I am just astounded by the willingness of so many to obey orders even when those orders are to waste their valuable time sorting their friggin' trash.

I was doing it long before anyone "ordered me to" (which they didn't; now it's optional but most people do it). I felt like a pioneer, not someone wasting time. Besides, the time involved is so miniscule it's not worth getting mad OR laughing about!

Live! In Concert! Eric Meece soloing with the Plastic Ono Band! You are in 2002. He is in 1969. Eric Meece: Live IN SENSAROUND!!!

Eric, you know what I am going to say. Just please let the market decide this. Please do not presume to dictate what people should make or buy. I don't understand this propensity to dictate to others their likes and dislikes.

As your (former??) hero would say, "TTHHierre you gooo aggginnnn"

I hate the Plastic Ono Band. PPLLU-LLEEEZZZEE.

Please quote me anywhere in my post above where I dictated to anyone what to buy and not buy. Just realize, Stonewall, that a lot of what we call trash is stuff we've put through the system that still has a lot of value. We throw away a lot of stuff that many people would treasure.

Presumably the technology is there to support you, Eric, if it is there to help you travel through space and time to these other worlds.

I will give you the straight scoop; learn it well. The technology you require, will require spiritual development and change in consciousness; the sorts of things that our current definition of technology and science and "progress" excludes. Without these realizations, our technology will take us nowhere except within our own solar system. That's nowhere near enough space for the infinite number of available worlds which you want for your program of perpetual escapism from having to deal with human problems.

Sorry for being a bit severe there... but at some point we're going to have to deal with ourselves and how to relate to each other and our environment. The Renaissance/Enlightenment/"Progress" solution of just going over the next hill and conquer another territory is not the road to real human growth. Get it.

Man will never completely eradicate himself in this way.

You don't know that, We might. Nuclear weapons can destroy life many times over and make the rubble bounce. A comet strike is much less catastrophic than nuclear war. There is no radiation. Life has survived previous strikes, if one is due; it's been around a while, no??

In any case, complete eradication is well beyond the level of catastrophe we should avoid. We can make our planet unliveable for many generations to come. That is enough reason to totally change our direction. You can talk about mammoths and ice ages, and just ignore the stats that show unprecedented global warming in very recent industrial times, and the most warming in the most recent years, if you want. But you have your head in the sand.

On 2002-05-30 13:18, Eric A Meece wrote:

I hate the Plastic Ono Band. PPLLU-LLEEEZZZEE.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Don't disabuse me of my notion! I've been waiting to see that Give Peace A chance video on MTV again to see if I can pick you out singing in the crowd.

I will give you the straight scoop; learn it well. The technology you require, will require spiritual development and change in consciousness; the sorts of things that our current definition of technology and science and "progress" excludes. Without these realizations, our technology will take us nowhere except within our own solar system.

The only way I see this being true is if man is incapable of physical time travel. And I do not buy it.

That's nowhere near enough space for the infinite number of available worlds which you want for your program of perpetual escapism from having to deal with human problems.

It is not escapism, it is reality. These problems will not go away so long as man exists. It is not a question of how we eliminate them, but one of how we deal with them.

A comet strike is much less catastrophic than nuclear war. There is no radiation. Life has survived previous strikes, if one is due; it's been around a while, no??

I think we are reading from different "texts" here. The most valid explanation I have come across for the disappearance of the dinosaur involves an asteroid or comet strike around the Yucatan Peninsula. This minimally altered climate globally by dumping all sorts of debris in the atmosphere, and possibly even shifted the earth's polar axis. The dinosaurs perished. Note that they did not destroy themselves; rather an impact from space got them. The same thing could happen to us.

Trust in Government Declines; there, that didn't take long.

On 2002-05-30 12:11, madscientist wrote:

I just hope that China doesn't have the last laugh.

I would rate the chances of that at about 50/50, barring global nuclear war. (I already regard a regional nuclear war as all but inevitable now, and it's not hard to guess what region I'm thinking of, either.). :sad:

Russell Simmon's Hip Hop Nation, which is a political activist group, will attempt to mobilize support to prevent budget cuts for the New York City School System. This bears watching.

http://www.daveyd.com/FullArticles/articleN1118.asp

You flatter me by looking for me in the Lennon/Ono video. Thanks. I don't think I was there though. Wish I had been. Still don't like the Plastic Ono Band. The Beatles though, they rule.

