Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Cops, FBI lied about Bari probe, juror says
Cops, FBI lied about probe, juror says.
Woman speaks out on Earth First trial after gag order lifted
Woman speaks out on Earth First trial after gag order lifted
Cops, FBI lied about probe, juror says.
Woman speaks out on Earth First trial after gag order lifted
Jim Herron Zamora, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 3, 2002
©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.
Three weeks after they ordered Oakland police and the FBI to pay Earth First organizers $4.4 million, jurors were allowed to speak for the first time Tuesday, and one of them said "investigators were lying so much it was insulting."
"The FBI and Oakland (police) sat up there and lied about their investigation," said juror Mary Nunn of Oakley. "They messed up their investigation, and they had to lie again and again to try to cover up. I'm surprised that they seriously expected anyone would believe them."
Nunn spoke out about the verdict Tuesday after U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, responding to the request by the Chronicle and the Oakland Tribune, lifted her gag order on jurors giving interviews.
Wilken's order applies to the media but does not permit jurors to discuss the case with attorneys.
Four jurors declined to be interviewed. The other five did not return calls or could not be reached.
Wilken issued the gag order minutes after the jury announced its verdict on June 11 in a civil trial stemming from a May 24, 1990, car bombing in Oakland.
In one of the biggest civil rights verdicts of its kind, the 10-member jury unanimously ordered FBI agents and Oakland police officers to pay damages to the estate of Earth First activist Judi Bari and fellow organizer Darryl Cherney.
Both organizers were injured in the bombing -- and then arrested by investigators who thought Bari and Cherney were carrying a bomb to use it elsewhere.
The environmentalists said investigators had never seriously considered that the unknown person who placed a pipe in Bari's car might be opposed to
Earth First.
The jury unanimously found six investigators -- FBI agents and police officers -- had violated the pair's constitutional rights to free speech and protection from unlawful searches.
Bari, who died of cancer in 1997, and Cherney argued that the investigation, which has never cleared them as suspects, had undermined their credibility and hurt their ability to promote forest preservation.
Nunn said that after a five-week trial members of the panel all found "the FBI really lacked credibility" in testimony. She said in deliberations members of the jury talked about contradictions in the accounts of Oakland police and the FBI.
"Police tried to blame their mistakes on the FBI, but the FBI was trying to shove the blame right back," Nunn said. "No one in law enforcement was willing to say 'we made a mistake' and stand up and admit it. They were evasive. They were arrogant. They were defensive."
She said jurors had agreed early in deliberations that the Cherney and Bari had been wronged but spent more than two weeks determining exactly who among the investigators was responsible and how to apportion damages.
The jury, after some disagreements, deadlocked on one count involving Cherney's arrest and exonerated law enforcement on a conspiracy count.
But overall they handed Bari and Cherney a big victory.
"We took our time and tried to do everything right," Nunn said.
The night before the jurors made their final votes, she said "I got on my knees and prayed to God to stop me if this is the wrong thing. I've never done anything like this. Going against the FBI is a big deal. I wanted to be sure."
Nunn, a ticket agent at American Airlines, said she wanted protection from terrorism like the Sept. 11 attacks. But her jury experience made her skeptical about giving law enforcement a blank check to bypass civil liberties.
"This trial taught me what it means to be American," Nunn said. "I realize that freedom is something we can never take for granted. . . . We are freebecause we hold people in power to a higher standard."
Chronicle staff writers Janine DeFao and Erin Hallissy contributed to this report. / E-mail Jim Zamora at jzamora [at] sfchronicle.com.
©2002 San Francisco Chronicle. Page A - 17
For more information:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
they lied over and over and over. they lied so much these people couldnt believe it.
being proven right over and over again is what gives us such a big head. DOWN WITH THE FBI!!!!
being proven right over and over again is what gives us such a big head. DOWN WITH THE FBI!!!!
...and a couple of paragraphs later, this appeared:
"Nunn, a ticket agent at American Airlines, said she wanted protection from terrorism like the Sept. 11 attacks. But her jury experience made her skeptical about giving law enforcement a blank check to bypass civil liberties.
"This trial taught me what it means to be American," Nunn said. "I realize that freedom is something we can never take for granted. . . . We are free because we hold people in power to a higher standard."
...Nunn is skeptical of the FBI, but she doesn't want to disband it. She wants a just FBI to help protect her from terrorism -- did you get all of that?
"Nunn, a ticket agent at American Airlines, said she wanted protection from terrorism like the Sept. 11 attacks. But her jury experience made her skeptical about giving law enforcement a blank check to bypass civil liberties.
"This trial taught me what it means to be American," Nunn said. "I realize that freedom is something we can never take for granted. . . . We are free because we hold people in power to a higher standard."
...Nunn is skeptical of the FBI, but she doesn't want to disband it. She wants a just FBI to help protect her from terrorism -- did you get all of that?
A smart journalist would have asked this juror if they knew what COINTELPRO is. Perhaps their answer to that question would be different. But the monkey court would not allow *that* evidence to be introduced.
Did you catch that?
Did you catch that?
What makes you think COINTELPRO wasn't discussed or that Nunn is ignorant of it -- because if she knew she would HAVE to be an anarchist too?
And if you think the "monkey court" illegally prevented evidence from being admitted at the trial, I'd like to hear more about what you know.
And if you think the "monkey court" illegally prevented evidence from being admitted at the trial, I'd like to hear more about what you know.
Everyone knows that evidence of cointelpro was banned from the trial. Do you even know what you are talking about? She might know about it, but since most Americans don't know, I think the presumption is that she didn't. (which is why the FBI tried to get it banned from the trial in the first place)
I didn't ask you if the evidence was banned, I asked if evidence was inpoperly (illegally) prevented from being introduced, and as you know, there are strict federal and state evidentiary rules and procedures. Are you claiming that these rules were applied incorrectly either by accident or design?
Um, yeah. If a government runs a secret and illegal political police program and death squad apparatus, it should be be in the top of all history lessons and it should be admissable in cases which involve political organizations and police misconduct. Any person using common sense would agree with this. It is the judge's discretion, and she made a poor (and perhaps not from just ignorance) decision. Period.
anarchist --
Forgive me for calling you on your expertise, but do you know on what legal grounds the evidence was deemed inadmissable -- which of the federal evidentiary rules was used?
Forgive me for calling you on your expertise, but do you know on what legal grounds the evidence was deemed inadmissable -- which of the federal evidentiary rules was used?
yes i do. the judge ruled on a couple motions in limine, granting that cointelpro evidence could only be introduced with proof that individual defendants had previously been involved cointelpro. since so much cointelpro evidence does not include personal names, that makes it kind of hard. this excluded over 300 pages of evidence. in 10 years, the FBI did not try to exclude this evidence. they did at the last minute.
So, because you can't by default someone is guilty of a crime without a hearing, and there was no factual basis that the individual defendants had previously been involved cointelpro, the evidence could not be admitted. How is this an inproper ruling?
It's basically a technicality, a loophole... lotsa crooks use 'em to get off the hook.
One more reason why it should be illegal for the american government to spy on american citizens on american soil.
One more reason why it should be illegal for the american government to spy on american citizens on american soil.
like i said, if a government program that illegally spies on people, frames people, and kills people ... it should be talked about always, not talked about never. and it should be evidence in trials of police political misconduct trials. how else can i explain this to you? like i said, i think it is common sense.
COINTELPRO was disbanded in 1975. It hasn't been happening since. Anyone who believes it has is either a fool or paranoid. Fifteen years after COINTELPRO was shelved, the car in which Bari and Cherney was in exploded leaving body parts thrown across the Bay Area and inserting cancer into Bari's tits. Chereny only lost his brain, nothing he ever used anyway. COINTELPRO couldn't have had anything to do with it. It had been out of service for 15 years. It's like charging someone for murder with a gun and blaming the person who invented it. They're dead. They're gone. Just like COINTELPRO was gone. It hasn't been practiced since 1975. You can't admit something in court that couldn't have had anything to do with it. If someone tries to make you believe COINTELPRO is alive and well today, run. You're dealing with an idiot. This may be your only warning.
