The Republican propoganda machine

It can be illustrated by a conversation a friend of mine had with some
auto mechanics in colorado:

M: "So you're thinking of buying a new car. . ."

Friend: "Yeah. I'm thinking of buying a hybrid. . . "

(grunts of disgust)
M: "I'll never buy one of those. Because, I believe in a free market
economy, and I don't want the government telling me what kind of car to
buy."

-------

My friend said that this is an illustration of why this country will never
go further left than center. But I think it's just an illustration of how
utterly gullible and stupid most of the populace is. And how good the
whole right-wing propoganda machine is.

But the good news is, it doesn't matter what you believe. Only how good
your propoganda is. The country could swing violently in any direction
given the appropriate propoganda. No problem.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <chris@m...>
wrote:
>
> But the good news is, it doesn't matter what you believe. Only how
good
> your propoganda is. The country could swing violently in any
direction
> given the appropriate propoganda. No problem.
>

I almost wish. You think Amy Goodman could take over Comcast, and
start broadcasting anarchist messages? How long does it take to build
up that kind of clout, with relentless organizing? Preying on
people's most inbred superstitions with media creations to 'manifest'
their hallucinations? It takes awhile to build up sufficient residue
of the necessary 'drugs' for that kind of manipulation.

> M: "So you're thinking of buying a new car. . ."
>
> Friend: "Yeah. I'm thinking of buying a hybrid. . . "
>
> (grunts of disgust)
> M: "I'll never buy one of those. Because, I believe in a free
> market economy, and I don't want the government telling me what
> kind of car to buy."

Wow, that guy needs more vitamins.

On the other hand, there are people claiming that hybrids
are a right-wing conspiracy. In fact, my wife and I discussed
this yesterday, and it's hard to understand why pure electrics
were scrapped. Hybrids aren't much more efficient than
conventional cars, and the performance sucks. Pure electrics
are many times more efficient than ordinary cars, and contrary
to what most rednecks assume, their performance is unmatched
by all but the very fastest conventional cars. I'd buy a pure
electric in a heartbeat, but they're no longer available.
And they were taken away from the folks that leased them.
My wife's prof. at Mills apparently tried to sue the
manufacturer to get the car back. Lots of protests, as can be
seen from this site...

http://www.dontcrush.com

Hey-- The RAV 4 has been saved! Awesome. Too bad it's a,
uh, RAV 4. Anyway, if you've never driven until you've
driven an electric (the original Honda EV and I spent some
quality time together). Fortunately, they'll be coming back
when fuel cells start to happen.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> On the other hand, there are people claiming that hybrids
> are a right-wing conspiracy. In fact, my wife and I discussed
> this yesterday, and it's hard to understand why pure electrics
> were scrapped. ...Lots of protests, as can be
> seen from this site...
>
> http://www.dontcrush.com
>
> -Carl
>

Yeah, that sucked hard. Whoever's doing the conspiring is *on the
case*.

I'm even more hopeless. I like trains.

Cheers,

P

> > On the other hand, there are people claiming that hybrids
> > are a right-wing conspiracy. In fact, my wife and I discussed
> > this yesterday, and it's hard to understand why pure electrics
> > were scrapped. ...Lots of protests, as can be
> > seen from this site...
> >
> > http://www.dontcrush.com
> >
> > -Carl
>
> Yeah, that sucked hard. Whoever's doing the conspiring is
> *on the case*.

Of course there was no conspiracy. They wanted to examine
the cars and see how they held up. And they believed,
perhaps correctly, that there was not enough market for a
car with a 100mi range. But PHEVs are a nice compromise...

http://www.calcars.org/calcars-faq.html

> I'm even more hopeless. I like trains.

Trains rock for long distance. Especially maglev trains.
For short distances I think they're still too disruptive
to community planning / restricted in the number of nodes
they can hit. That's why I like Segways for short
distance. I don't actually like cars at all. I do love
driving, but I'd never do it if I didn't have to.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Of course there was no conspiracy.

I think there's a 'conspiracy' of certain companies to stay in
business, which makes it awfully convenient for them when certain
other products 'fail'.

Like DOD selling 'obsolete' weapons, and s***. Not too cool, IMO.

> But PHEVs are a nice compromise...
>
> http://www.calcars.org/calcars-faq.html

Thanks! I haven't been keeping up, myself.