The only way I see this being true is if man is incapable of physical time travel. And I do not buy it.

How does time travel get you to the next galaxy, or even to Alpha Centauri?

Time travel??? I think that's a long time away! Unless someone comes back from the future and picks you up.

Time and wormhole space travel will require a new physics that takes account of consciousness as the one observing the "physics," and transformation of consciousness. I know from what I heard from those who have contacted ETs.

These problems will not go away so long as man exists. It is not a question of how we eliminate them, but one of how we deal with them.

You don't deal with them by running off to other worlds where you don't have to deal with them.

Humans have solved many problems and made progress. What seems "a problem that won't go away" today will be history yesterday. Peace is not only possible, but possible in our time.

I know about the comet and Yucatan. Think I was born yesterday, dude?

It only wiped out that one species. There is no way of knowing if another impact would wipe out humans.

Global warming is happening now. A comet may not happen for 1000s or millions of years. Your priorities are a bit off, I should say!

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-05-31 18:27 ]</font>

On 2002-05-31 18:25, Eric A Meece wrote:

Time and wormhole space travel will require a new physics that takes account of consciousness as the one observing the "physics," and transformation of consciousness.

Why and how?

I know from what I heard from those who have contacted ETs.

Out of curiosity, how does one go about "contacting ETs"? Should I smoke something before I read your answer?

You don't deal with them by running off to other worlds where you don't have to deal with them.

That is certainly one way of dealing with them. Problem solved for the time being.

Humans have solved many problems and made progress. What seems "a problem that won't go away" today will be history yesterday.

Yeah, right. Please note that there is actual slavery in the Sudan today.

Global warming is happening now. A comet may not happen for 1000s or millions of years. Your priorities are a bit off, I should say!

These are not my priorities. My only point was that comet or asteroid strikes actually happen and are a valid concern. Manmade global ecological disaster is sheer fantasy. We have had ecological disasters before and they sure as hell have not been created by man.

On 2002-05-31 19:10, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-05-31 18:25, Eric A Meece wrote:

Time and wormhole space travel will require a new physics that takes account of consciousness as the one observing the "physics," and transformation of consciousness.

Why and how?

I know from what I heard from those who have contacted ETs.

Out of curiosity, how does one go about "contacting ETs"? Should I smoke something before I read your answer?

You don't deal with them by running off to other worlds where you don't have to deal with them.

That is certainly one way of dealing with them. Problem solved for the time being.

Humans have solved many problems and made progress. What seems "a problem that won't go away" today will be history yesterday.

Yeah, right. Please note that there is actual slavery in the Sudan today.

Global warming is happening now. A comet may not happen for 1000s or millions of years. Your priorities are a bit off, I should say!

These are not my priorities. My only point was that comet or asteroid strikes actually happen and are a valid concern. Manmade global ecological disaster is sheer fantasy. We have had ecological disasters before and they sure as hell have not been created by man.

Man, I don't know all about that stuff, as physics was interesting, but the math was too much :razz:

I do know that most of the big forest fires in the last 100 or so years have been man made. Some moron playing with matches or just being a twit with a cigarette.
So yeah, man isn't responsible for earthquakes, but that's a lot of trees torched. We can't control what momma eath does to us, but we can cut down on what we do to ourselves.
If a comet falls out of the sky and vaporizes cleveland then there is not a damned thing we can do about it, so we should work on whatever is within our power, and not worry about stuff we have NO possibility to control. right?

peace

On 2002-05-31 21:32, Earthshine wrote:

I do know that most of the big forest fires in the last 100 or so years have been man made. Some moron playing with matches or just being a twit with a cigarette.

Yes, but are you aware that there are more trees on the earth now than there ever have been at any time in the past? The reason is that most forest fires are caused by lightning strikes and we now are better able than ever before to deal with forest fires, whether caused by lightning, man, or anything else. So we have more trees today as a result.

So yeah, man isn't responsible for earthquakes, but that's a lot of trees torched. We can't control what momma eath does to us, but we can cut down on what we do to ourselves.

We do. We have more trees than ever before thanks to our advanced fire-fighting techniques in dealing with those forest fires, most of which are, and always have been, caused by Mother Nature in the form of lightning strikes.