Your contention is that the defense doesn't need to prove that the individual defendants had been previously been involved in cointelpro. Your suspicion is good enough.
Say, isn't that the kind of reasoning that got the FBI and the Oakland Police Dept. into this mess? Using suspicion instead of evidence? Talk about being a hypocrite...
Say, isn't that the kind of reasoning that got the FBI and the Oakland Police Dept. into this mess? Using suspicion instead of evidence? Talk about being a hypocrite...
Cointelpro evidence would show that the FBI and Oakland PD illegally conspired in the past to suppress dissent. Which would be relevant to the question of whether the FBI and the OPD conspired in 1989 to suppress EF!. The jury would still need to determine which individuals were involved in such a conspiracy.
Furthermore, careful examination of the Cointelpro evidence might show the specific involvement of Richard Held, Jr., who unfortunately (and improperly, in my opinion) was dismissed from this case at a late date.
Furthermore, careful examination of the Cointelpro evidence might show the specific involvement of Richard Held, Jr., who unfortunately (and improperly, in my opinion) was dismissed from this case at a late date.
thanks, anon, for spelling that out plainly!
it should be obvious, but it needs to be said, argued and out in the open.
it should be obvious, but it needs to be said, argued and out in the open.
I believe you just stated the flaws in your argument:
"The jury would still need to determine which individuals were involved in such a conspiracy."
"careful examination of the Cointelpro evidence might show the specific involvement of Richard Held, Jr."
I believe evidence such as this cannot be admitted when much of the suspicion about who is and who isn't invovled in Cointelpro is hearsay.
"who...was dismissed from this case at a late date:
Furthermore, I don't believe evidence pertaining to an idividual dismissed from the case would be considered relevant.
Again, suspicion can't be used as evidence, and that's true whether we're talking about holding Arab-American's prisoner as possible Al Qaida members, arresting individuals on the basis of racial profile, or
assuming that any and all FBI and OPD officers are members of Cointelpro.
Or do you only object to the disregard of Constitutional rights when it serves your needs?
"The jury would still need to determine which individuals were involved in such a conspiracy."
"careful examination of the Cointelpro evidence might show the specific involvement of Richard Held, Jr."
I believe evidence such as this cannot be admitted when much of the suspicion about who is and who isn't invovled in Cointelpro is hearsay.
"who...was dismissed from this case at a late date:
Furthermore, I don't believe evidence pertaining to an idividual dismissed from the case would be considered relevant.
Again, suspicion can't be used as evidence, and that's true whether we're talking about holding Arab-American's prisoner as possible Al Qaida members, arresting individuals on the basis of racial profile, or
assuming that any and all FBI and OPD officers are members of Cointelpro.
Or do you only object to the disregard of Constitutional rights when it serves your needs?
Both the OPD and the FBI are continuing criminal enterprise. They should be treated like any other gang of criminals. Their members should be treated like the members of any other continuing criminal enterprise are treated. If RICO can be used against the Hells Angels, why not against the OPD and FBI?
If these guys were in Mob, you’d better believe the judge would have admitted testimony about it and about the Mob’s related activities.
If these guys were in Mob, you’d better believe the judge would have admitted testimony about it and about the Mob’s related activities.
Consistency--
Then by application of your logic, you believe the US government does have the right to detain any and all members it suspects of belonging to terrorist groups because they are guilty by association.
Have I understood you correctly?
Then by application of your logic, you believe the US government does have the right to detain any and all members it suspects of belonging to terrorist groups because they are guilty by association.
Have I understood you correctly?
FyI: This is the third time I've posted this -- the first two were "deleted" -- that's why my name appears as the last poster but nessie's is the last comment in the thread.
Nessie--
Then by your own words, you are suggesting the judge in this case was "crooked" because her legal ruling differs from your opinion. Say, did you pass the bar in the California or another state?
Nessie--
Then by your own words, you are suggesting the judge in this case was "crooked" because her legal ruling differs from your opinion. Say, did you pass the bar in the California or another state?
So you are saying the judge is crooked--guilty by association--and that your lack of legal experience is irrelevant to discussing the legality of evidentiary law.
Do you realize how baised and prejudiced you are being? I can't figure out if you do know but just don't care, or if it's in your blindspot.
Do you realize how baised and prejudiced you are being? I can't figure out if you do know but just don't care, or if it's in your blindspot.
So then there is no such thing as justice: there's never been a fair hearing, there's never been a fair verdict, there's never been a fair judge.
We know this because of Nessie's (your) common sense -- the same common sense that asks us to kill wealthy individuals -- the same common sense that uses a double standard to judge people.
Forgive me if I think your common sense is far from common.
We know this because of Nessie's (your) common sense -- the same common sense that asks us to kill wealthy individuals -- the same common sense that uses a double standard to judge people.
Forgive me if I think your common sense is far from common.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth nessie, I'm just trying to clarify what I understand you to say. Besides, the words that come out of your mouth are far more damning then anything I could ever attribute to you.
Please tell me how the world got so neatly severed into two: the honest working people, noble, exploited, and ignorant, the corrupt rich slave owners, inhumane, parasitic, and all-powerful?
How is it that there are no shades of gray -- no dishonest working people, no honest rich, no intelligent citizens, no misinformed anarchists -- how did this world of absolutes come to be?
Do you care to addres my earlier question: Are you aware of your biases and prejudices but care not, or do you not see them?
Please tell me how the world got so neatly severed into two: the honest working people, noble, exploited, and ignorant, the corrupt rich slave owners, inhumane, parasitic, and all-powerful?
How is it that there are no shades of gray -- no dishonest working people, no honest rich, no intelligent citizens, no misinformed anarchists -- how did this world of absolutes come to be?
Do you care to addres my earlier question: Are you aware of your biases and prejudices but care not, or do you not see them?
nessie--
Now that we have that settled, where do I fit in? What role will you assign me when you become ruler of the world? Or am I not I a noble worker? Does it even matter to you how much or how little money I have?
Are you going to come to my home in the middle of the night, pull me out of bed, and stick me in a car -- never to be seen again by my family or friends?
Now that we have that settled, where do I fit in? What role will you assign me when you become ruler of the world? Or am I not I a noble worker? Does it even matter to you how much or how little money I have?
Are you going to come to my home in the middle of the night, pull me out of bed, and stick me in a car -- never to be seen again by my family or friends?
They hang the man and flog the woman
That steal the goose from off the common,
But let the greater villain loose
That steals the common from the goose.
The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who take things that are yours and mine.
The poor and wretched don't escape
If they conspire the law to break;
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law.
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common.
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and steal it back.
That steal the goose from off the common,
But let the greater villain loose
That steals the common from the goose.
The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who take things that are yours and mine.
The poor and wretched don't escape
If they conspire the law to break;
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law.
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common.
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and steal it back.
Nessie--
What then is a manager -- say at McDonalds or Blockbuster or the Gap -- worker or not?
What about Bill Gates? When we use MS windows, we are actually using portions of code he wrote, or helped to write. Doesn't Bill live by the fruits of his labor?
And when it comes time for this revolution, will there be trials to determine who is a laborer and who is not, or will you just tell everyone who is who?
What then is a manager -- say at McDonalds or Blockbuster or the Gap -- worker or not?
What about Bill Gates? When we use MS windows, we are actually using portions of code he wrote, or helped to write. Doesn't Bill live by the fruits of his labor?
And when it comes time for this revolution, will there be trials to determine who is a laborer and who is not, or will you just tell everyone who is who?
