Todd Stadler's blog

You knew I was going to respond to this one... :)

I'm not going to contest the idea that our government is seriously broken. But I will contest the idea that our government cares more about oil interests than democracy. Unfortunately, defending our oil interests *is* democracy, in this country anyway. You nailed it when you said "we do love to drive, and if there's one thing that could be said to unite us as a nation, it's our highways bristling with gleaming alloy cars." The american people want to drive, and
in most cases have evolved their own cities so that they *have* to drive. To make decisions that make it more expensive or unfeasible to drive are political suicide, because of our democracy.

Our foreign policy is oriented around this too, even though it's spun into a fight against right and wrong to make it less distasteful. The American people make it unfeasible to stop doing whatever it takes to keep the price of gasoline down.

I cheer your personal efforts to stop driving and recognize the ill affects of that behavior, but more will have to be done.

I had a similar personal crisis a few weeks ago- my reaction was that the federal government should protect the common interest by slowly raising gas taxes, over the next 10-20 years, forcing people to look for alternatives and wean themselves from gasoline. But once again, passing a law like that is political suicide. Too many individuals and companies have too much at stake.

It's a vexing problem- economists call it the tragedy of the commons. A group of people acting purely in immediate self-interest, tend to degrade any common resources. The solution in other situations has been to subdivide owernship (get rid of the commons, impossible when the common resource is clean air or livable cities) or impose government regulations. And imposing regulations is hard in a democracy when there is no palpable, immediate pain.

Wish I had some nice way to conclude this post, but I don't. :)

Hi Josh. I always appreciate your unique viewpoints, and thank you for playing along at home.

Unfortunately, I'm having some difficulty understanding your comment that "defending our oil interests is democracy". I agree that it would be political suicide to crusade for insanely higher gas prices or an inability to drive as you want, but to equate a politician's desire to stay in power (by avoiding such ends) with democracy seems a bit like doublespeak to me. Maybe I misunderstood.

Democracy is best served when all the facts are made known, so that the people can make the best decision for themselves. As such, I just really wish our government (or at least some major media outlets) would stop pretending we champion democracy when we stomp all over the globe to protect our oil supply. I wonder how popular our wars would be if Americans perceived them as little more than power grabs (in which thousands of innocent people die), rather than the glorious crusades against evil we're usually served. I'd guess that such a depiction might make wars just as distasteful as raising oil prices.

Of course, as long as opinions like mine remain solely with the disenfranchised "loony" left, the average American won't pay them much heed. After all, America loves democracy, right? Even if, you know, mistakes are made by, um, somebody every once in a while. Whoops.

Mind, I'm not even saying I think democracy should be applied in every situation. Our government seems to, installing democratic governments in societies with huge ethnic and religious factions in which there is often more talk about how to get fed than who is the best public speaker.

I just wish we could admit what is astoundingly obvious - that failing to denounce the overthrow of a democratically-elected leader is in no way pro-democracy.

Or maybe I'm just upset about the state of things and I can't stop typing.

Hrm. My unique viewpoints. DOn't know what to make of that.

Do you envision some sort of pure democracy, where every citizen votes on every issue? If you recognize that this isn't possible or advisable, then you have to accept a democratic republic. To define republic: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." We have elected officials who are elected according to the desire of their consituents and expected to act in their best interest. You said it yourself- people want to drive their shiny new gas-guzzling SUVs. And those who don't generally need to drive to support themselves. A representative who says that he is going to make it harder for people to drive their cars is not going to get elected, and a representative who defies this desire is not going to stay in office. The people will speak.

We all tend to refer to politics as if it were a dirty word, and decry politicians desire to stay in power. But in general, politicians need to do things that people approve of to stay in office. Its how our system works. It's imperfect, but that's the way it is. So my point was that blaming politicians isn't achieving anything- blame the people they represent and get them to change.

The other unfortunate thing is that our government is rigged to cater to the lowest common denominator- you can't win elections doing the smart thing that most people can't or won't understand. Hence the propaganda about good vs. evil. Politicans try to form opinion, rather than respond to it. I would like to say that this is a wholesale wrong, but it isn't- there are times when our government needs to act contrary to our needs for longer term benefits.

But yes, it sucks when they are wrong and slimy and we know it. Iraq. Venezuela. Cuba.
(Occasionally they doing something on the positive side though- the senate rejected drilling in the ANWR last week.)

But foreign policy I can't get my head around. We have such an inconsistent foreign policy- pushing for democracy here, destroying it there, support these people, ignoring those people. That's another vacuum in our democratic government- people generally don't care about countries over the sea filled with brown people. Or poor countries filled with white people, for that matter. Unless the activities of the other country have an immediate impact on them, or they are whipped into a frenzy by the federal governments propaganda machine, most people don't care.

So with venezuela- failing to denounce the overthrow of a democratically-elected leader is indeed in no way pro-democracy, but since when has the US ever really cared about democracy abroad?

Hi folks. This is where Josh and I publicly hammer out ideas we have in lieu of e-mailing each other. You can't join in, so don't bother. Ha ha.

Josh, your first point was that politicians are unable or at least unwilling to violate the will of the people, so the people are to blame.

Then you say that politicians (try to) mold the will of the people, and sometimes do what is contrary to the "needs" of the people. Which would imply that we should blame the politicians.

I agree with both statements, so obviously work needs to be done on both sides. I guess my point is - I wouldn't dismiss either tactic.

As to what I envision, I am aware of the limited form of democracy we enjoy. But I am also aware of the power that knowledge has in our system. The people vote based on the facts they know. And most people don't know much about the "why" of our foreign policy (it is often questionable if our government itself knows). They also likely don't care. That is a problem, I admit.

Still, if the American people were convinced that our warring was not for noble purposes, the government could be coerced to stop such actions. Wasn't it such public opinion that eventually ended the Vietnam action (and hamstrung it from the get-go as well)?

And while my forum here isn't likely to affect the American people at large, it's all I have, no? I welcome ideas on what more could be done.

One small tangential point to your post, Todd:

Actually, I've been led to believe that public support for the Vietnam war was really strong for a long time during the war, and that the general public didn't like or support the student protests. It wasn't until near the end that public opinion became important to the people making decisions.

But my history teacher was a bit of a revisionist, and I wasn't alive during the war, so I can't really say what I just said with any conviction. So there.

Julia- I've heard similar things. And I bet that even students would protest less if their lives weren't at stake.

Todd- You're right. People need to be educated and motivated and politicians need to be disciplined. But like you, I don't know how to achieve that. (When I post here and argue, I'm usually trying to explore issues, and not refute you.)

I actually think that the best models are the environmental and civil rights movements. But those problems, while complex, are pretty simple to grasp in essence and rally behind. But how do you rally people behind more moral foreign policy?