> > I'm even more hopeless. I like trains.
>
> Trains rock for long distance. Especially maglev trains.
> For short distances I think they're still too disruptive
> to community planning / restricted in the number of nodes
> they can hit. That's why I like Segways for short
> distance. I don't actually like cars at all. I do love
> driving, but I'd never do it if I didn't have to.
>
> -Carl

One of my dream vacations is the Vancouver to Banff-Jasper train
trip, but I don't even know if you can still do it.

When I first moved back here, I would commute along the 101 across
the Marin-Sonoma line in a gridlock in the middle of nowhere,
looking at the green hills and the rusty train tracks next to the
freeway, and just fume, but, yeah...

I like to drive, but I'd sure like to not HAVE to, most of the
time. And I like to drive fast, but I think it should happen on
like racetracks only, or something. Open to the public for speeding
on, y'know?

I've had biker friends who felt that way about certain motorcycles,
ie, they shouldn't BE street legal. Interesting, I thought.

-Pete

> > Of course there was no conspiracy.
>
> I think there's a 'conspiracy' of certain companies to stay in
> business, which makes it awfully convenient for them when certain
> other products 'fail'.

Um, yeah...

> One of my dream vacations is the Vancouver to Banff-Jasper train
> trip,

Me too!

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > > Of course there was no conspiracy.
> >
> > I think there's a 'conspiracy' of certain companies to stay in
> > business, which makes it awfully convenient for them when certain
> > other products 'fail'.
>
> Um, yeah...
>

So as long as treachery is seen as a legitimate "strategy" in the
pursuit of "profit", how is it NOT a conspiracy?

-Pete

> > > > Of course there was no conspiracy.
> > >
> > > I think there's a 'conspiracy' of certain companies to stay
> > > in business, which makes it awfully convenient for them when
> > > certain other products 'fail'.
> >
> > Um, yeah...
>
> So as long as treachery is seen as a legitimate "strategy" in the
> pursuit of "profit", how is it NOT a conspiracy?

conspiracy - a secret agreement between two or more people to
perform an unlawful act

How did a car maker like Honda commit a conspiracy to stop
production of their EV?

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > > > > Of course there was no conspiracy.
> > > >
> > > > I think there's a 'conspiracy' of certain companies to stay
> > > > in business, which makes it awfully convenient for them when
> > > > certain other products 'fail'.
> > >
> > > Um, yeah...
> >
> > So as long as treachery is seen as a legitimate "strategy" in
the
> > pursuit of "profit", how is it NOT a conspiracy?
>
> conspiracy - a secret agreement between two or more people to
> perform an unlawful act
>
> How did a car maker like Honda commit a conspiracy to stop
> production of their EV?
>

Perhaps you could tell me how they (in particular) did, or didn't.
I'm fairly sure doing the research will be a source of deepening
despair, but it will be good to know, and eventually I'll get to it.

<<A Brief History of EVs and The People Who Tried to Destroy Them
DontCrush.com started in 2004 in response to auto companies' ongoing
destruction of their electric cars after successfully eviscerating
California's Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate. Despite enormous
popularity including waiting lists to lease the all-electric, zero-
emission vehicles, the auto industry spent millions lobbying
Sacramento and suing in federal court to take the cars off the road
and replace them with gasoline cars as the only readily available
option.>>

So, perhaps we should call it a "lawful conspiracy", or a business
strategy.

I've heard many a business tycoon (hee!) say, "I never did anything
illegal. Unethical, maybe..."

I suppose I was more or less arbitrarily attempting to change the
subject from electric cars to business ethics, the lack of which is
the cause of most of our current troubles, no?

P

>

> > > > > > Of course there was no conspiracy.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think there's a 'conspiracy' of certain companies to
> > > > > stay in business, which makes it awfully convenient for
> > > > > them when certain other products 'fail'.
> > > >
> > > > Um, yeah...
> > >
> > > So as long as treachery is seen as a legitimate "strategy"
> > > in the pursuit of "profit", how is it NOT a conspiracy?
> >
> > conspiracy - a secret agreement between two or more people
> > to perform an unlawful act
> >
> > How did a car maker like Honda commit a conspiracy to stop
> > production of their EV?
>
> Perhaps you could tell me how they (in particular) did, or
> didn't.

? You're the one making the claim. I thought maybe you know
something I don't. They voluntarily made the car -- they're
under no obligation to do so, and certainly they solved many
important engineering problems to make the EV a reality.
The cars were leased, not sold. And there was no secrecy in
their effort to reclaim them when the lease period was up...