Jesus Christ worksforme, perhaps you should put your glasses on and actually read what nessie is writing. The questions you pose make me wonder whether you really comprehend what nessie is trying to explain to you.
1. do you understand the concept "conflict of interest"? a judge that works for the government has, by definition, a conflict of interest when presiding over a trial involving another branch of government. Whether or not that person has been shown to be corrupt is not the point. The fact is that the potential for corruption exists. This is why judges and attorneys routinely recuse themselves from trials. now the problem here is that EVERY judge will have a potential conflict of interest when presiding over this kind of case. And it doesnt look very kosher when the FBIs criminal history is barred from testimony. Just relax and think about it.
2.Now as for Nessie calling for a purge of the wealthy...well I can understand it (for the very reasons he gives) but I cannot support it. What you question, bringing up Mcdonalds managers etc, tells me you have no concept of capitalist economics. This is understandable, even if you live in a capitalist economy- its not exactly talked about openly, and what you learn in Econ class in college is a crock-of-shit. What we are dealing with here is the difference between a capitalist and a worker. A worker has nothing he can create wealth with besides his own labor-a job with which he is able to exchange his labor for a wage that he trys to sell for the highest price. (and dont think that petty real estate, stocks and other forms of wealth make you more than a worker, because they dont). Now in order to be a capitalist you must own your own means of production- massive land holdings, mines, airwaves, etc. These are almost always, contrary to the myth of the capitalist as risk taker, stolen from the common property of the people and either sold for pennies, or just given to the capitalist by government. This has been happening since the late 1600's when the English monarchy "enclosed" the common lands in England, destroying the small farmers, and instantly creating a destitute workforce of slumdwellers for the newly invented factories. Profit is made buy paying a worker less money than the worker creates in a work day. This surplus labor becomes capital. These are the kinds of people nessie is talking about- capitalists that cause the suffering of the people. Read Kapital by Marx if you want to understand exactly how capitalism works. (this is just a critique of capitalism, not a formula for communism, so dont trip- read it, i dare you.) The thing that sucks is that Nessie is, unfortunately, correct in his assertion that they wont give up their freedom to steal from the people without a bloodbath. I pray to all the gods it doesnt come to that.
1. do you understand the concept "conflict of interest"? a judge that works for the government has, by definition, a conflict of interest when presiding over a trial involving another branch of government. Whether or not that person has been shown to be corrupt is not the point. The fact is that the potential for corruption exists. This is why judges and attorneys routinely recuse themselves from trials. now the problem here is that EVERY judge will have a potential conflict of interest when presiding over this kind of case. And it doesnt look very kosher when the FBIs criminal history is barred from testimony. Just relax and think about it.
2.Now as for Nessie calling for a purge of the wealthy...well I can understand it (for the very reasons he gives) but I cannot support it. What you question, bringing up Mcdonalds managers etc, tells me you have no concept of capitalist economics. This is understandable, even if you live in a capitalist economy- its not exactly talked about openly, and what you learn in Econ class in college is a crock-of-shit. What we are dealing with here is the difference between a capitalist and a worker. A worker has nothing he can create wealth with besides his own labor-a job with which he is able to exchange his labor for a wage that he trys to sell for the highest price. (and dont think that petty real estate, stocks and other forms of wealth make you more than a worker, because they dont). Now in order to be a capitalist you must own your own means of production- massive land holdings, mines, airwaves, etc. These are almost always, contrary to the myth of the capitalist as risk taker, stolen from the common property of the people and either sold for pennies, or just given to the capitalist by government. This has been happening since the late 1600's when the English monarchy "enclosed" the common lands in England, destroying the small farmers, and instantly creating a destitute workforce of slumdwellers for the newly invented factories. Profit is made buy paying a worker less money than the worker creates in a work day. This surplus labor becomes capital. These are the kinds of people nessie is talking about- capitalists that cause the suffering of the people. Read Kapital by Marx if you want to understand exactly how capitalism works. (this is just a critique of capitalism, not a formula for communism, so dont trip- read it, i dare you.) The thing that sucks is that Nessie is, unfortunately, correct in his assertion that they wont give up their freedom to steal from the people without a bloodbath. I pray to all the gods it doesnt come to that.
God helps those who help themselves.
To the anarchists, liberals, and anyone else wanting to war with society--
I own mutual funds and so do millions of Americans. That makes the a very minority owner of another person's labor. I own these "shares of shares" by choice. If you wish to kill me for this, you are going to kill many more laborers than you ever expected.
Your notions of capital, labor, ownership, et al. are unbelievably niave and simplistic. The fact that no one else will correct Nessie that there is no such clear distinction between these "foes" in the real world, that there are shades of grays, condemns you as well as Nessie.
I understand the hold of Marxism--it can be cult like. Surely Mao's little red book and all examles of communist party membership (and the perks thereof) in communist countries highlights the difference between idealism and reality. I "pray" you care about the oppressed workers in these worker societies one day. I wish you had to live even one year in those conditions before being allowed to return to the country of your choice.
I own mutual funds and so do millions of Americans. That makes the a very minority owner of another person's labor. I own these "shares of shares" by choice. If you wish to kill me for this, you are going to kill many more laborers than you ever expected.
Your notions of capital, labor, ownership, et al. are unbelievably niave and simplistic. The fact that no one else will correct Nessie that there is no such clear distinction between these "foes" in the real world, that there are shades of grays, condemns you as well as Nessie.
I understand the hold of Marxism--it can be cult like. Surely Mao's little red book and all examles of communist party membership (and the perks thereof) in communist countries highlights the difference between idealism and reality. I "pray" you care about the oppressed workers in these worker societies one day. I wish you had to live even one year in those conditions before being allowed to return to the country of your choice.
marxISM can indeed be cult-like -- it's dogmatic statism and quasi-capitalist manifestations attest to this.
Marx, however, was a brilliant, nuanced dialectical thinker.
His critique of capital's laws of motion -- it's boom and bust pathologies; it's imperative for self-valorization; it's dynamism and horrible, merciless destructiveness; and it's totalizing character were all on target.
He theorized that capitalism would create it's own grave-diggers in the form of a universal class -- the proletariat. What 'works for me' and stalinist hacks have in common is an inability to see that the proletariat is defined by its relations to the means of production -- not whether it works in a factory and smokes Winston's. Gotta go.
Marx, however, was a brilliant, nuanced dialectical thinker.
His critique of capital's laws of motion -- it's boom and bust pathologies; it's imperative for self-valorization; it's dynamism and horrible, merciless destructiveness; and it's totalizing character were all on target.
He theorized that capitalism would create it's own grave-diggers in the form of a universal class -- the proletariat. What 'works for me' and stalinist hacks have in common is an inability to see that the proletariat is defined by its relations to the means of production -- not whether it works in a factory and smokes Winston's. Gotta go.
aaron--
Boom and bust--cyclical progression--is natural, and is evidenced in every living being on Earth. To assume that cycles are inherently bad is to be blind to the world. Furthermore, to assume that all cycles will be devastating and inhumane is a product of dialectic thought and not of sound observation.
Marx's theories have been employed in many countries throughout the world. Just look at what happened to them. Ask yourself, members of which economic system emigrated by the millions to the other? -- testament to the soundness of Marxism.
Boom and bust--cyclical progression--is natural, and is evidenced in every living being on Earth. To assume that cycles are inherently bad is to be blind to the world. Furthermore, to assume that all cycles will be devastating and inhumane is a product of dialectic thought and not of sound observation.
Marx's theories have been employed in many countries throughout the world. Just look at what happened to them. Ask yourself, members of which economic system emigrated by the millions to the other? -- testament to the soundness of Marxism.