If a comet falls out of the sky and vaporizes cleveland then there is not a damned thing we can do about it, so we should work on whatever is within our power, and not worry about stuff we have NO possibility to control. right?

Right. The point is that the only way the human race will survive a big enough asteroid or comet strike is if humans are on other worlds besides earth at the time (assuming that all on earth die). This discussion got started because certain environmentalists wanted to postpone expansion into outer space until man learns some sort of environmental "lesson" here on earth. I think that is asinine. If we have the technology, then let's spread out into space. Let's go!

On 2002-05-31 21:46, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-05-31 21:32, Earthshine wrote:

I do know that most of the big forest fires in the last 100 or so years have been man made. Some moron playing with matches or just being a twit with a cigarette.

Yes, but are you aware that there are more trees on the earth now than there ever have been at any time in the past? The reason is that most forest fires are caused by lightning strikes and we now are better able than ever before to deal with forest fires, whether caused by lightning, man, or anything else. So we have more trees today as a result.

So yeah, man isn't responsible for earthquakes, but that's a lot of trees torched. We can't control what momma eath does to us, but we can cut down on what we do to ourselves.

We do. We have more trees than ever before thanks to our advanced fire-fighting techniques in dealing with those forest fires, most of which are, and always have been, caused by Mother Nature in the form of lightning strikes.

If a comet falls out of the sky and vaporizes cleveland then there is not a damned thing we can do about it, so we should work on whatever is within our power, and not worry about stuff we have NO possibility to control. right?

Right. The point is that the only way the human race will survive a big enough asteroid or comet strike is if humans are on other worlds besides earth at the time (assuming that all on earth die). This discussion got started because certain environmentalists wanted to postpone expansion into outer space until man learns some sort of environmental "lesson" here on earth. I think that is asinine. If we have the technology, then let's spread out into space. Let's go!

Ok man, I am no environmentalist, but I do know that while there are more trees than 100 years ago, the were no where near the amount of cars either. So if we have more trees, we need them more than we used to also to clean up all that exhaust, right?

As for lighting strikes, the associated press reported last month that 4 out of 5 were from human mistakes/being careless these days. Fire fighting techniques may be better, but some poor bastard still has to go toe to toe with the flames.
What source were you quoting by the way that said most of them were lighting?

I am with you about space though. Ahead Mr. Data, warp factor 9! Lets just tred as lightly on the little green men as we can, one of them might be an ET version of Osama bin d*ckhead or something ......

On 2002-05-31 22:07, Earthshine wrote:

As for lighting strikes, the associated press reported last month that 4 out of 5 were from human mistakes/being careless these days. Fire fighting techniques may be better, but some poor bastard still has to go toe to toe with the flames.
What source were you quoting by the way that said most of them were lighting?

I cannot recall a source offhand, but it does not really matter. The point is that we have more trees today thanks to advanced fire-fighting techniques, regardless of how fires are actually started.

[quote]
On 2002-05-31 22:18, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-05-31 22:07, :
I cannot recall a source offhand, but it does not really matter. The point is that we have more trees today thanks to advanced fire-fighting techniques, regardless of how fires are actually started.

Yeah, your source does matter, because if it's wrong, then your argument doesn't carry any weight and the enviromentalists prove to be right. If you want to captain the ship into space, you are going to have to be able to back up what you say, not just say
"my point is thus, and that is just the way it is". No one is going to buy that, and so you'll need to build your own rocket ship without any help.

We have more people with cancer today than 40 years ago, and just because there is a decent survival rate with certain kinds of cancer, doesn't mean it's ok that ANYONE has it. You see what I mean? An ouce of prevention is worth 3 TONS of cure in some cases.

Peace bro

On 2002-05-31 22:24, Earthshine wrote:

Yeah, your source does matter, because if it's wrong, then your argument doesn't carry any weight and the enviromentalists prove to be right. If you want to captain the ship into space, you are going to have to be able to back up what you say, not just say
"my point is thus, and that is just the way it is". No one is going to buy that, and so you'll need to build your own rocket ship without any help.

What? I don't follow you. The number of forest fires started by lightning is ultimately irrelevant. You concede that we have more trees today than we did in the past and this is the only thing which is relevant. The only reason why we have more trees today is because we are better able to fight forest fires than in the past and nobody disputes this. How those fires are started is irrelevant.

Get your commemorative coin today!