Tangent:
I'm going to sound like a dreamy-eyed technologist here, but I wonder if the internet will have an impact on governance? What if all government bodies were required to publish all activity and decisions on the internet? What if it were able to make plebiscites possible for more issues?

I wonder how much of the current apathy in our country is due to people not believing that it matters whether they pay any attention or not?

And speaking of politicians molding the will of the people, here's something else that should upset you: href= http://www.economist.co.uk/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1099030&CFID=3439290&CFTOKEN=4b5f831-669be5d3-5ace-41d9-b098-8b5d5a22e895 gerrymandering

Raise the gas tax!

Hmm. I think my brain is getting tired.

As to Vietnam, the fact that the war was only unpopular at the end seems to indicate that the government pulled out only when the people complained. Which was my point.

As to the internet solving anything, I'll play the dreary-eyed pessimist and say that it won't. A lot of information is already out there. And yet most Americans (I assert) have enough trouble comprehending the amount of news in a half-hour broadcast, complete with commercials and several minutes of human interest stories, let alone any decent newspaper coverage. Asking the voting populace to go out on the internet and find things for themselves sounds pretty hopeless.

Let's face it, things are pretty good right now for most Americans. Most of them are employed, healthy (or at least not dying), and so on. Who needs to pay attention to the news?

As to gerrymandering, ... sigh. I think I'm in a jaded mood right now. Clearly it's a bad thing, but what can I do, really? And if I feel that way, less informed people can only feel moreso.

Finally, Josh, I'm confused about your gas tax link. Are you for or against it? I mean, I like the idea of it, sure. But then, I'm not much of a driver, so of course I don't care. Tax the other guy, right? It'll never really happen in America though, will it?

Y'know, Todd, you corrupted me for life by showing me a "This Modern World" cartoon my sophomore year. Talk about opening a window to a worldview.

Anyways, I'm hopelessly technologist myself, and I put my hopes for the solution to many of our country's ills in the form of alternative energy sources. (Note: I think fuel cells will be a great way to power cars, but switching to a "hydrogen economy" still doesn't solve the energy generation problem. Sure hydrogen will be a great pollution-free source of energy in fuel cells, but we've still got to produce the energy to strip hydrogen from water(or wherever) in the first place.) What we need (and I'm stealing this concept and metaphor from Jim Hightower's _Hightower Lowdown_) is a nation-wide scientific and technological push, on the scale of the 1960's drive to the moonshot, to finally develop solar/wind/bio/tidal energy on large and economic scales.

I think we could get everybody to rally around this, if they really knew the devastation that oil politics has wrought. Heck, you don't even have to push the fact that we are guzzling what is relatively free energy right now (and when we've used up hundreds of millions of years of stored energy in the next century or so, all our technological advances grind to a halt.) Throw in the pollution you save by not burning those fossil fuels, and alternative energy starts sounding like an even more important goal than that supremely cool achievement, man on the moon.

Nuclear energy would be cool, too, but fission is much too dirty. Fusion would do the trick, I guess.

Anyway, funny how one topic can bring out everybody's favorite subject, from youthful cynicism to gerrymandering to Neal Armstrong.

Hey there, i was just wondering if your still doing new stuff on lowfashion.com. that stuff was awesome!well, later! ~stina

n/a

Whoops. Accidentally deleted the two comments that were here, giving lie to the last article from this day.

Mistakes were made. We assure you that steps are being taken to ensure that they do not happen again. We thank you for your patience.

It now appears that you can preview your comment before submitting it.

This is accomplished using the "preview comment" button, found below.

Meanwhile, I sit here commenting to myself.

Yeah, those are creepily cheerful like Barney for adults. Except it's about network intelligence instead of being kind to others.

But they kind of make you want them to be piped into your workspace so you can hate them more.

I think it's weird that I just said that. I will go now.

Here's the guy that wrote part of that campaign!

http://www.cmusicnet.com/BillsResume.htm

But I also wrote the best unheard anthem of all-time:
Let's Get Laid (Off Today)

http://www.cmusicnet.com/mp3s.cfm

Enjoy!

I think I've sent you this one before, but...

http://members.surfeu.fi/kklaine/primebear.html prime-s***ting bear

oops. Can't do html.

http://members.surfeu.fi/kklaine/primebear.html

the #lost weblog is good, if you ignore the porn:

http://weblog.fuck.org/

also there's memepool:

http://memepool.com/

i will web-Enable those links for ya!! if i dare.

#lost

memepool

also, i'm curious what in your religion forbids working on porn. is it the having-sex-out-of-wedlock aspect of it? what if they're not really having sex? or what if it was married people who are exhibitionists? i'm not splitting semantic hairs, just honestly curious what angle you have on it. i think a lot of porn is gross and/or exploitative, but i don't take the extreme andrew dworkin position that it's inherently degrading to women (or men). there's this store in berkeley (one in sf too) called href="
good vibrations, that takes a really sex-positive approach to it and is not sleazy or creepy like most places that sell such things. i support them, i think.

doh, i forgot to close the tag. i wish one could edit one's comments. you can do that in livejournal. they're open source, you should just steal their code :)

good vibrations

Amar, one thing I don't like about porn is that it is inextricably tied to lust. In the "sermon on the mount", Jesus said that to look at a woman lustfully is the same as committing adultery, making them both sinful. I'm not saying all pictures of naked women are meant to cause lustful thoughts, but anything you could call porn does.

On a different note, I feel like I don't really get #lost or memepool. I would expect the latter to be a listing of current memes, ala Blogdex, but it seems to be more along the lines of "here are links I like". #lost seems to be even more of that. Just a bunch of links. Is it that the links provided in each case are interesting, or is there something else?

Also, Amar, could you give me an example of a livejournal page that has editable comments? Can a person only edit his own comments, or are they all editable? Is my comment system hard to use? What could make it easier?

Are there other questions I could ask? What about this one?

a ha, i forgot about that whole lust thing. one more reason i can't subscribe to the tenets of christianity, at least not in their entirety. :)

livejournal lets you edit your own comments, or at least delete them, but now that i think about it, you have to be logged in to do it. and i dont think you should make people have to login. actually maybe you could have a comment preview, like there was/is on lowfashion? i dunno, it might be too much overhead though. in general i think comments work pretty well, it's just that i messed up links and wished i could go back and fix them. maybe you could have a login process and logged in users could then edit their own comments... egads though, it's just a frickin blog. that sounds like overkill. i say, leave it as is. now i know how to make links so it's all good, as they say.

memepool and #lost are nothing more than "hey, check this out" lists. they are good if you're surfing the web with time to kill. of course, it's unclear whether surfing the web with time to kill is a healthy state of affairs.