So the periodic crises that have afflicted capitalism since it's beginning are like leaves falling off a tree, 'works for me'? Just an innocuous cycle of progression? No and NO. Capitalism is a man-made system and to draw a facile parellel between it and natural cycles is fraudulant. Nice try.
Capital exists for and through profit and thus has an in-built need to constantly expand. Each capital seeks to stay ahead of the competition, and the chief means of doing this is through technological advance, displacement of labor by technology, and often brutal and dehumanizing exploitaiton of labor. While each capital individually wishes to avert crisis, the drive to extract surplus value -- and thus survive -- over-rides any humanitarian impulse or desire for stability. The drive to wrench as much profit from production as is possible drives down demand, setting the stage for crisis -- which takes the insane form of over-capacity. Perhaps 'works for me' could name another system prone to such crisis.
In the US, the last half of the 19th century saw depressions every decade or so. They weren't like a nice autumnal day -- they produced death, hunger and disease. Likewise, capitalist crisis today produces death, hunger and disease. Take a look at Nicaragua these days where global commodity prices for coffee have bottomed out, leaving the children of coffee workers with distended stomachs as fully arable land is pulled out of production by it's (capitalist) owners. (Note that coffee prices haven't dropped a cent here in the US!)
I'm no fan of Casto's Cuba, but 'works for me' would gain a bit of credibility in my mind if he'd acknowledge the fact that children don't die there of diahrea as millions do throughout much of the "Third World".
In a sense capitalism can be understood as a system of permanent managed crisis. Capitalists will tell you this. The primary means of averting full blown attacks is through capturing new markets and debt. As far as I can tell the new markets part is causing some difficulties. We all know about the debt part -- in the 90's average household debt rose almost 200% and this latest recession has seen further inflation in that regard. Where's the next boom gonna come from? And when? Nobody knows.
Capital exists for and through profit and thus has an in-built need to constantly expand. Each capital seeks to stay ahead of the competition, and the chief means of doing this is through technological advance, displacement of labor by technology, and often brutal and dehumanizing exploitaiton of labor. While each capital individually wishes to avert crisis, the drive to extract surplus value -- and thus survive -- over-rides any humanitarian impulse or desire for stability. The drive to wrench as much profit from production as is possible drives down demand, setting the stage for crisis -- which takes the insane form of over-capacity. Perhaps 'works for me' could name another system prone to such crisis.
In the US, the last half of the 19th century saw depressions every decade or so. They weren't like a nice autumnal day -- they produced death, hunger and disease. Likewise, capitalist crisis today produces death, hunger and disease. Take a look at Nicaragua these days where global commodity prices for coffee have bottomed out, leaving the children of coffee workers with distended stomachs as fully arable land is pulled out of production by it's (capitalist) owners. (Note that coffee prices haven't dropped a cent here in the US!)
I'm no fan of Casto's Cuba, but 'works for me' would gain a bit of credibility in my mind if he'd acknowledge the fact that children don't die there of diahrea as millions do throughout much of the "Third World".
In a sense capitalism can be understood as a system of permanent managed crisis. Capitalists will tell you this. The primary means of averting full blown attacks is through capturing new markets and debt. As far as I can tell the new markets part is causing some difficulties. We all know about the debt part -- in the 90's average household debt rose almost 200% and this latest recession has seen further inflation in that regard. Where's the next boom gonna come from? And when? Nobody knows.
wideboy--
Sorry I missed your comments. In particular, I wish to discuss this; "Now in order to be a capitalist you must own your own means of production"
Okay, suppose I'm a popular novelist or a computer game maker. I own the means of production, which happens to be me; I am the voice that the public wants to read, I am the creative mind that programs a game the public wants to play. Am I a capitalist or a worker?
Is Bill Gates a capitalist or a worker?
Will there be hearings to decide who is who in confusing circumstances, do we let the mob decide, or will their be an oligarchy with people like to make these decisions for us?
Sorry I missed your comments. In particular, I wish to discuss this; "Now in order to be a capitalist you must own your own means of production"
Okay, suppose I'm a popular novelist or a computer game maker. I own the means of production, which happens to be me; I am the voice that the public wants to read, I am the creative mind that programs a game the public wants to play. Am I a capitalist or a worker?
Is Bill Gates a capitalist or a worker?
Will there be hearings to decide who is who in confusing circumstances, do we let the mob decide, or will their be an oligarchy with people like to make these decisions for us?
Thanks for your thoughtful answer to my post 'works for me'....
Thoughts are not 'means of production' in the sense that anti-capitalists use the term. A writer who owns the fixed capital required to publish books (and then oversee distribution and retail) is a capitalist. A writer who simply writes books, manual etc -- ie contributes thoughts in written form -- is a worker in that the product of his/her labor is controlled by a capitalist (or capitalists) who almost invariably attempt by hook or crook to compensate the writer as little as possible. The whole "writing business" is notorious for ripping writer/workers off. For every S. King or J. Steele who are able to garner big advances and royalties there are thousands for whom 'the market' is hardly some great boon.
As for the genius who contrives some new nifty computer game, basically the same applies as far as I understand. The differences -- and here I concede ignorance -- might come in to the extent that it takes less fixed capital to foist a new game idea onto the market, allowing for a bit more entrepreneurialism. Most anti-capitalists don't have a problem with entrpreneurs who treat labor with repect, although in a socialist;/non-capitalist society production and distribution would be organized differently.
Just because someone contributes 'imagination' or 'intelligence' to production doesn't mean s/he is a capitalist. That seems pretty obvious to me.
Bill Gates is a capitalist. His vast wealth, as I understand, is due to patenting 'ideas' that he came into possession of with a very small initial money outlay. C'mon 'works for me', what're you smokin'?
Thoughts are not 'means of production' in the sense that anti-capitalists use the term. A writer who owns the fixed capital required to publish books (and then oversee distribution and retail) is a capitalist. A writer who simply writes books, manual etc -- ie contributes thoughts in written form -- is a worker in that the product of his/her labor is controlled by a capitalist (or capitalists) who almost invariably attempt by hook or crook to compensate the writer as little as possible. The whole "writing business" is notorious for ripping writer/workers off. For every S. King or J. Steele who are able to garner big advances and royalties there are thousands for whom 'the market' is hardly some great boon.
As for the genius who contrives some new nifty computer game, basically the same applies as far as I understand. The differences -- and here I concede ignorance -- might come in to the extent that it takes less fixed capital to foist a new game idea onto the market, allowing for a bit more entrepreneurialism. Most anti-capitalists don't have a problem with entrpreneurs who treat labor with repect, although in a socialist;/non-capitalist society production and distribution would be organized differently.
Just because someone contributes 'imagination' or 'intelligence' to production doesn't mean s/he is a capitalist. That seems pretty obvious to me.
Bill Gates is a capitalist. His vast wealth, as I understand, is due to patenting 'ideas' that he came into possession of with a very small initial money outlay. C'mon 'works for me', what're you smokin'?
works for me:
Let me begin by explaining that I am first and foremost not a marxist. I belive that marxian materialist theory is a valid explanation of socio-economics and change over time. In order to really grasp what we are talking about, you must make yourself familiar with economics outside the tunnel-vision expounded by "free market" fundamentalists.
Economics, despite what our esteemed professors would have us believe, was, is, and always will be a social science, not a "hard" science like chemistry, with all of its laws etc. Since the dawn of money, continuing until the late 1600's, profit was made by a very simple formula: Commodity-Money-Commodity, where a thing of value sold for more money than it was purchased for, enabling the merchant to buy more of another commodity and so on. This has commodity use-value as its end and aim. With the capitalist system, we begin to see this ancient formula changed to Money-Commodity-Money. This means that it has discarded use-value as its end and aim, and substituted exchange value as its end.
