doing so.
Well, that's intersting. What, pray tell, does the government have to do to change that?
To being with, hold the rights of workers, consumers, and communties, and the care of the environment, above the interests of corporations.
Then, stop the so-called Patriot Act, which only serves to push this counry down the slope towards a police state. Then, curb the power of the FBI and the CIA.
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).
To veer this back on-topic, I should mention that there is a movement within the Greens to include a detailed plank on software rights and DRM in the next major release of our platform.
OK, what am I supposed to do? I live in Managua! (That's Nicaragua, Central America, for those of you not keeping score at home.) I'm not on the invitation list... :(