"Welcome to Stolenelectioncoin.com.

"On this page, you can learn about the outrageous new "Illegitimacy" George W. Bush coin: why it was made, what it looks like, and how you can participate in this ongoing act of peaceful protest against crooked elections and inherited presidencies!"

http://www.stolenelectioncoin.com/

On 2002-05-31 22:49, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

On 2002-05-31 22:07, Earthshine wrote:

Actually having more trees is not necessarily better. Some of the forests are in pretty poor health due to natural fire being excluded from the ecosystem. A healthy ponderosa pine forest has a low density of trees. Most ponderosa forests today have 4 or more times the density of trees as a healthy forest would.

In Sequoyah National Park in California, it was noticed that no new trees were growing, until the park service started a prescribed burning program. It turns out the sequoyah trees need periodic fires in order to sprout new seedlings.

As for lighting strikes, the associated press reported last month that 4 out of 5 were from human mistakes/being careless these days.

In the eastern U.S., most fires are accidental, caused by human mistakes.

In the western U.S., most fires are caused by lightning.

The A.P. could very well be right, but while it is true that the east gets many more fires than the west, it is also true that far more acres burn in the west.

Except in a few peculiar areas like Florida and Minnesota, and during periods of exceptional drought, most fires in the eastern U.S. burn themselves out and don't burn more than a few acres. Western wildfires (mostly lightning-caused) are often very large and catastrophic, because of the low humidity.

Fire fighting techniques may be better, but some poor bastard still has to go toe to toe with the flames.

I've done it, and it was hard exhausting work but also a lot of fun. I'd hardly use "poor bastard" :smile:



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: R. Gregory '67 on 2002-05-31 22:52 ]</font>

R. you da man.
As for the other debate, Stonewall, I think we're talkin about different things, so I guess we are at the 'whatever" stage :lol:
Nice link about the coin, though I don't think Al would be any better. McCain was still my first choice, and I hope he runs again. He may be Silent, but he's one with balls.

Sonewall wrote: Yes, but are you aware that there are more trees on the earth now than there ever have been at any time in the past?

Mike: No, I am *not* aware of this. Are you sure you are not confusing the US with the whole world? Can you provide a source for this assertion?

Why and how?

I know from what I heard from those who have contacted ETs.

Out of curiosity, how does one go about "contacting ETs"? Should I smoke something before I read your answer?

:lol:

It might help, in your case. :wink:

Or maybe just gaze into your horoscope and get with the vibes in effect when you were born.

I forget the specifics so can't spell them out right now. As for looking for ETs, most people who contact them don't look for them; they look for us.

Yeah, right. Please note that there is actual slavery in the Sudan today.

Maybe there always was. But not in most places, like Europe and the USA and their former colonies. Progress is a fact. It is not about changing human nature; it is a matter of unfolding more of it that is already there.

Manmade global ecological disaster is sheer fantasy. We have had ecological disasters before and they sure as hell have not been created by man.

Yes we have, many times we have ruined the soil with overuse. The dust bowl is a recent example. The MidEast deserts are the result of overuse of the land.

The point about trees is not the fires so much; it is logging. We have cut down almost all the trees that were there, anywhere on earth, before we got there. Some trees have returned, but most have not. That is one reason why we have global warming.

We put out more fires effectively because we want to protect human property. That may not be ecologically beneficial. We also start many fires. On balance it's probably a sizeable loss as well, but I don't know.

To call global warming a fantasy is to ignore the evidence. You can choose to believe Rush Limbaugh or the oil lobby and its scientists; I choose to believe the actual scientists who have done the research.

If we are to survive, we need to learn how to live in harmony with nature. That means lviing with less; but also with more knowledge.

We also have no right to destroy other species. They dissappear today thousands of times faster than any time in earth's history, because of us. We have no right to do this and we should stop it.

To bring this discussion back to topic, I would say that we'll know it's 4T when climate change affects our weather in ways we can't ignore. The Dust Bowl times 100. That's not happening yet.

Any other indication of a so-called 4T, is a so-called 4T that has nothing to do with the real crisis we face, nor with the real changes we need to make in such a Crisis.

The point is that the only way the human race will survive a big enough asteroid or comet strike is if humans are on other worlds besides earth at the time (assuming that all on earth die). This discussion got started because certain environmentalists wanted to postpone expansion into outer space until man learns some sort of environmental
"lesson" here on earth. I think that is asinine. If we have the technology, then let's spread out into space. Let's go!