The actual product becomes irrelevant. Why do you think the capitalist spend more money marketing their products than they do creating their products? They need to con the consumer into believing they actually need or want these products. If the capitalists truly respond to consumer needs etc. why do they need to advertise using psychology? This is where surplus-value of labor creates profits for the capitalist. This is also where the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system come to light ( and why capitalism will never really supply the world what it really wants or even needs, instead offering only what is profitable to the capitalist. I think our reliance on petrochemicals and rubber dogshit factories are good examples of this?)
Now small scale capitalist enterprises, like my now long retired parents automotive repair shop, while capitalist in nature ( profit being made from the surplus value of their employees) do not harm the workers or society as a whole. These small scale enterprises do not reap the same benefits as the big boys- the small businessman is not just "given" the wealth that he needs to fund his business. No common property is taken from the people. Bank loans are not subsidized by the government for these people, nor are any other forms of corporate welfare available to these people. They actually pay taxes, not hiding their profits in foreign banks. They are they only businesses that really take a risk in order to build their wealth. When these companies founder, there are no government bail-outs. They also tend to pay their employees much more than large corporations do.
That is what separates the capitalist from the chaff, so to speak. Now the "mob" that you refer to- wouldnt that be the voting public? Shoudnt the public be in a position to dictate how their own lives are influenced? Why are corporations given the same rights, or more, than flesh and blood citizens? Why are they not held accountable for their economic, environmental, and social abuses?
Aaron is correct in his explanations offered here. What a lot of people seem to forget is that, the majority of capitalists are not made, but born into it. (bill gates and others obviously were made, and per your previous question- bill gates lived by the fruits of his labour until be began to live from the fruits of others labour.) Most of the assholes on the Forbes list nessie posted were born into their wealth and capitalist ideologies.
now I must clarify just exactly what it is that I think would work as an alternative: The federal government (although I personally would like to see it dissolved in favour of individual community decision making) should be limited to protecting the constitution and the bill of rights for all US citizens, and providing the infrastructure for a national defence. If the majority of the population absolutely cannot be convinced that capitalism is horribly wrong, then we should at least give the corporations the free market they so desire- no more state tax-payer funded bailouts or subsidies. Any aspect of the public needs that deal with everday "happiness", like water, electricity, transit, health care etc, should be run by the local governments- no privitazation of public works. If the capitalists are convinced that they can do it better, then let them compete with the local public owned businesses- if they are that much more efficient, they will triumph, if not they can just fuck off. Their own arguments for privitazation preclude any competition. I think whats happening to neo-liberal privitazation schemes across the globe and now here in the states is a fairly good indicator that the capitalist system only works for the very wealthy, leaving nothing but destroyed infrastructure and poverty in its wake. I also believe that the government should build its own weapons, rather than letting a handfull of people, like the Bushes etc., make an astronomical profit in war and death. That is just wrong, and their lobby has greatly contributed to our "much hated nation" status around the world and made what happened on Sept 11 inevitable.
Im tired of typing.
Let me begin by explaining that I am first and foremost not a marxist. I belive that marxian materialist theory is a valid explanation of socio-economics and change over time. In order to really grasp what we are talking about, you must make yourself familiar with economics outside the tunnel-vision expounded by "free market" fundamentalists.
Economics, despite what our esteemed professors would have us believe, was, is, and always will be a social science, not a "hard" science like chemistry, with all of its laws etc. Since the dawn of money, continuing until the late 1600's, profit was made by a very simple formula: Commodity-Money-Commodity, where a thing of value sold for more money than it was purchased for, enabling the merchant to buy more of another commodity and so on. This has commodity use-value as its end and aim. With the capitalist system, we begin to see this ancient formula changed to Money-Commodity-Money. This means that it has discarded use-value as its end and aim, and substituted exchange value as its end.
The actual product becomes irrelevant. Why do you think the capitalist spend more money marketing their products than they do creating their products? They need to con the consumer into believing they actually need or want these products. If the capitalists truly respond to consumer needs etc. why do they need to advertise using psychology? This is where surplus-value of labor creates profits for the capitalist. This is also where the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system come to light ( and why capitalism will never really supply the world what it really wants or even needs, instead offering only what is profitable to the capitalist. I think our reliance on petrochemicals and rubber dogshit factories are good examples of this?)
Now small scale capitalist enterprises, like my now long retired parents automotive repair shop, while capitalist in nature ( profit being made from the surplus value of their employees) do not harm the workers or society as a whole. These small scale enterprises do not reap the same benefits as the big boys- the small businessman is not just "given" the wealth that he needs to fund his business. No common property is taken from the people. Bank loans are not subsidized by the government for these people, nor are any other forms of corporate welfare available to these people. They actually pay taxes, not hiding their profits in foreign banks. They are they only businesses that really take a risk in order to build their wealth. When these companies founder, there are no government bail-outs. They also tend to pay their employees much more than large corporations do.
That is what separates the capitalist from the chaff, so to speak. Now the "mob" that you refer to- wouldnt that be the voting public? Shoudnt the public be in a position to dictate how their own lives are influenced? Why are corporations given the same rights, or more, than flesh and blood citizens? Why are they not held accountable for their economic, environmental, and social abuses?
Aaron is correct in his explanations offered here. What a lot of people seem to forget is that, the majority of capitalists are not made, but born into it. (bill gates and others obviously were made, and per your previous question- bill gates lived by the fruits of his labour until be began to live from the fruits of others labour.) Most of the assholes on the Forbes list nessie posted were born into their wealth and capitalist ideologies.
now I must clarify just exactly what it is that I think would work as an alternative: The federal government (although I personally would like to see it dissolved in favour of individual community decision making) should be limited to protecting the constitution and the bill of rights for all US citizens, and providing the infrastructure for a national defence. If the majority of the population absolutely cannot be convinced that capitalism is horribly wrong, then we should at least give the corporations the free market they so desire- no more state tax-payer funded bailouts or subsidies. Any aspect of the public needs that deal with everday "happiness", like water, electricity, transit, health care etc, should be run by the local governments- no privitazation of public works. If the capitalists are convinced that they can do it better, then let them compete with the local public owned businesses- if they are that much more efficient, they will triumph, if not they can just fuck off. Their own arguments for privitazation preclude any competition. I think whats happening to neo-liberal privitazation schemes across the globe and now here in the states is a fairly good indicator that the capitalist system only works for the very wealthy, leaving nothing but destroyed infrastructure and poverty in its wake. I also believe that the government should build its own weapons, rather than letting a handfull of people, like the Bushes etc., make an astronomical profit in war and death. That is just wrong, and their lobby has greatly contributed to our "much hated nation" status around the world and made what happened on Sept 11 inevitable.
Im tired of typing.
Don't believe the myth. Bill Gates's father was a wealthy member of Seattle's legal elite. The reason Bill Gates still owns such a huge chunk of Microsoft is that he acted as his own venture capitalist, putting his own money (a measly couple of million from his family) into Microsoft.
Yes, worksforme, I agree that worker/capitalist is far too black-and-white for our society. It is quite more complicated than that. "More than ever, it is competition itself which is in control", not individual capitalists.
Yes, worksforme, I agree that worker/capitalist is far too black-and-white for our society. It is quite more complicated than that. "More than ever, it is competition itself which is in control", not individual capitalists.
Yes, you've got it exactly -- competition should be in control as it is the best mechanism to ensure a great many positive qualities both economic and social. It has proven itself over a billion years in nature as evolution. (and I'm not refering to the over-simplistic, commonly misunderstood "survival of the fitest" interpretation of Darwin, but the much more nuanced and researched modern theories of natural selection)
Oh yeah, I just wanted to say that this conversation/debate about economic systems doesn't pertain to Judi Bari -- would be better suited for another thread (a new one?)
No, competition should not be in control. We as human beings, acting collectively, should be in control. Otherwise, it's just a race to see who can fish the seas to extinction faster, who can clearcut the forests faster, etc.