Or how about:
GIRL1: I wasted billions in pork barrel spending.
GIRL2: I just needed to pay the rent.
BOY1: I engaged in racial profiling.
BOY2: I was only trying to keep food on the table.
GIRL3: I had an affair with a White House intern.
GIRL4: They told me the IRS would come after me if I didn't.
VOICEOVER: Paying taxes supports our governments and all their actions. Every time you bring home a paycheck, you are allowing groups from the NEA to the NSA to Congress itself to further their spending habits while getting little in return except stress and tax preparation headaches.

You know, I set out to write this article with the intent of both ridiculing and affirming the ideas in those "drugs = terrorism" ads.

No, I don't think all drugs contribute to terrorism against Americans. Some drugs like marijuana have probably killed exceptionally few people in any way.

And yet, I thought, people don't often take enough time to consider how their spending habits influence the world.

But the logical end to such thinking is that you can't spend any money at all, because people, who are stupid and often do bad things, will eventually use your money for ends you don't condone.

It's simply quite difficult to be a consumer today.

And yet choosing to remain ignorant is, as Rush would remind us, still a choice, and likely not the best one, either.

I suppose, as with most things, the middle path is the answer. Blah blah blah.

"But the logical end to such thinking is that you can't spend any money at all, because people, who are stupid and often do bad things, will eventually use your money for ends you don't condone."

Well, first of all, generally we're talking about corporations instead of people who will be spending your money. Second of all, there is a vast spectrum of difference in behavior between corporations. What you're saying here is like, well, since all people are ultimately flawed and imperfect sinners, it's indifferent whether I get for my babysitter Charles Manson or ... well, I was going to say a Catholic priest, but that may not be the most appropriate example. But you get the idea.

Perhaps a better way to look at is to thinking of spending as voting with your dollar. Everytime you buy a book at Barnes and Noble instead of Powell's or Annie Bloom's, for instance, you are voting for big corporations controlling what texts you get to see instead of independent bookstores that are committed to a wider and more diverse array of voices. Every time you eat at Taco Bell instead of Uno Mas ... and so on.

Or how about spending as an expression of priority? When I spend at Barnes and Noble's I am expressing a need for convenience- I want to pick up something specific that I am sure they will have. When I spend at Green Apple, I am choosing a place where I can browse around, probably not find something that I am looking for, but definitely find something that I wasn't looking for. Some people's priority is convenience, some people's priority is diversity. There are niches for all sorts of bookstores. There's never going to be an election, where the winner takes all. As long as there people whose priorities are fulfilled by independent bookstores, they will always be around. (And you're rarely going to get people to change their priorities on principle, which is why complaining about corporate bookstores is useless)

But thinking about spending terms of priorties is scary, because they are harder to change. And so often these priorities have layers of ramifications that are deep enough that there isn't any feedback to people that might make them want to change.

I want to have a large family, and I want a big house that will be comfortable for them all, but I can't afford to live that way in the city, so I have to move out to the suburbs, which means that i have to drive 30 miles to work every day, which means that I am sitting in traffic while my car belches pollution. And my city is building freeways to support that traffic, and the freeways must rip through and degenerate urban neighborhoods. The traffic also causes huge numbers of traffic accidents. Not to mention that the car I'm driving uses about 2 gallons of oil a day. The oil is expensive and has a volatile price, and in an effort to keep my economy stable, my government has a foreign policy centered around stabilizing the sources of oil in the world. THis requires propping up dictatorships in the middle east that are more likely to maintain order. Which means sending the military out periodically when they get out of line, which means that a standing army has to be supported. This costs money, which my government raises by taxes. Which is part of the reason that i can't afford to live in the city and had to move out to the suburbs in the first place. :)

A little too cute, but what the hell do I do about it? The biggest problems in my world are caused by me so indirectly that I don't know I'm causing them. And who is going to tell me that I don't have the right to live out in the suburbs?

Some responses...

Doug, I have a hard time distinguishing between corporations and the people who run them. Every bad thing a corporation does was decided upon by a person who made a bad choice.

That said, you'll notice I ultimately advocated the "middle path" of not choosing to remain ignorant, but ultimately realizing that I can never know enough about what I'm supporting.

By this, I mean that sure, shopping at Powell's means I am supporting literary and corporate diversity. But does it also mean I support union-busting? What else does the management of Powell's support that I don't know about?

And maybe Unamas is less wide-spread than Taco Bell, but do they use genetically modified foodstuffs? Where does their chicken come from? Do they support sustainable practices? Maybe. Likely not.

But at some point, my desire to find out all this information on causes I support peters out. Sometimes, I just want food. In that way, Josh is right - it is our priorities that drive our decisions.

I guess what I don't like is how most Americans' top priority seems to be convenience over, say, personal health, sustainability, peace, biodiversity, exercise, environmental well-being, and so on.

But, as Josh points out, how do you change priorities? Well, I guess my tact for now is just to raise the issue in one of the few things I control - this page. Perhaps one of the many Twinkies surfers who clicks through to this page will find something thought-provoking in all the cynicism and preachiness. It was a similar exposure to new ideas that helped bring me to where I am today.

One final thought. I disagree with Josh's assertion that "there's never going to be an election, where the winner takes all". Maybe if you live in a large enough town where the support is there for the things you enjoy, this is true. But there are countless examples of small towns that have seemingly lost forever their mom 'n' pop, locally-owned businesses because WalMart or something like it moved in. They used predatory pricing to ensure that people voting for low prices and convenience would elect WalMart. Now anyone who wants to support a small, local business is out of luck in those towns.

Similarly, if we continue to buy foreign produce because it's cheaper and available out of season, we stand a good chance of shutting down the American farming industry. Once the equipment is sold, and the farmers' children fail to learn how to operate a farm, we've pretty much cut ourselves off.

It's all voluntary, of course. And such effects would be completely democratic, since the majority gets what it wants. The problem is that the majority doesn't seem to care or know about the effects they're having on the minority that does care. It's not unfair, but it's sad.

You're right that i have a city bias. I need to work on that one.

But you are making the assumption that the Mom n' Pop store is somehow better than the wal-mart. That there's some inherent reason why it should exist. I could argue that people in the small town are much better off with the wal-mart- they get a much larger selection of products, which the wal-mart can afford to provide, at a much lower price. It's less picturesque and nostalgic, though. (I hope you don't bring up the fact that behemoth stores engender sprawl - that's something I can't defend, and hate passionately. Oops)

You're also assuming that there's a reason why the american farm industry needs to be protected. I don't think it's possible for our nation to forget how to farm, for every last farmer to die out. And if they're inefficient, and aren't meeting any demand, they're just a burden. A picturesque, nostalgic burden. And they are wrecking the environment, by the way. Have you ever looked out the window while flying over the midwest? It's all geometric. And all of that is being fed by chemicals that are leaching into your drinking water. (Of course, if it isn't grown here, it will be grown somewhere else, somewhere that may be even more destructive. Wow, I wish there were some absolutes I could grab on to. :) )

Wow, this has turned into something else, but I'm enjoying the discussion.