Although I agree we should go, there are certain points to be made.

First, wherever we go, comets could strike there too.

Second, some people will want to remain on earth, so a comet strike would still be a disaster.

Third, when we get into space we may be able to stop meteors and maybe comets and asteroids from hitting our planet. We don't have to migrate in order to develop this technology.

Fourth, living in space or on other worlds will not be what most people want. People chose to incarnate on this planet because its a beautiful and inspiring place. Some of us want to keep it that way. I hope we prevail over you ninnies who just look upon it as a temporary domicile and trash dump.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-06-01 19:51 ]</font>

The point is that the only way the human race will survive a big enough asteroid or comet strike is if humans are on other worlds besides earth at the time (assuming that all on earth die). This discussion got started because certain environmentalists wanted to postpone expansion into outer space until man learns some sort of environmental
"lesson" here on earth. I think that is asinine. If we have the technology, then let's spread out into space. Let's go!

But we DON'T have the technology.


First off, your expression of the idea that space expansion won't save us is given the wrong twist. You're making it sound as if the point were that we haven't morally earned the right to expand into space. That's really irrelevant and has nothing to do with what was being said.


No, the point is not that we SHOULDN'T expand into space until we've built a sustainable society on earth, it's that we CAN'T. There is simply no way to do it. It's ecologically impossible. Here, again, is why.


Our species is not independent. We live on the life-support services provided by the planetary ecosystem. To survive away from that ecosystem (i.e. in space or on another planet) requires constant artificial input of life-support resources. As there is currently only one source of those resources, and since inevitable inefficiencies take place when transporting resources off-planet, the net effect of space colonization at this time would be to reduce -- not increase -- the number of human beings the planet can support. Nor can we establish a small-scale self-supporting ecosystem in space; I refer anyone who believes we can to the failure of the Biosphere II experiment, which indicates to the contrary.


We could establish orbiting space stations to provide energy, or (in the reasonably near future) asteroid mining operations to provide minerals, but the truth is that energy and minerals aren't what's in shortest supply on Earth. Fresh water, and/or the tolerance of the ecosystem, represent the limiting factors. We can produce enough energy from renewable resources, combined with improved efficiency, to meet future needs, and we are nowhere near running out of inorganic minerals. But we are running into shortages of water, and into new plagues that the biosphere is increasingly throwing our way in a homeostatic response to human overpopulation. Space development won't help those problems.


In short, the science-fiction image of humans colonizing other planets, as if all we had to do was to transport ourselves and our machines through space, expanding through the galaxy the way Europeans expanded through the New World, is scientifically inaccurate. That can't be done. America was part of the Earth and shared in the Earth's life-support services. Were that not so, America could not have been colonized.


There is one way that we could theoretically colonize space. That is to terraform other planets to create a large-scale replica of the Earth's biosphere. We don't have the technology for this yet, but I know of no reason it could not eventually be done. It would involve building first a layer of bacterial life, then engineered plants and animals on top of that to create a sustainable ecosystem, with human settlement providing the last act. We need to understand more about ecology and develop better genetic engineering tools to do these things, but AFAIK they aren't intrinsically impossible.


What they are, though, is expensive and time-consuming. And since this is the only way to truly colonize space, space colonization DOES NOT provide a solution to our environmental problems on Earth. Instead, it provides a reward for solving those problems, and thus granting ourselves the luxury of resources and time necessary to terraform.


You may if you wish derive moral implications from this, but the mechanism behind it is not moral but technological. At this point in time, we simply can't do the deed.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brian Rush on 2002-06-02 10:19 ]</font>

The global warming hypothesis is valid. The earth has been warming up quite a bit since the 19th century. But has anthropogenic global warming been "proven" yet? Not by a long shot, in my opinion.

It is true that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas." It is true the other gases released by man are greenhouse gases--in particular, CFCs.

But

The tight, nearly 1:1 relationship between solar activity and global temperature isn't just a random fluke or something doctored data by oil industry lackeys. It's real. How exactly does it work? I don't know exactly.

