[Sosfbay-discuss] Impeachment is KEY (and so is Green Economics), (was re: Myths...)

Thu May 29 17:29:26 PDT 2008

Wes wrote:
"If we want real change, we need to spend more time on Green Economics and
less time on impeachment, how ever much warranted the latter may be and
how ever good it would make us all feel to see Cheney on trial. "

That's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one.  The people who are motivated
to work on impeachment are mostly NOT the same ones who work on Green
Economics (although Carol Brouillet is an interesting exception since she
happens to work on both these issues).

Hey now Wes, knock it off with knocking those of us who see the big
picture and wish to restore some semblance of constitutional democracy to
America.  Impeachment is order #1.  Without the rule of law we ain't got
squat.  And besides, some people (like me) are always going to be more
inclined to focus on constitutional issues and no one should discourage
us, just as it would be wrong for us to discourage folks that are more
inclined to work on environmental policy from doing their work.  Each must
do the work they feel called to do and none should put down others for
doing the work they are called to do.

Otherwise you yourself are falling for the 'spoiler myth' or 'zero sum
game mythology' in your own way -- you're supporting the myth that a party
can't accomplish more than one thing at a time.  Well if we Greens are
ever to bring about a true multiparty democracy in America that is
governed by the constitution and run under the rule of law AND has a sane
Green economic policy, we Greens will have to extend the trust to other
Greens for them to work in their own area of passion/expertise even as we
do ours.  No one person can 'specialize' in all the areas that need
addressing, and since Green = networked organization the Green Party will
end up being particularly well-suited for addressing the multiplicity of
needs of America in the 21st Century.

Green IS the Network!

Drew

Wes wrote:
If we want real change, we need to spend more time on Green Economics and
less time on impeachment, how ever much warranted the latter may be and
how ever good it would make us all feel to see Cheney on trial.

On Thu, May 29, 2008 10:03, Wes Rolley wrote:
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
> <head>
>   <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
>   <title></title>
> </head>
> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
> Cameron's comments are very accurate.  In fact, economist Bryan
> Caplan
> wrote a fairly recent (2007) book entitled <u>The Myth of the Rational
> Voter</u>.  In it, he shows that time and again voters act based on
> their preferences for beliefs over facts.  In his research, Capan
> finds
> 4 areas of bias in the electorate that cause problems.  As he
> subtitles
> his book: Why Democracies choose bad policies.  <br>
> <br>
> The area of bias are:<br>
> <b>anti-foreign Bias</b> - think the immigration laws.<br>
> <b><br>
> Make-work Bias</b> - “tendency to underestimate the economic
> benefits
> from conserving
> labor.” (p40) People tend to equate economic growth with job
> creation,
> even if those jobs are wasteful or outright detrimental to growth. <br>
> Greens fall into this very easily, with near automatic support for
> labor unions.  We need, however, to learn to treat every situation as
> a
> separate instance as my experiences with unions have been universally
> negative:  crime (Teamsters), corruption and putting the growth of
> the
> union ahead of the needs of the workers (NY Public Service). Greens
> lack a common understanding of economic realities, a sense of what
> really makes a Green Economy.<br>
> <b><br>
> Pessimistic Bias</b> - he defines that as a  “tendency to
> overestimate
> the severity of economic problems and
> underestimate the (recent) past, present, and future performance of the
> economy.”  While historical data seems to say that Caplan is
> correct,
> Greens again lack a sound economic alternative for their criticism of
> capitalism and thus are left with only a very anarchistic
> anti-corporate stance with no offsetting positive policies. <br>
> <br>
> <b>Anti-Market Bias</b> - Casplan defines this as a “tendency to
> underestimate the benefits of the market mechanism.”  Most
> Greens do
> not have much faith in the "market" but, unfortunately, they also have
> not defined the alternative.  In fact, the idea of community based
> sustainable economies actually requires some market mechanism. <br>
> <br>
> Whether you believe that Caplan is correct or not, that discussion
> should be based on fact, data, science, intellectual pursuit and not
> unsubstantiated beliefs.  Too many of the far left progressive
> persuasion have not done their homework. <br>
> <br>
> I really want to see a better definition of the Green Economy.  The
> best that I have come across is that of Canadian Brian Milani.  You
> can
> find them at Green Economics dot Net. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
> href="http://www.greeneconomics.net/">http://www.greeneconomics.net/</a><br>
> <br>
> This is the year when economic issues, especially the price of gas,
> will make a significant difference in the presidential election and we
> do not have a party wide consensus as to what green economics even
> means.   It is much more that protesting Chevron for high
> gasoline
> prices.  If that is all we do, then we give away the game because the
> answer is just drill more, refine more.  If we want real change, we
> need to spend more time on Green Economics and less time on
> impeachment, how ever much warranted the latter may be and how ever
> good it would make us all feel to see Cheney on trial. <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
> href="mailto:cls at truffula.sj.ca.us">cls at truffula.sj.ca.us</a> wrote:
> <blockquote cite="mid:20080529155141.16144.qmail at truffula.sj.ca.us"
>  type="cite"><br>
>   <pre wrap="">Trouble is, "the spoiler effect" is a superstition.
> It works by faith, not reason.  It's therefore impervious
> to reasonable argument.  You can debunk it all you want,
> with no effect.  Almost everyone believes they live in a
> swing state or district.  Statistics showing legistlature seats
> hardly ever switch parties have no effect on that belief, because
> it's faith not reason.  Debunking the swing state belief is a waste
> of effort.  An article on strategies for avoiding the issue
> or working around it might be useful.
>
>
> Cameron
>
>
>   </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <br>
> <br>
> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="80">--
> "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then
> you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente
>
> Wes Rolley
> 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
> href="http://www.refpub.com/">http://www.refpub.com/</a> -- Tel:
> 408.778.3024</pre>
> </body>
> </html>
> _______________________________________________
> cal-forum mailing list
> cal-forum at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/cal-forum
>