Josh, you're right that not all things killed off by giant corporations are good. But what I said was that "anyone who wants to support a small, local business is out of luck in those [Walmart] towns". And it's true. To that person (of which I am an example), mom 'n' pop stores are pretty much better of themselves.

There is also the issue of choice. To continue with WalMart, you may get a better selection of products than at the mom 'n' pop, but it's WalMart's selection, which isn't necessarily decided on by anyone in your town or state. If you want WalMart to carry some product, especially a local product (due to quality or to support your local economy), you're probably out of luck. When the big corporations take over, we have less say in how things are, because money is the most important thing to S. Robson Walton et al.

Similarly, once food is produced elsewhere, we have little say over, for instance, genetically modified content, or even pesticide use. I'd like to believe that US laws against certain pesticides would prevent me from finding foreign produce with those pesticides in my local market, but I've read how overwhelmed the USDA is in trying to monitor foreign produce. And thus, we are subject to other countries' standards, not our own.

And you're also right that what is lost isn't irreplaceable. New farmers can try to compete against foreign produce, and new local businesses can try to compete against WalMart. But many times they have to expect to lose money while doing so, because market conditions and the prevailing market leaders conspire against them. Only the rich or stupid would run a company at a loss. The net effect is often that there is no alternative once the big companies come in.

Again, this is only because it's what the majority of people want, but too often they don't realize what effect they're having.

I'm enjoying this too...

Money is indeed the most important thing to Mr/Mrs Walton, but they make money by providing the stuff that people want. And wal-mart is successful because it tends to be able to get people what they want- it's supply chain is so sophisticated that it can do so more efficiently that anyone else. If they don't give us what they want, someone else will. They don't have a choice.

And you're right. Despite everything I've written, I'd prefer the mom and pop store, and would go out of my to shop there if I could. But I think it's important to recognize (and I think you do) that it is a simple matter of personal preference and taste, and doesn't reflect the inherent goodness of the independent business.

But regarding the impossibility of competing with giants- it happens. It's always happened- japanese cars vs. detroit, dell vs. ibm, small independent steel companies vs the inefficient behemoths that bush is protecting. Build a better mousetrap... it's all about doing something better. Eventually even walmart will bloat and implode. It's always a cycle. If the needs of consumers never changed, if cultural priorities never changed, and if companies were always well managed, walmart would reigh supreme forever. But it won't.

And with the small businesses- they'll have to adjust. But many of them will survive because they'll carry local goods that walmart doesn't, they'll know your name, you won't have to wait in line for 30 minutes, you won't have to wander around the aisles aimlessly because nobody can tell you where stuff is...

And is it my imagination, or did the size of this textbox get bigger?

I need to catch up on this and I don't have time right now, but quickly:

: Doug, I have a hard time distinguishing between corporations and the people who run them. Every bad thing a corporation does was decided upon by a person who made a bad choice.

First of all, legally, corporations are distinct from individuals and are true entities.

Second of all, corporate behavior is often the product of not a single person's decision, but the complex interaction of several people's decisions in a way that often produces results unintended by any of them. The same can be said for any organization, be it a government entity, a rock band, a union, or what have you.

Third of all, I meant Ole Ole!, not Una Mas. But either applies.

My bigger concern with, say, a Taco Bell, is not so much their ingredients, but their relentless attempts to replace mom and pop restaurants nationwide, their existence as part of PepsiCorp, and so on. I personally believe diversity is important in a market economy, and I try to spend to reflect that value whenever possible. (That said, I'll eat there every once in a time.)

As far as Powell's and union-busting goes, well, if it bothers you, there's still other choices between Barnes and Noble.

But really, I want to clarify: I was reacting to the quoted statement at the start of my post. I disagree with that intensely. Not everyone will do bad things with your money. Yes, sometimes it will happen despite your best intentions or beliefs. But your statement implies an inevitability which, at its core, I disagree with, and more pointedly, I think is symptomatic of a larger American malaise - "well, it doesn't make any difference what I do, so I'll just eat at Taco Bell/shop at Barnes and Noble/invest my money in MicroSoft stock/vote for one of the two-party candidates/rent from Blockbuster".

So maybe I'm reacting more against a general attitude in society, which your comment there sort of bumped up against.

Wow -- miss Cock-a-hoop for a few days and everything gets all exciting while your back is turned!

I don't have much to add, short of a nod to relativism: you can only decide what is good for you and control your own actions accordingly. There are no absolutes, but I don't think that relegates us to the middle path. Why not shoot for the best known path -- the one that seems most right, least harmful, and closest to your priorities, until it is shown to be otherwise? I think this is what everyone really does, even the people who shop at WalMart.

I'm joining this discussion late but I can't help but chime in. Hopefully, someone will still be reading this. :)

First, Walmart. I'm sad to say that I worked for them for 4 months last year. I visited their world headquarters. I know their corporate culture and their priorities. I met the people that make the major decisions. I'm so tempted to say "They're evil." but that's not exactly right. They do stand for almost everything that I'm opposed to but they aren't exactly evil. In fact, they are just like any coroporation...only better at it.

Like Doug said, corporations are entities just like people. He was speaking legally but it's also true in other ways. Corporations, the ones that last, act very much like living organisms. (I wish I could find the reference for this fact.) They protect their own existence above all else. That's why Doug's point about individual decisions vs. actions of the corporation is so appropriate. Sometimes this self-preservation goes far beyond the control of any one (or few) people, no matter what position they hold. Corporations are smart, resourceful, and without conscience.

The real danger from corporations closing down local businesses has to do with this survival instinct. Josh said that Walmart is successful because it "tends to be able to get people what they want". In some ways yes, but often that's just in the beginning. The fact is that Walmart gives people the lowest quality stuff that they will still buy. Then, they slowly lower quality (or raise the price) to ensure higher margins. (They really do this. It is corporate policy.) This is the way most businesses keep growing at the insane pace that american capitalism requires.

This is why local businesses are better, at least in theory. The theory is that local stores will have a much higher minumum quality level because the decisions are more closely tied to the actual actions within the local communities. (Unlike the corps, where the decision makers are far removed from the actual realities of corporate activity.)

There's more rolling around in my head but I'll wait and see if anyone is still interested in talking about this...

I don't see it as a matter of Corperate Monsters out to get Mom and Pop shops. If not for the taxes paid by Wal-Mart, Taco Bell, etc, Mom and Pop shops would have to pay for their employee's health care, which most of them aren't big enough to do, and if not for Mom and Pop shops Wal-Mart and Taco Bell would lose all sense of community. The one supports the other, financially and personally.

Christy - I'm not sure I can agree that everyone chooses the path they think is best. At some level, of course that is true. You could define behavior as simply doing what you think is best at any given time, even if "best" means nothing more than "most convenient". But by such logic, standard evils such as murder and robbery are justifiable to the perpetrator when they occur.