But here's a bit to chew on: The increase in solar activity isn't enough to account for the change in temperature on a black body object. So there has to be some kind of interplay between the energy from the sun and the atmosphere. For example, much of this extra solar activity comes in the form of UV--not a warming kind of radiation per se, but it might have an affect on ozone formation. Ozone is a potent greenhouse gas. It might serve as an amplifier of the solar activity on earth's T. Cloud formation might also account for this affect.

What about CO2? If the earth was just an inert body with no oceans and no air and no life--and the total amout of CO2 released by human industry was set free in one instant--we'd expect to see a LOT MORE OF IT THAN WE DO NOW. Where did it all go on Planet Earth? Probably the waves crashing about in the ocean the the storms in the air serve as a "sink" and absorb the rest of the gas. The forests and grasslands absorb more and plankton absorb more. Thus, even if man releases millions of tons of it, CO2 manages to stay in its ancient equilibrium.

What is the implication of the above paragraph?

The increase in CO2 we see today might be more a result of the increased earth's temperature, rather than the other way around. The increase in T makes the oceans go a little "flat," and release some of its dissolved carbon dioxide. If earth's T goes too high, Gaia grows more plants and more plankton, which then absorb more CO2. If these plants do "too good" of a job, the earth cools and/or the oxygen concentration gets too high, and fires become more frequent, and CO2 rises once again.

It's all so darn complicated. So many levers and pulleys in the great climate engine. Humans are only a small part of the dynamic equation.

While the research at this point is ambiguous about what industrial greenhouse gases are doing, one fundamental question remains? Do we want to take the risk? It's kind of like Pascal's Wager. If there is even a chance that we are ruining our only home in the deep dark blankness of space, shouldn't we be a little cautious? The risk of screwing it up may be unknown, but the cost is of course enormous.

Greed is bad...m'kay?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/04/opinion/04KRUG.html

<font color="blue">
Greed Is Bad
By PAUL KRUGMAN

"The point is, ladies and gentlemen, greed is good. Greed works, greed is right. . . . and greed, mark my words, will save not only Teldar Paper but the other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A."

Gordon Gekko, the corporate raider who gave that speech in the 1987 movie "Wall Street," got his comeuppance; but in real life his philosophy came to dominate corporate practice. And that is the backstory of the wave of scandal now engulfing American business.

Let me be clear: I'm not talking about morality, I'm talking about management theory. As people, corporate leaders are no worse (and no better) than they've always been. What changed were the incentives.

Twenty-five years ago, American corporations bore little resemblance to today's hard-nosed institutions. Indeed, by modern standards they were Socialist republics. C.E.O. salaries were tiny compared with today's lavish packages. Executives didn't focus single-mindedly on maximizing stock prices; they thought of themselves as serving multiple constituencies, including their employees. The quintessential pre-Gekko corporation was known internally as Generous Motors.

These days we are so steeped in greed-is-good ideology that it's hard to imagine that such a system ever worked. In fact, during the generation that followed World War II the nation's standard of living doubled. But then, growth faltered ? and the corporate raiders arrived.

The raiders claimed ? usually correctly ? that they could increase profits, and hence stock prices, by inducing companies to get leaner and meaner. By replacing much of a company's stock with debt, they forced management to shape up or go bankrupt. At the same time, by giving executives a large personal stake in the company's stock price, they induced them to do whatever it took to drive that price higher.

All of this made sense to professors of corporate finance. Gekko's speech was practically a textbook exposition of "principal-agent" theory, which says that managers' pay should depend strongly on stock prices: "Today management has no stake in the company. Together the men sitting here [the top executives] own less than 3 percent of the company."

And in the 1990's corporations put that theory into practice. The predators faded from the scene, because they were no longer needed; corporate America embraced its inner Gekko. Or as Steven Kaplan of the University of Chicago's business school put it ? approvingly ? in 1998: "We are all Henry Kravis now." The new tough-mindedness was enforced, above all, with executive pay packages that offered princely rewards if stock prices rose.

And until just a few months ago we thought it was working.

Now, as each day seems to bring a new business scandal, we can see the theory's fatal flaw: a system that lavishly rewards executives for success tempts those executives, who control much of the information available to outsiders, to fabricate the appearance of success. Aggressive accounting, fictitious transactions that inflate sales, whatever it takes.

