Re: [metatuning] Digest Number 1122

> I understand. I'm losing faith, however, that anything I might do
> would make any difference whatsoever in the direction that both our
> country and the world is going. And as for doing something, I'm trying
> to be active on local scales (cliche as that may seem) so that I know
> my effort isn't wasted, and my life has some value.

That's how the Republicans took power: they started at the local level,
becoming town councilers and librarians and all of that. Then there was a
base for all of their recent wins.

Cliche or not, it works.

>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:38:46 -0000
> From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...>
> Subject: Re: weapons sales
>
>
> > >> The lack of government per-se would not mean an end to the
> > >> market for arms.
> > >
> > > I didn't say it would. But I believe the actions of the US
> > > government have increased the amount and severity of weapons
> > > in the world 100-fold beyond what was necessary, even without
> > > any governance change of the kind we are discussing.
> >
> > this is putting the cart before the horse. You know that if I
> > write to my congresspeople askign them to curtail arms sales,
> > they'll come back with the "but people will lose jobs argument"
>
> Would they? That argument doesn't hold any water as far as I'm
> concerned. A harder-to-debunk argument would be that extreme US
> military force is needed to keep the world running smoothly. But
> I don't believe that either.

You're right, it would probably be a combination of both arguments.

>
> > in other words, they can't turn their backs on the people
> > that funded their campaigns.
> > In other words, the government is doing what it's doing
> > largely at the behest of the corporations.
>
> There's definitely feedback, but the government's desire
> for weapons is definitely primary in my view.

Maybe, but I thought we were discussing the SALE of weapons to OTHER
governments. The only interest in that, (especially if they are shady
nature, like Iraq in the 80's, or who knows where now (we'll find out in
20 years when we have to send more soldiers to die killing civilians of
some country run by some dictator that we're currently arming), the only
interest in that, is big business. and to some extent, making sure
communist govt's don't arise. Certainly not stability in any real sense
of the word . . . .

> However, what if we replaced the word "corporations" in
> your statement, with the phrase "the people who work for
> defense contractors". And what if we replaced that
> phrase with the word "people". What changes?

How about we replace it with "a few rich and powerful people, who won't
feel the negative effects thereof." There, that's more accurate.

>
> > another example: in "Deterring Democracy", Chomsky
> > relates the tale of how the gov't tried to curtail
> > cocaine trade by possibly going after corporations such
> > as the companies that make chemicals for processing the
> > cocoa plant into the refined drug,
>
> What chemicals are those? I don't know what they use...
> hydrochloric acid? Whatever it is, it isn't specialized
> to extracting cocaine.

I think it was. . . but I'd have to look it up . . and the book is back in
PA at my parents' house.

>
> Chomsky is a nitwit. He doesn't give references,

there are pages of footnotes at the end of every chapter of every book
he's written. (well, maybe except for the interview books).

> and I'm
> fairly certain his fact-checking is tabloid-quality.

Yeah most of his facts come from obscure, highly disreputable sources such
as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc.

>>>>> The lack of government per-se would not mean an end to the
>>>>> market for arms.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say it would. But I believe the actions of the US
>>>> government have increased the amount and severity of weapons
>>>> in the world 100-fold beyond what was necessary, even without
>>>> any governance change of the kind we are discussing.
>>>
>>> this is putting the cart before the horse. You know that if
>>> I write to my congresspeople askign them to curtail arms
>>> sales, they'll come back with the "but people will lose jobs
>>> argument" in other words, they can't turn their backs on the
>>> people that funded their campaigns. In other words, the
>>> government is doing what it's doing largely at the behest of
>>> the corporations.
>>
>> // what if we replaced the word "corporations" in your
>> statement, with the phrase "the people who work for defense
>> contractors". And what if we replaced that phrase with the
>> word "people". What changes?
>
> How about we replace it with "a few rich and powerful people,
> who won't feel the negative effects thereof." There, that's
> more accurate.

Question: If they won't feel the effects, why do they care?

> > > another example: in "Deterring Democracy", Chomsky
> > > relates the tale of how the gov't tried to curtail
> > > cocaine trade by possibly going after corporations such
> > > as the companies that make chemicals for processing the
> > > cocoa plant into the refined drug,
> >
> > What chemicals are those? I don't know what they use...
> > hydrochloric acid? Whatever it is, it isn't specialized
> > to extracting cocaine.
>
> I think it was. . . but I'd have to look it up . . and the
> book is back in PA at my parents' house.

Nope, there's nothing special about cocaine extraction.
It's just another alkaloid.

> > Chomsky is a nitwit. He doesn't give references,
>
> there are pages of footnotes at the end of every chapter of
> every book he's written. (well, maybe except for the
> interview books).

I've never seen a reference in material I've read on the web.
Perhaps much of that was interviews.

> > and I'm fairly certain his fact-checking is tabloid-
> > quality.
>
> Yeah most of his facts come from obscure, highly
> disreputable sources such as the New York Times, the
> Wall Street Journal, etc.

Actually, the NYT is highly disreputable. Their contributors
have been known to flat make stuff up.

-Carl