I think most people simply aren't thinking, or at least concerned about the correlation between their actions and the results thereof. I mean, I'm willing to bet that most people shopping at WalMart are, say, against Americans losing their jobs, and for a healthy food supply. Most Americans are. But how many of those people turn those thoughts into action and check the labels on the stuff they buy, perhaps shunning the cheaper or better-known option?

To go even further, I can think of very few people who want to be obese or die of lung cancer. And yet there is no shortage of people who eat crappy food and smoke. They either don't believe the evidence that correlates the latter with the former, or they don't think it will happen to them, or they don't think they can make a difference, or they just don't care.

Either way, at any given point, they're doing what they think is best, and yet they're violating other principles they hold. We all do it.

And Tpodd (and Doug), while I agree that a corporation may bring about a different behavior in its members than they would display on their own, I still don't think this excuses them as individuals.

After all, the same is true for a mob (the lynching kind) - people gather together and spur each other on to do dark things they wouldn't attempt on their own, the group seemingly justifying the actions of the individuals. And yet mob actions are just as wrong as if they were done by one person.

(For instance, we hold Nazi soldiers accountable for their actions even if they were following orders. Therefore, if you disagree with me, you side with Hitler. Ta-da.)

A person may feel more justified for doing something under the auspices of a corporation, but he still knows what he is doing, and whether it is wrong morally or legally.

(Of course, there are examples of people in corporations who don't know what wrongs are committed. I'm sure many of the people in Enron and Arthur Andersen thought they were behaving correctly. I'm not thinking about these people. I'm talking about the people who make the actual decisions.)

Yay, I like discussion. Thanks for all of your different thoughts so far.

"And Tpodd (and Doug), while I agree that a corporation may bring about a different behavior in its members than they would display on their own, I still don't think this excuses them as individuals."

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend several years back. I was explaining that I didn't shop at Shell because they were helping to slaughter dissidents in Nigeria by propping up the regime. His response was: "So, which person there is pulling the trigger? Are they sending employees over there? Is it the Shell Answer Man that does it?" And, technically, he's right: I doubt that any single employee of Shell has ever pulled the trigger to the head of a dissident in Nigeria.

The point is that the result of corporate activity can be strikingly different from the activity any single employee behaves in.

A related point is that a single action by a corporation may be (in fact, likely is) the composite actions of several, or dozens, or hundreds of employees of the corporation. No individual action, isolated, may be obviously morally objectionable. It is only when taken in tandem and producing a corporate action that it becomes objectionable.

An example: suppose that a manager at a corporation is choosing between a green-skinned and a purple-skinned person. He chooses the green-skinned person because he genuinely thinks that that person's more qualified. Fine. But, if this action were to unfold fifty times across the organization, with fifty different managers, we would probably come to the conclusion that the corporation is discriminating against purple-skinned people.

I guess a lot of people are tempted to believe that, ultimately, the behavior of a corporation is dictated on high and everything follows the whim of one or two or how ever many people. The truth is that corporations are unruly beasts with their own behavior that does not precisely map to the desires of any single employee of the company, even the CEO. That doesn't mean that, ultimately, nobody should be held accountable legally for illegal corporate behavior ... it just means that you can't understand corporate behavior through individual behaviors is, and trying to confuses the situation.

you know, it never seems like much text when I'm typing, but it sure looks that way on the screen.

It's not that I (or Doug, who I will take the liberty of speaking for) am saying that individuals within groups shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. We're just saying that, as much as a corporation (or mob or Nazi party) is made up of individual people, a group often takes on a life of its own and it's actions are difficult for any individual to forsee or affect. It's not a defense of group behaviour, but it is an acknowlegement of it. There's a real tendency in the USA to be blinded by the idea of the All Powerful Individual. But the power of an individuals decision is often severly dilluted by the group they are part of. A great example of this is a traffic jam: Noone in that jam decided to make it happen. In fact, you could probably say that everyone is actively deciding against it. But it still happens.

Should the person at the head of that traffic jam be held personally responsible?

Another way to look at this whole corporate decision making situation is to just say that people in corporations behave like the rest of society. They don't bother to look beyond their narrow personal sphere of influence to understand how their other people down the line.

This gets back to one of tODD's original points: How much can you blame someone for having and reaching a limit of how much information they're willing to get before making a decision?

Or how much can you blame them for ignoring, misinterpreting, or otherwise not using available information?

Which is why people smoke. Okay, smoking increases your "risk of cancer" by some percent... say 70%. But what the hell does "risk" mean to someone without a degree in statistics? Smoking does not "equal" cancer or even necessarily "cause" it -- many people who smoke are healthy, many who don't get sick. Even if people understood the math, the numbers aren't compelling on the individual level -- so 1.7 people instead of 1 in 1000 will get cancer? A jump from 100 to 170 cases is significant to a community, but hardly indicative of what my personal outcome will be. And if I'm at the store staring down a pack of Marlboros, do I think that I'll be part of that 1.7? Not unless I'm an incurable pessimist. So I might as well get my buzz on.

And sure, most Americans are against unemployment. And *all things being equal*, they might choose to buy the more expensive item that saves jobs, promotes sustainable agriculture, yadda yadda. But all things are not equal, and many many Americans do not have that luxury; they have a very finite amount of money to spend on a potentially infinite number of needs. The "best" path can mean stretching every dollar as far as it will go -- regardless of the politics behind that dollar -- so that the kids can have school clothes, white bread, and maybe a vacation here and there. So choosing between some nameless person in Peoria whom they'll never meet keeping her job, and little Susie getting her Lunchables on sale? Guess who wins...

It's not a question of absolutes, and it's not a question of inviolable principles. People choose the best path by *prioritizing* principles, and the ones with higher priority are the ones with immediate, recognizable, and beneficial outcomes.

Maybe this all relates to the tragedy of the commons, the idea that "it's okay if I do it, as long as everyone else doesn't do it too." It's okay if I vote for Nader as long as everyone else votes for Gore. It's okay if I buy at B&N as long as someone shops at Green Apple.

Maybe we've lost the democratic ideal of strength in numbers in favor of every man for himself... maybe that's all capitalism amounts to in the end.

(The above link has some interesting commentary related to population control and the weighting of "incommensurables", which has some bearing on our discussion)

But Tpodd- sure Wal-mart tries to push the lowest quality, highest margin stuff that they can. But once again, there's a threshold. If they push it too far, someone will come in and take advantage of that. Maybe not immediately, but eventually. They push it as far as they can get away with it.

And mom and pop do exactly the same thing, at a smaller scale. THey have to, to stay in business.

Tpodd- "This is why local businesses are better, at least in theory. The theory is that local stores will have a much higher minumum quality level because the decisions are more closely tied to the actual actions within the local communities. (Unlike the corps, where the decision makers are far removed from the actual realities of corporate activity.)"