To aaron: I've enjoyed your discussion of basic points of Marxist critique, although I'm not sure I fully understand all of them. However, you should realize that in the end, it is people like "works for me" (among others) that you need to convince, and being insulting is not going to help that cause.
I would personally focus on other aspects of society that affect even the well-off: we all still need to spend far too many hours working, despite increased productivity over the years, many people around us are afflicted with homelessness, hunger, and poverty, and our society is affected by racism, classism, etc. which are legacies of past (and current) efforts by ruling classes to maintain dominance by divide-and-conquer strategies.
The system does actually work for many people, on its own terms. That is, material needs (and excessive wants) are fulfilled for many (but also denied for many). But the society as a whole has become horribly materialistic. Is this all there is? How do these problems relate to capitalist structures and how can we overcome them? Those are interesting questions, and more relevant to the average middle-class person.
To aaron: I've enjoyed your discussion of basic points of Marxist critique, although I'm not sure I fully understand all of them. However, you should realize that in the end, it is people like "works for me" (among others) that you need to convince, and being insulting is not going to help that cause.
I would personally focus on other aspects of society that affect even the well-off: we all still need to spend far too many hours working, despite increased productivity over the years, many people around us are afflicted with homelessness, hunger, and poverty, and our society is affected by racism, classism, etc. which are legacies of past (and current) efforts by ruling classes to maintain dominance by divide-and-conquer strategies.
The system does actually work for many people, on its own terms. That is, material needs (and excessive wants) are fulfilled for many (but also denied for many). But the society as a whole has become horribly materialistic. Is this all there is? How do these problems relate to capitalist structures and how can we overcome them? Those are interesting questions, and more relevant to the average middle-class person.
How much have you studied evolution or ecology?
Then maybe you don't have an appreciation for the finely tuned, highly complex balance an ecological system is -- remarkable that it arises from no control mechanism other than competition.
If you could put aside the narrow view of philosophy and see how the real world works via nature, I think you'd drop the highly immoral assumption that competition is evil, unless of course you believe nature is evil.
If you could put aside the narrow view of philosophy and see how the real world works via nature, I think you'd drop the highly immoral assumption that competition is evil, unless of course you believe nature is evil.
Nature is not evil, but nature is amoral. If we can model our human relations after nature, perhaps I can imitate some of our simian cousins by coming over to your house, killing you and your children, and then courting your wife? What do you say?
That aside, it's remarkable how much damage capitalism has done to nature, and yet how its defenders base its ideological backing on comparisons to nature. I thought we were past the Social Darwinism of the late 19th century.
Kropotkin, who I admittedly have not yet read, went out to study biology, strongly inclined to look for competition and found instead much evidence of cooperation - especially within species. This conclusion eventually became a base for his anarchist ideas of mutual aid.
Competition might give indeed us a very interesting, complex overall economic system. But I don't care about the system, I care about the humans subject to it. What would constitute a human, humane set of relations among people?
It's absurd that people are hungry and homeless in this country, underemployed and unemployed. But they provide the useful service of keeping wages down.
It's crazy that when a new technological innovation occurs, the amount of labor per person is not reduced, but instead some workers are laid off, to try to find new work somewhere else. Production and consumption are increased, and we're all still working way too hard.
Oh - and, dear audience, Nessie is such a great foil, isn't he? Amazingly, he really thinks himself an anarchist, although he discredits anarchism with his behavior and his calls for personal violence.
That aside, it's remarkable how much damage capitalism has done to nature, and yet how its defenders base its ideological backing on comparisons to nature. I thought we were past the Social Darwinism of the late 19th century.
Kropotkin, who I admittedly have not yet read, went out to study biology, strongly inclined to look for competition and found instead much evidence of cooperation - especially within species. This conclusion eventually became a base for his anarchist ideas of mutual aid.
Competition might give indeed us a very interesting, complex overall economic system. But I don't care about the system, I care about the humans subject to it. What would constitute a human, humane set of relations among people?
It's absurd that people are hungry and homeless in this country, underemployed and unemployed. But they provide the useful service of keeping wages down.
It's crazy that when a new technological innovation occurs, the amount of labor per person is not reduced, but instead some workers are laid off, to try to find new work somewhere else. Production and consumption are increased, and we're all still working way too hard.
Oh - and, dear audience, Nessie is such a great foil, isn't he? Amazingly, he really thinks himself an anarchist, although he discredits anarchism with his behavior and his calls for personal violence.
>Now small scale capitalist enterprises, like my now long retired parents automotive repair shop, while capitalist in nature ( profit being made from the surplus value of their employees) do not harm the workers or society as a whole. These small scale enterprises do not reap the same benefits as the big boys- the small businessman is not just "given" the wealth that he needs to fund his business.
This doesn't even make sense.
First of all, Hooray for your parents. I tip my hat to them.
Sears or Wal-Mart did not become what they are today by opening up 10,000 stores nationwide. They started with one store, they provided products and services the customer wanted at the right price, and they provided good customer relations. I bet that sounds a lot like what your parents did. It was because of this they became popular and started to expand. I assure you they were not "given" the money they needed to fund their business. Banks don't lend money without some type of assurance they will be repaid, and that is certainly true of a new business. Banks are never purposely in the foreclosure or repossession business. Sears and Wal-Mart will not stay where they are today without paying attention to what got them there.
>The actual product becomes irrelevant. Why do you think the capitalist spend more money marketing their products than they do creating their products? They need to con the consumer into believing they actually need or want these products.
Granted, there are impulse shoppers who'll buy anything. But, I'm not aware of any business who can survive by just creating anything, putting together a super marketing plan, and sell, sell, sell. Besides, wants and needs are a very individual thing. I never bought one of those golf clubs to help you with your swing that was in the infomercials. Anyone can play from the fairway, try playing from where I play from. But there are some people who evidently thought they needed it. Who am I to tell them they shouldn't?
Intersting discussion though. I disagree with most of you, but what else is new. I, too, enjoy listening to how other people look at things.
This doesn't even make sense.
First of all, Hooray for your parents. I tip my hat to them.
Sears or Wal-Mart did not become what they are today by opening up 10,000 stores nationwide. They started with one store, they provided products and services the customer wanted at the right price, and they provided good customer relations. I bet that sounds a lot like what your parents did. It was because of this they became popular and started to expand. I assure you they were not "given" the money they needed to fund their business. Banks don't lend money without some type of assurance they will be repaid, and that is certainly true of a new business. Banks are never purposely in the foreclosure or repossession business. Sears and Wal-Mart will not stay where they are today without paying attention to what got them there.
>The actual product becomes irrelevant. Why do you think the capitalist spend more money marketing their products than they do creating their products? They need to con the consumer into believing they actually need or want these products.
Granted, there are impulse shoppers who'll buy anything. But, I'm not aware of any business who can survive by just creating anything, putting together a super marketing plan, and sell, sell, sell. Besides, wants and needs are a very individual thing. I never bought one of those golf clubs to help you with your swing that was in the infomercials. Anyone can play from the fairway, try playing from where I play from. But there are some people who evidently thought they needed it. Who am I to tell them they shouldn't?
Intersting discussion though. I disagree with most of you, but what else is new. I, too, enjoy listening to how other people look at things.
Cooperation is just one of the natural outcomes of competition (natural selection). As I said before, I think your view of the environement and evolution needs some tuning.
Nessie--
I know this may come as a shock to you, since you still hold fast to Marxist principals originating from the 19th century, but science has progressed since1902 (the date of the article you linked to.)
If you don't believe in evolution, then I'm fresh out of ways of helping you see beyond philosophical dogma.
I know this may come as a shock to you, since you still hold fast to Marxist principals originating from the 19th century, but science has progressed since1902 (the date of the article you linked to.)