> "after successfully eviscerating California's
> Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate."

Oh, that's right, they *were* under obligation to make them.
Therein lies the rub. They probably lost millions on the
project, but to do business in California they had to do it.
I remember reading an editorial in Road & Track which
complained that the whole nation has to pay higher prices
for cars because of the laws in California...

> "the auto industry spent millions lobbying Sacramento and
> suing in federal court to take the cars off the road and
> replace them with gasoline cars as the only readily available
> option."
>
> So, perhaps we should call it a "lawful conspiracy", or a
> business strategy.

A "lawful conspiracy" sounds like an oxymoron to me. Maybe
you mean a legal conspiracy? But, it's probably not worth
discussing with me. This kind of apparent socialist rhetoric
just makes my brain hurt.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > So, perhaps we should call it a "lawful conspiracy", or a
> > business strategy.
>
> A "lawful conspiracy" sounds like an oxymoron to me. Maybe
> you mean a legal conspiracy? But, it's probably not worth
> discussing with me. This kind of apparent socialist rhetoric
> just makes my brain hurt.
>
> -Carl
>

Sorry.

Thanks for your interest up to this point!

But it's no more "rhetorical" than that remark, is it? I thought it
was just a question.

If it's a "legal conspiracy" (ie 'perpetrated' by members of the
legal profession?), can it be attributed to lawyers somewhere on the
political spectrum from left to right with any reasonable accuracy?

Legal, lawful, unlawful, illegal, what's the diff, if they're just
shades of (a general?) disingenuous pretension?

Pete

> > > So, perhaps we should call it a "lawful conspiracy", or a
> > > business strategy.
> >
> > A "lawful conspiracy" sounds like an oxymoron to me. Maybe
> > you mean a legal conspiracy? But, it's probably not worth
> > discussing with me. This kind of apparent socialist rhetoric
> > just makes my brain hurt.
> >
> > -Carl
>
> Sorry.
>
> Thanks for your interest up to this point!

Thanks for yours, also.

> But it's no more "rhetorical" than that remark, is it? I
> thought it was just a question.

Rhetoric isn't the same as rhetorical. From dict.org,
the meaning of the former I intended:

loud and confused and empty talk; "mere rhetoric"

artificial eloquence; fine language or declamation
without conviction or earnest feeling

It also means:

the art of composition; especially, elegant composition
in prose

the art of speaking with propriety, elegance, and force

Rhetorical means of or pertaining to the above, but
also:

a rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an
effect (especially to make an assertion) rather than to
elicit a reply

What a confusing language we use!

> Legal, lawful, unlawful, illegal, what's the diff, if they're
> just shades of (a general?) disingenuous pretension?

To me, a legal conspiracy is a conspiracy carried out
against, or perhaps with the aid of, the law. A lawful
conspiracy would be a contradiction, since lawful tends
to less often be used to mean "of or pertaining to the
law or legal system" and more often to mean "not illegal".
Or something.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> To me, a legal conspiracy is a conspiracy carried out
> against, or perhaps with the aid of, the law. A lawful
> conspiracy would be a contradiction, since lawful tends
> to less often be used to mean "of or pertaining to the
> law or legal system" and more often to mean "not illegal".
> Or something.
>
> -Carl
>

Yeah! I mean, that's getting at my point, actually. Who's REALLY
using the legal system to codify petty and selfish and unenlightened
motivations and outcomes? Like what I characterized as the business
(absence of) ethics angle, ie "if it's 'not illegal' we can do it, and
if it's pragmatic (read: profitable) we SHOULD do it", even if we're
essentially screwing everyone -including ourselves- in the long run.

I used the term "conspiracy" to refer to everything from actual
conspiracies and legal conspiracies to disinformation campaigns
(like "judicial activism" and "frivolous lawsuits") which use legal
and rhetorical (yes) trickery to eviscerate the law as a function of
our best and most plausible (!) ideals.

Idealistic laws like Zero Emissions (I believe) were passed on a long-
term hope of accelerating the competition (!) to eliminate or severly
restrict irresponsible and hazardous enterprises, like oil and car
companies as we've known them. Some form of adherence to (or
enforcement of?) that ideal is necessary for any progress to occur, I
think.

And there are highly respected political theorists who subscribe to
the idea of a capitalist welfare state, ie one which codifies social
responsibility, so I think I can be forgiven the "socialist rhetoric".

Best,

Pete