I have to disagree. In general, Mom and pop aren't going to make decisions based on what's best for the community. They need to stay in business. And most times, it's intrinsically harder to stay in business as a small enterprise. And any corp that follows that formula- big decisions made exclusively at the top- is going to fail.

Another thought- it's not just corporations- get any group of people together, and they'll act in irresponsible ways that individuals wouldn't. A lack of personal culpability is a big part of that. In a complex system, cause and effect gets distorted, and accountability trails get complex. Think of governments. Organized churches. It's all the same.

Xy- It's not that capitalism is weakening democracy- complexity is. It's too hard to weigh the impact of every thing I buy, and everything I vote for.

Finally-
Our system has evolved this way because it has to be this way, given our cultural priorities. Principles are part of that- but sillier things like convenience and entertainment are there too. Most people simply don't think in terms of principle in their daily lives.

Josh - "If they push it too far, someone will come in and take advantage of that. Maybe not immediately, but eventually." True, but how long is "eventually"? I see where you're going with this. Yes, I agree that complex systems tend toward equilibrium so any extreme action by one part of the system will "eventually" be countered. But why does that have to be left completely up to the laws of chaos? Why shouldn't people work to make that "eventually" happen sooner rather than later? Or, even better, keep the competition around the whole time?

Josh - "I have to disagree. In general, Mom and pop aren't going to make decisions based on what's best for the community. They need to stay in business. And most times, it's intrinsically harder to stay in business as a small enterprise." True, in general they won't. But sometimes they will. Even if they don't know that they are. They are members of that community and therefore tied to its success and/or failure. You don't piss in the well you drink from. At the very least, running and buying from local businesses helps keep money in the local economy.

Your point about groups helping to remove accountability is spot on. But does that mean that you don't hold people accountable?

When you get down to it, this is really just the "why should anyone bother when what we do doesn't matter" argument wrapped in a cloak of complexity theory? (Not to be confused with a Cloak of Invisibility, a Cloak of Night, or any other item one might find in an iron chest in a wind swept tower in the world of D&D.)

(You can tell I'm living in academia now because I end everything with a question. :)

Tpodd - "But why does that have to be left completely up to the laws of chaos? Why shouldn't people work to make that "eventually" happen sooner rather than later?"

They can, and they should. I'm not saying that people are helpless against this equilibrium. If they want to, they can refuse to shop at wal-mart en masse, and there's nothing wal-mart can do about it. The "equilibrium" I see is simply an expression of the reality, not a force that can't be countered. People are choosing, and will choose, where to shop based on what's important to them.

The thing I'm cautious about is the assumption that the mom-and-pop is better for everyone, in all communities. It would be nice to prove that wal-mart is always detrimental, indeed, to express what it means to be detrimental. If that were possible, I would then say that it makes sense to create laws discouraging the displacement of local enterprise. But since it isn't (now, anyway), all you can do is let the community express its priorities and needs and let the equilibrium establish itself. If you can change the priorites and needs of the community, more power to you.


Tpodd- "why should anyone bother when what we do doesn't matter" argument wrapped in a cloak of complexity theory?

Nope. I've only been expressing fragments of my idea. I've been reacting to my impression (I said impression- I'm not sure that any of you are really thinking this) that people would like to do away with wal-mart and evil corporations if only they could. That there is an inherent wrongness that has to be fought on principle. I've been trying to express that it isn't black and white- wal-mart isn't the death knell of the small shop, and wal-mart doesn't grow only because its a 900 pound gorilla. That wal-mart exists in large part because people want it to exist.

I'm more worried about people doing the wrong thing- this will never happen, but the logical conclusion to the thought that a small business is always better to a large corporation is to pass laws encouraging the small business. And because it is so complex, you can't know the real result of this would be. And you can't say that it is the right thing to do. So it is worthwhile to explore the equilibrium, and learn how to shift it slowly and carefully.

So in general, I think there are issues and states of affair that are extremely complex, and have different implications to different people. These things don't lend themselves to change from above- people voting for or against them or politicians creating policy. It's too hard to know the ramifications, and what truly is best (most moral, or good for the most people, who knows) that I don't think there is a solution that can just be decided upon.

But our individual behaviors total matter. To come back to retail- The way I choose to express my priorities while shopping factors into the equilibrium, and any way that I can affect my community to do the same has an even larger impact upon what our stores and products are going to be.

(and before anyone mentions it, I do think there are situations where there is a more moral imperative- at least one agreed to by the majority of the population. I don't know where the line is)

And finally-
Tpodd - "Your point about groups helping to remove accountability is spot on. But does that mean that you don't hold people accountable?"

No, it doesn't. Why would it? People are just as accountable. I just wanted to throw out the fact that the bevahior is not restricted to corporations- people in any collective will tend to act foully.

blah blah blah.

Wow, that was a long one. This is what happens when you have too much free time. :)

"I've been trying to express that it isn't black and white- wal-mart isn't the death knell of the small shop, and wal-mart doesn't grow only because its a 900 pound gorilla."

Oh sure, take the "sensible" and "realistic" approach. I should of known you would do that. Well, fine. Ruin all our fun, see if I care.

Seriously though...

I think we are in agreement about a lot of this. I was taking some of your points to extremes cuz I wanted to tease out what you really thought about them. (It also helped me get a little better acquainted with my own thoughts.)

I think you're last post was well put and would've wrapped up this discussion quite nicely. But, instead, I'm adding another post with no real purpose at all. That said, I guess I'll just shut up now. Thanks for the mighty fine discussion folks.

Quick, someone say something controversial. I'm not ready for this to end.

DEATH TO CAPITALISTS!
DEATH TO COMMIES!
DEATH TO EVERYONE!

Ah well, I'm sure I'll be along with something less frivolous some day soon.

Until then, I really appreciated the different ideas here. You all have vindicated my putting the comments section up (as well as this larger text box).

Tobacco Killed the Twin Towers:



In early 1995, a sheriff's deputy in Iredell County, a quick ride north of Charlotte, became curious as cars with out-of-state plates pulled up to JR Tobacco and loaded up on wholesale cigarettes. Over the next four years, Hammoud, Chawki Hammoud, Harb, Tsioumas and others ran hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of low-tax cigarettes to high-tax Michigan, according to indictments. Each trip netted as much as $4,000.



FULL STORY:

A Tobacco Road to terror:

By DAN CHAPMAN
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer

CHARLOTTE -- Most days, the Cheverton subdivision resembled the American dream, with its multicultural mix of neighbors, driveway basketball courts and posted speed limits of 22 mph.

Thursdays, though, were different.




AP
Harb AP
Hammoud
As the sun set, Middle Eastern men filed into the home of Mohammad Youssef Hammoud on Donnefield Drive. Hammoud told them of being "well connected to Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon," according to an informant. He beseeched his guests to give money to Hezbollah, which the United States considers a terrorist organization.