If you don't believe in evolution, then I'm fresh out of ways of helping you see beyond philosophical dogma.
"Sears or Wal-Mart did not become what they are today by opening up 10,000 stores nationwide. They started with one store, they provided products and services the customer wanted at the right price, and they provided good customer relations."
That’s completely and utterly false. Very few businesses started as family stores that grew large. Richard Sears may have started as a medium sized business person but it was only through large amounts of funding by financiers that the modern company was possible. Most of the large businesses in the late 1800s grew this way(a quick spurt rather than slow growth); you can’t grow a railroad or telegraph company since its only useful once it reaches critical mass.
How is this different from a libertarian view of capitalism? While Sears may have come up with a "good idea" and then gotten funding, it wasn’t invisible market forces that allowed him to take off. The number of large financiers in the late 1800s was small and there wasn’t that much competition.
The number of financiers (banks, VCs etc) may be larger today but it still hardly resembles a stereotypical free market. Most dot coms became huge overnight largely through funding by VCs (before they went public). Was it competition and market forces that determined if an idea behind a dot com was good? No, it was the personal opinions of a small group of people working for VCs. In many cases these people were not even acting objectively. Funding was determined by personal relationships conversations over drinks etc.. While I could hear someone trying to argue that this was not a problem with Capitalism and that the crash was the way for the market to correct this sort of behavior, this doesn’t hold up when one looks at who paid for the crash. Many VCs did lose a lot of money but many had already cashed out and left the loses to smaller private investors.
Capitalism today in no way resembles the world of Adam Smith (even in his day it didn’t resemble the stereotype which he readily admitted in his book that is quite far form modern Libertarianism). The growth of modern corporations completely changed the dynamic of resource allocation. A large MNC’s decission on production and pricing respond to market forces but very indirectly (hence marketing gimmicks like loss leader items). A decision in a boardroom on a company’s direction if anything resembles a ten year plan in the USSR more than it resembles a free market decision. Yes, big corporations compete (although many do have monopoly power at least once you start to take branding into account), but so do countries. The main difference between Socialism and Capitalism these days is on how the people making these decision get chosen. Under modern Capitalism the people running things get voted in according to stock ownership making this a plutocracy. Under Socialism, decisions can be made more democratically (as long as the government stays democratic which wasn’t the case in the USSR or China).
That’s completely and utterly false. Very few businesses started as family stores that grew large. Richard Sears may have started as a medium sized business person but it was only through large amounts of funding by financiers that the modern company was possible. Most of the large businesses in the late 1800s grew this way(a quick spurt rather than slow growth); you can’t grow a railroad or telegraph company since its only useful once it reaches critical mass.
How is this different from a libertarian view of capitalism? While Sears may have come up with a "good idea" and then gotten funding, it wasn’t invisible market forces that allowed him to take off. The number of large financiers in the late 1800s was small and there wasn’t that much competition.
The number of financiers (banks, VCs etc) may be larger today but it still hardly resembles a stereotypical free market. Most dot coms became huge overnight largely through funding by VCs (before they went public). Was it competition and market forces that determined if an idea behind a dot com was good? No, it was the personal opinions of a small group of people working for VCs. In many cases these people were not even acting objectively. Funding was determined by personal relationships conversations over drinks etc.. While I could hear someone trying to argue that this was not a problem with Capitalism and that the crash was the way for the market to correct this sort of behavior, this doesn’t hold up when one looks at who paid for the crash. Many VCs did lose a lot of money but many had already cashed out and left the loses to smaller private investors.
Capitalism today in no way resembles the world of Adam Smith (even in his day it didn’t resemble the stereotype which he readily admitted in his book that is quite far form modern Libertarianism). The growth of modern corporations completely changed the dynamic of resource allocation. A large MNC’s decission on production and pricing respond to market forces but very indirectly (hence marketing gimmicks like loss leader items). A decision in a boardroom on a company’s direction if anything resembles a ten year plan in the USSR more than it resembles a free market decision. Yes, big corporations compete (although many do have monopoly power at least once you start to take branding into account), but so do countries. The main difference between Socialism and Capitalism these days is on how the people making these decision get chosen. Under modern Capitalism the people running things get voted in according to stock ownership making this a plutocracy. Under Socialism, decisions can be made more democratically (as long as the government stays democratic which wasn’t the case in the USSR or China).
>Richard Sears may have started as a medium sized business person but it was only through large amounts of funding by financiers that the modern company was possible.
They took the risk, they reaped the rewards. But they weren't willing to take the risk on blind chance. Something about the way he was operating his business caused them to believe they could help him expand. They bet on the man and his ideas. It was a chance, a risk. Even the person who invented the wheel took a risk.
>...you can’t grow a railroad or telegraph company since its only useful once it reaches critical mass.
If you know someone with a crystal ball who can fortell whether or not an idea will become profitable, could you share with us that person's name and phone number?
These investors took a risk.
>Most dot coms became huge overnight largely through funding by VCs (before they went public). Was it competition and market forces that determined if an idea behind a dot com was good? No, it was the personal opinions of a small group of people working for VCs.
You make it sound like Bob went up to Fred and said, "Hey, you work for a VC. I got a dot.com idea. Wanna front me a few mil?". Financial institutions are very conservative when it come to lending. They lend based upon information they gather regarding the market and upon the borrowers ability to repay. Sometimes they get bad info. Sometimes they take chances they shouldn't have taken. That doesn't make capitalism bad. It just means some individuals made some bad choices.
>Many VCs did lose a lot of money but many had already cashed out and left the loses to smaller private investors.
Rule of thumb when investing: Don't invest any more than you're willing to lose.
The stock market is not all that hard. Here's the rules:
If Martha's selling high, you sell high.
If Martha's selling low, you sell low.
>Under modern Capitalism the people running things get voted in according to stock ownership making this a plutocracy. Under Socialism, decisions can be made more democratically (as long as the government stays democratic which wasn’t the case in the USSR or China).
Note: "get voted in according to stock ownership". That's right, one share equals one vote. Should a person who has only one share have the same say as one who has one thousand?
They took the risk, they reaped the rewards. But they weren't willing to take the risk on blind chance. Something about the way he was operating his business caused them to believe they could help him expand. They bet on the man and his ideas. It was a chance, a risk. Even the person who invented the wheel took a risk.
>...you can’t grow a railroad or telegraph company since its only useful once it reaches critical mass.
If you know someone with a crystal ball who can fortell whether or not an idea will become profitable, could you share with us that person's name and phone number?
These investors took a risk.
>Most dot coms became huge overnight largely through funding by VCs (before they went public). Was it competition and market forces that determined if an idea behind a dot com was good? No, it was the personal opinions of a small group of people working for VCs.
You make it sound like Bob went up to Fred and said, "Hey, you work for a VC. I got a dot.com idea. Wanna front me a few mil?". Financial institutions are very conservative when it come to lending. They lend based upon information they gather regarding the market and upon the borrowers ability to repay. Sometimes they get bad info. Sometimes they take chances they shouldn't have taken. That doesn't make capitalism bad. It just means some individuals made some bad choices.
>Many VCs did lose a lot of money but many had already cashed out and left the loses to smaller private investors.
Rule of thumb when investing: Don't invest any more than you're willing to lose.
The stock market is not all that hard. Here's the rules:
If Martha's selling high, you sell high.
If Martha's selling low, you sell low.
>Under modern Capitalism the people running things get voted in according to stock ownership making this a plutocracy. Under Socialism, decisions can be made more democratically (as long as the government stays democratic which wasn’t the case in the USSR or China).
Note: "get voted in according to stock ownership". That's right, one share equals one vote. Should a person who has only one share have the same say as one who has one thousand?
>Richard Sears may have started as a medium sized business person but it was only through large amounts of funding by financiers that the modern company was possible.