It's true that in the long run reality catches up with you. But a few years of illusory achievement can leave an executive immensely wealthy. Ken Lay, Gary Winnick, Chuck Watson, Dennis Kozlowski ? all will be consoled in their early retirement by nine-figure nest eggs. Unless you go to jail ? and does anyone think any of our modern malefactors of great wealth will actually do time? ? dishonesty is, hands down, the best policy.

And no, we're not talking about a few bad apples. Statistics for the last five years show a dramatic divergence between the profits companies reported to investors and other measures of profit growth; this is clear evidence that many, perhaps most, large companies were fudging their numbers.

Now, distrust of corporations threatens our still-tentative economic recovery; it turns out greed is bad, after all. But what will reform our system? Washington seems determined to validate the judgment of the quite apolitical Web site of Corporate Governance (corpgov.net), which matter-of-factly remarks, "Given the power of corporate lobbyists, government control often equates to de facto corporate control anyway."

Perhaps corporations will reform themselves, but so far they show no signs of changing their ways. And you have to wonder: Who will save that malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A.?

</font>

Vassar graduated are being told to organize.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/27/co...13e6cd&ei=5034

<font color="blue">
Organize, Vassar Students Are Told

[P] OUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y., May 26 ? During a politically charged speech, the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner gave 579 graduates at Vassar College a rapid-fire course on social activism in the post-Sept. 11 world.

Mr. Kushner, best known for his Broadway hit "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes," told the graduates and 1,000 guests that the future did not look bright and that no one he knew was truly happy. The best they could hope for, he said, was to be "happyish."

"This is a time of crisis," he said. "And in a time of crisis, you have to focus on being real."

In his 20-minute address, Mr. Kushner urged the graduates to think to themselves: "I am here to organize; I am here to be political."

"It's boring to organize, but do it," he said. "The world ends if you don't."

David H. J. Ambroz, a political science major and former White House intern, was already taking those directions to heart. The words "White House or bust" were stenciled atop his mortarboard. Blunt about his own plans to assume the nation's top job someday, Mr. Ambroz in his final moments as a college student was already setting up a potential cabinet of classmates and associates.

"I want to change many things," he said in an interview. "In fact, I want to change everything in this world, and I'm really eager to get started."

Mr. Kushner urged as much in his speech.

"Hurry, hurry, hurry," he told the graduates moments later. "Damn the critics and the bad reviews. The world is waiting for you. The world needs you desperately. Organize. Speak the truth."

Held outdoors under steel-gray, drizzling skies, much of the two-hour ceremony had a somber tone. The Vassar College president, Frances D. Fergusson, a student during the Cuban missile crisis and Kennedy assassination, said she empathized with the 2002 graduates who would be stepping into a world convulsed with the "fear and injustice of war." But she urged that they never let the fight against terrorism persuade them to relinquish their civil liberties.

Despite the day's grim realities, Ms. Fergusson said, "The world needs the determination and idealism of Vassar graduates." Then she added, "Violence makes what we do here more important, not less relevant."

</font>

"These days we are so steeped in greed-is-good ideology that it's hard to imagine that such a system ever worked. In fact, during the generation that followed World War II the nation's standard of living doubled. But then, growth faltered ? and the corporate raiders arrived." --Paul Krugman


I am told by most of the liberals on these boards, indeed, by liberals everywhere, that these were the "dark ages," the conservative years of "McCarthyism," an age so awful that only right-wings fanatics would wish that America return to them.

Yet, these same folks deride these post-Reagan years as "conservative" as well. And even now they eagerly await the Second Coming of FDR and true liberalism.

What gives, Mr. Krugman, Mr. Rush, Alexander, Genser et al, huh?




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-06-04 09:44 ]</font>

On 2002-06-04 09:28, Marc Lamb wrote:

I am told by most of the liberals on these boards, indeed, by liberals everywhere, that these were the "dark ages," the conservative years of "McCarthyism," an age so awful that only right-wings fanatics would wish that America return to them.

Remember the difference between the Old Left of the 1950s and the New Left that emerged in the 1960s.

Yet, these same folks deride these post-Reagan years as "conservative" as well. And even now they eagerly await the Seconding Coming of FDR and true liberalism.

Actually, I'm waiting for Benjamin Franklin.

[/quote]

And I'd like to ask one more penetrating question, if I may: How come a twenty-four year long Civic generation, "dominate" and "empowered" with "hubris," according to S&H, produced such a short, eighteen year first turning, folks?




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-06-04 09:43 ]</font>