To inspire his guests, he played speeches of the late Iranian cleric Ayatollah Khomeini and showed videos, including one with a crowd chanting, "Death to America, Death to Israel."

On May 20, Hammoud will be the first person tried in the United States under a 1996 law that prohibits support of known terrorist organizations. U.S. officials believe the case involves serious national security issues.

The U.S. government, which considers Hammoud the leader of "Charlotte's Hezbollah cell," reindicted him last month on a slew of felony charges. A new and damning allegation was added to the list: providing cash and military-style equipment to Hezbollah.

'Very significant' case

With the hunt for terrorist groups taking on added urgency after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the trial could serve as a blueprint for the war against suspected terrorist groups operating on U.S. turf.

"This is a very significant prosecution in terms of the U.S. government's efforts to combat terrorism," U.S. Attorney Bob Conrad, whose office is handling the Hammoud case, said recently. "The attorney general has given a directive to U.S. attorneys to make anti-terrorism their 'first and overriding priority.' That's not hysteria. That's just sound public policy."

Defense attorneys counter that the U.S. government overstepped its constitutional bounds to build a sensationalized case. It's not illegal, they contend, to provide assistance to Hezbollah, which many describe as an Islamic political and religious group.

A straightforward cigarette-smuggling case, lawyers say, has been transformed into a witch hunt targeting Middle Easterners as terrorists.

"It will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to get a fair trial, particularly in this time in American history when we are in a war on terrorism," said Deke Falls, the attorney for Hammoud who will fight every charge. "But you have to hold out hope that people can set aside the events of September 11 and come to the jury box with as clean a slate as possible."

The upcoming trial promises drama worthy of a John le Carre thriller: Canadian spies, "sleeper" agents, confidential informants, classified documents, wiretapped conversations.

Smuggling charges

It all came to light in July 2000 when Hammoud, two brothers and 15 others were arrested and charged with skirting immigration laws, cigarette smuggling and money laundering. But prosecutors allege the illegal activities began years earlier.

Hammoud, a native of Lebanon, left Venezuela for Michigan in 1992. His visa up, Hammoud was ordered out of the United States by September 1996. A year later, he married Angela Tsioumas, a U.S. citizen, and became a "lawful, permanent resident." The couple moved to Charlotte.

Hammoud, now 28, was reunited with brother Chawki Youssef Hammoud who, after marrying Jessica Yolanda Fortune in 1994, was also granted permanent residency. Fortune was convicted last October of conspiracy to violate immigration laws.

Her marriage, like that of Tsioumas to Hammoud, was a sham solely for the purpose of allowing the Lebanese men to remain in the United States, authorities say. Chawki Hammoud goes on trial with his brother later this month.

The Hammouds also hooked up in Charlotte with Said Mohamad Harb, a childhood friend from Lebanon.

In a closed hearing in February, Harb pleaded guilty to conspiring to smuggle cigarettes, arrange sham marriages, launder money and other felonies. He also admitted conspiring to provide material support to Hezbollah.

Harb, 31, is expected to testify on Hammoud's alleged role in funneling money and materiel to Hezbollah. In return, the U.S. government agreed to help Harb's parents, brothers and sisters leave Lebanon. The family was expected to arrive here last month, on the day Harb's plea deal was made public.

Harb attended the meetings at Hammoud's home where the talk inevitably turned to crime, the feds say.

Aid banned in 1997

In early 1995, a sheriff's deputy in Iredell County, a quick ride north of Charlotte, became curious as cars with out-of-state plates pulled up to JR Tobacco and loaded up on wholesale cigarettes. Over the next four years, Hammoud, Chawki Hammoud, Harb, Tsioumas and others ran hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of low-tax cigarettes to high-tax Michigan, according to indictments. Each trip netted as much as $4,000.

Tsioumas told an FBI informant in February 1999 that she and Hammoud were "looking for a way to legitimize their money," according to a July 2000 affidavit. They eventually secured a $1.6 million bank loan for a gas station. Hammoud and two others also bought Cedarland Grocery and Restaurant in Charlotte for $120,000.

The profits supported other interests too, the feds say. Harb traveled to Lebanon in September 1999 and delivered $3,500 from Hammoud to a Hezbollah military commander, according to the indictment. That allegation will play a big role in the anti-terrorism case against Hammoud.

In 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright designated Hezbollah a "foreign terrorist organization" making it illegal for anyone in the United States to assist Hezbollah. During the 1980s and '90s, the so-called Party of God waged guerrilla war against Israeli forces occupying southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah was tied to the bombings of the U.S. Embassy annex and a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983, which killed hundreds of Americans. It has also been linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network. It was reported last month that Hezbollah is providing military expertise to Palestinian fighters in the Gaza Strip.

Hezbollah is also a Lebanese political party and social welfare organization. It holds six seats in the Lebanese Parliament. It runs schools, operates clinics and builds roads, primarily in southern Lebanon. But Hezbollah remains a terrorist organization to the U.S. government.

Harb traveled twice to Canada in 1999 to meet with Mohamad Hassan Dbouk, a "purchasing agent" for Hezbollah, according to the FBI. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service provided information "that establishes the involvement . . . of Said M. Harb and others in the coordinated international procurement of technical equipment for Hizballah in Lebanon," the 115-page affidavit reads.

According to the FBI, Harb, Dbouk and other men procured some or all of the following: night vision goggles; cameras and scopes; surveying equipment; global positioning systems; mine and metal detection equipment; video equipment; advanced aircraft analysis and design software; laptop computers; stun guns; radios; mining, drilling and blasting equipment; radars; ultrasonic dog repellers; laser range finders.

Involvement denied

That wasn't all. On May 26, Dbouk phoned Harb and asked about obtaining life insurance for Hezbollah operatives, the feds say. Dbouk, who remains a fugitive, supposedly inquired about policies which would "cover the risk of death caused by bullets" for 30 men.

"Mr. Hammoud categorically denies that he was ever a member of a Charlotte Hezbollah cell, that he was ever a member of a terrorist cell, and that he was ever the ringleader of any criminal activity," said Falls, Hammoud's attorney.

None of the defendants has been charged with committing acts of violence. Hezbollah has reportedly denied any links to the suspects.

Prosecutors, though, dismiss Hezbollah's claims and vow that their anti-terrorism fervor, post-Sept. 11, will continue.

"This case does take on heightened importance," Conrad, the U.S. attorney, said. "We anticipate the Department of Justice's efforts against terrorism [that] resulted in this type of indictment will most likely be seen elsewhere. My belief is that this activity is not peculiar to Charlotte."

TOBACCO IS TERRORISM.

SMOKE IS A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON.

SMOKING KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN WAR.

YOU SEE, IF YOU WANT TO KILL A HIVE OF INSECTS, YOU TARGET THE QUEEN - NOT THE WORKERS.

BY GETTING YOUNG GIRLS TO SMOKE, YOU CAN GET AT THEIR CHILDREN TOO.

GET THE MOM ADDICTED - YOU CAN GET MOST OF THEIR CHILDREN TOO.



If an organization sponsored one
of its members to run into a
shopping mall and murder 15 people
it would be a Terrorist Organization.

And yet - 1,500 young girls will
start smoking today.



If someone put a bomb in a truck
and it exploded and killed 140 people,
you would expect that person to be labeled a TERRORIST.

And yet - tobacco kills 140,000 women each year. And the numbers keep growing.



If a person put a Virus in a
women's purse to kill children
in the school she worked at,
that person would be a terrorist.

And yet - Second Hand Smoke is
classified as 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment' in prisons - by the USA Supreme Court.




SMOKE IS A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON,
TARGETING THE WEAK,
THE POOR,
WOMEN AND CHILDREN,
AND YOUNG PEOPLE EVERYWHERE


http://www.inwat.org/young.htm



U.S. Public Health Service's Office on Women's Health
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 730B
Washington, DC 20201 USA
1-202-690-7650
Director: Susan J. Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.A.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women's Health
The Facts

Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in women in the United States. Of the more than 140,000 women who die prematurely from tobacco-related illnesses each year, 80 percent began smoking while they were adolescents.

Each day in the United Stated about 1,500 girls being smoking. Nearly all first use of tobacco occurs before high school graduation.


Approximately 1 of 5 teenage girls is now a smoker.

Sociodemographic characteristics. Girls are more likely to smoke if they do not plan to complete 4 years of college, if their parents have a low number of years of education, or if they live in single-parent or unsupervised households.

Health Effects of Smoking:
Nicotine Addiction.
Respiratory Problems.
Coronary Artery Disease
Dental Problems.
lesions in the mouth
nervousness and depression
increased risk of being involved in fights,
engaging in high-risk sexual behavior,
using alcohol and other drugs.
bad breath,
wrinkled skin,
stained teeth,
Cancer.
heart disease - more than 61,000 each year.
heart attacks
strokes. Each year, about 8,000 women die from strokes attributable to smoking.
emphysema,
bronchitis,
pneumonia
damaged women's reproductive systems.
infertility,
complications during pregnancy,
early onset menopause.
miscarriage,
stillbirth,
preterm delivery,
low birth weight infants,
higher rates of infant mortality.





IN BRIEF:

DEATH TO AMERICANS.

They don't chant it in the streets,
they are selling it on the street corners.



Resources :

For additional information contact:
U.S. Public Health Service's Office on Women's Health
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 730B
Washington, DC 20201 USA
1-202-690-7650


For more information of tobacco use and smoking, contact:
The Cancer Information Service
National Cancer Institute
Building 31, Room 10A-16
31 Center Drive
Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
1-800-4-CANCER

Office on Smoking and Health
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
1600 Clifton Road, MS: D-51
Atlanta, GA 30333 USA
1-404-639-7230

Food and Drug Administration
Office on Public Affairs
5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15-05
Rockville, MD 20857 USA
1-301-443-1130

National Women's Resource Center
1-800-354-8824

TOBACCO IS TERRORISM

SMOKE IS A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON





BODY COUNT






THE TOBACCO TERRORISM DEATH TOLL

Find out what tobacco has done to your state!

http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/addicting/

On the left hand side of the web page,
select your state - see the Tobacco Terrorist Murder Rate.



The Tobacco Money Funded Twin Tower,
Pentagon, and Highjacking Attack killed an estimated 6,827 people.

In New York Alone Tobacco Terrorists:

Deaths in New York From Smoking

Adults who die each year from their own smoking 24,500

Kids now under 18 and alive in New York
who will ultimately die prematurely from smoking 438,000

Adults, children, & babies who die each year
from others' smoking (secondhand smoke & pregnancy smoking) 2,390 to 4,250


Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined -- and thousands more die from other tobacco-related causes -- such as fires caused by smoking (more than 1,000 deaths/year nationwide) and smokeless tobacco use. No good estimates are currently available, however, for the number of New York citizens who die from these other tobacco-related causes, or for the much larger numbers who suffer from tobacco-related health problems each year without actually dying.


Smoking-Caused Monetary Costs in New York

Annual health care costs in New York directly caused by smoking $6.38 billion
- Portion covered by the state Medicaid program $4.27 billion

Residents' state & federal tax burden from smoking-caused government expenditures $774.4 per household

Smoking-caused productivity losses in New York $5.30 billion

Amounts do not include health costs caused by exposure to secondhand smoke, smoking-caused fires, spit tobacco use, or cigar and pipe smoking. Other non-health costs from tobacco use include residential and commercial property losses from smoking-caused fires (more than $500 million per year nationwide);

extra cleaning and maintenance costs made necessary by tobacco smoke and litter
(about $4+ billion nationwide for commercial establishments alone);

and additional productivity losses from smoking-caused work absences,
smoking breaks, and on-the-job performance declines and early termination of employment caused by smoking-caused disability or illness (dollar amount listed above is just from productive work lives shortened by smoking-caused death).






BRING OUT THE BODY BAGS FOR THE SMOKERS


EVERY SMOKE AD IS SAYING THIS:

DEATH TO AMERICANS!


YOU SMOKE - YOU CHOKE !


### THE END ###

http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventcrime.htm

I just wanted to commend all of you
for your deep thinking.

Yes, many harmful things come from
corporations, governments, gasoline use, living in suburbs, eating fast food, getting fat, wasting money, etc. etc. etc.

It is hard to sort through all of it,
difficult to make good choices.

Consumers dollars are their votes,
your choices determine what world you will live in.

For over 150 years, one very bad choice,
the choice to do harm to one self,
the choice to smoke,
has been proven to increase crime and illness in 90% of all cases.

If there is one thing you can do
to make your life better:

Don't smoke.

I have held a baby in my hands,
born 5 months early because the mother
was a heavy smoker.

The tiny baby was attended to 24 hrs a day by the best trained medical professionals.

He drowned in his own blood when his underdeveloped lungs hemmoraged...grugling for air,
the little baby bled out and died.

I have seen men who have been sliced open, chest to croch, to replace their arteries destroyed by years of smoking,
and that is not even counting the lung damage...





Do One thing to help save the world:


Don't Smoke - Do Live!


Teach others to do the same.

It will protect your health and
save your money...



Life Joy and Happiness to you all...

Dude, if you really knew about bud, then you would kick yourself in the ass. People who buy, smoke, sell or whatnot, are actually contributing to the economy of different countries all of the time. They are also contributing to the U.S. economy by buying food for munchies, and yes, smoking can cause health problems, no doubt about it. But when you have health problems, you have jobs, when you have crime problems, you have cops which, like it or not, is a job. When you have legal trouble with the actual product, then you have lawyers, and cameras, and media...all jobs...thank you!