They took the risk, they reaped the rewards. But they weren't willing to take the risk on blind chance. Something about the way he was operating his business caused them to believe they could help him expand. They bet on the man and his ideas. It was a chance, a risk. Even the person who invented the wheel took a risk.
>...you can’t grow a railroad or telegraph company since its only useful once it reaches critical mass.
If you know someone with a crystal ball who can fortell whether or not an idea will become profitable, could you share with us that person's name and phone number?
These investors took a risk.
>Most dot coms became huge overnight largely through funding by VCs (before they went public). Was it competition and market forces that determined if an idea behind a dot com was good? No, it was the personal opinions of a small group of people working for VCs.
You make it sound like Bob went up to Fred and said, "Hey, you work for a VC. I got a dot.com idea. Wanna front me a few mil?". Financial institutions are very conservative when it come to lending. They lend based upon information they gather regarding the market and upon the borrowers ability to repay. Sometimes they get bad info. Sometimes they take chances they shouldn't have taken. That doesn't make capitalism bad. It just means some individuals made some bad choices.
>Many VCs did lose a lot of money but many had already cashed out and left the loses to smaller private investors.
Rule of thumb when investing: Don't invest any more than you're willing to lose.
The stock market is not all that hard. Here's the rules:
If Martha's selling high, you sell high.
If Martha's selling low, you sell low.
>Under modern Capitalism the people running things get voted in according to stock ownership making this a plutocracy. Under Socialism, decisions can be made more democratically (as long as the government stays democratic which wasn’t the case in the USSR or China).
Note: "get voted in according to stock ownership". That's right, one share equals one vote. Should a person who has only one share have the same say as one who has one thousand?
They took the risk, they reaped the rewards. But they weren't willing to take the risk on blind chance. Something about the way he was operating his business caused them to believe they could help him expand. They bet on the man and his ideas. It was a chance, a risk. Even the person who invented the wheel took a risk.
>...you can’t grow a railroad or telegraph company since its only useful once it reaches critical mass.
If you know someone with a crystal ball who can fortell whether or not an idea will become profitable, could you share with us that person's name and phone number?
These investors took a risk.
>Most dot coms became huge overnight largely through funding by VCs (before they went public). Was it competition and market forces that determined if an idea behind a dot com was good? No, it was the personal opinions of a small group of people working for VCs.
You make it sound like Bob went up to Fred and said, "Hey, you work for a VC. I got a dot.com idea. Wanna front me a few mil?". Financial institutions are very conservative when it come to lending. They lend based upon information they gather regarding the market and upon the borrowers ability to repay. Sometimes they get bad info. Sometimes they take chances they shouldn't have taken. That doesn't make capitalism bad. It just means some individuals made some bad choices.
>Many VCs did lose a lot of money but many had already cashed out and left the loses to smaller private investors.
Rule of thumb when investing: Don't invest any more than you're willing to lose.
The stock market is not all that hard. Here's the rules:
If Martha's selling high, you sell high.
If Martha's selling low, you sell low.
>Under modern Capitalism the people running things get voted in according to stock ownership making this a plutocracy. Under Socialism, decisions can be made more democratically (as long as the government stays democratic which wasn’t the case in the USSR or China).
Note: "get voted in according to stock ownership". That's right, one share equals one vote. Should a person who has only one share have the same say as one who has one thousand?
"You make it sound like Bob went up to Fred and said, "Hey, you work for a VC. I got a dot.com idea."
hmm, from what I remember that was pretty much how things were working in late 1999 and early 2000. Remember those parties where you wore a different color sticker depending on if you were a VC an entrepreneur or a consulting firm?
No, I don’t think one stock should equal one vote. I think corporations should all be controlled by a combination of those who work for it and those it affects. The easiest way to achieve this is to have all corporations be owned by the state but centralization causes issues and workers would then be left with less of a say. A better solution would be public control of all corporations with worker election of immediate managers and of any higher level managers (if they are needed at all). I guess that is somewhere between communist-anarchism and syndicalism.
hmm, from what I remember that was pretty much how things were working in late 1999 and early 2000. Remember those parties where you wore a different color sticker depending on if you were a VC an entrepreneur or a consulting firm?
No, I don’t think one stock should equal one vote. I think corporations should all be controlled by a combination of those who work for it and those it affects. The easiest way to achieve this is to have all corporations be owned by the state but centralization causes issues and workers would then be left with less of a say. A better solution would be public control of all corporations with worker election of immediate managers and of any higher level managers (if they are needed at all). I guess that is somewhere between communist-anarchism and syndicalism.
>from what I remember that was pretty much how things were working
Besides flying charters, my other occupation is in finance. It takes more than a handshake and a promise.
>I think corporations should all be controlled by a combination of those who work for it and those it affects....public control of all corporations with worker election of immediate managers and of any higher level managers...
Before you do that, fully reimburse all the owners (shareholders) at current market value and we'll call it even. Cold, hard cash will do just nicely, thank you.
Besides flying charters, my other occupation is in finance. It takes more than a handshake and a promise.
>I think corporations should all be controlled by a combination of those who work for it and those it affects....public control of all corporations with worker election of immediate managers and of any higher level managers...
Before you do that, fully reimburse all the owners (shareholders) at current market value and we'll call it even. Cold, hard cash will do just nicely, thank you.
Since Libertarians believe in a level playing field how about making inheritance illegal.
Anyway, a transition toward a better Socialist society would involve the movement of money in the other direction. This could be done slowly (a la Sweden) or quickly (like the Russian or French Revolutions).
Anyway, a transition toward a better Socialist society would involve the movement of money in the other direction. This could be done slowly (a la Sweden) or quickly (like the Russian or French Revolutions).
Would you people please take your OFF-TOPIC chatroom on economic theory elsewhere?!!
You have clogged the bandwidth with your sophomoric chatter, making it virtually impossible for anyone with any actual comments on the main article to be seen.
It would be hard to find a better example of the need for some kind of moderator to throw out the irrelevan or disruptivet stuff or move it elsewhere.
You have clogged the bandwidth with your sophomoric chatter, making it virtually impossible for anyone with any actual comments on the main article to be seen.
It would be hard to find a better example of the need for some kind of moderator to throw out the irrelevan or disruptivet stuff or move it elsewhere.
I'm not a libertarian.
Quick in Russia got you Stalin. Louis XVI and the guillotine got you Napoleon 12 years later.
I do believe socialism will work on a small scale, i.e. Sweden. But, I don't want to live under it though.
Socialism/Communism, there's not a lot of difference in my book. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. I don't want to live like that.
I appreciate the discussion.
Quick in Russia got you Stalin. Louis XVI and the guillotine got you Napoleon 12 years later.
I do believe socialism will work on a small scale, i.e. Sweden. But, I don't want to live under it though.
Socialism/Communism, there's not a lot of difference in my book. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. I don't want to live like that.
I appreciate the discussion.
We are going tno expropriate all your wealth and not compensate you anything. ;)
So, how is the stock market treating you lately?
So, how is the stock market treating you lately?
. . . how U.S. capitalism works far better than the righties? Mr. Briggs has to resort to simplistic slogans and myth to convey his understanding of capitalism, which is sad coming from such a strong supporter.
. . . how U.S. capitalism works far better than the righties? Mr. Briggs has to resort to simplistic slogans and myth to convey his understanding of capitalism, which is sad coming from such a strong supporter. Mr. Works For Me has a much more intellectual way of arguing, but there seems to be a strain of myth and "true believer" as a basis for said arguments. Wierd.
>So, how is the stock market treating you lately?
Quite well actually.
Remember:
If Martha's selling high, you sell high.
If Martha's selling low, you sell low.
>You're not qetting squat, Briggs. We are going tno expropriate all your wealth and not compensate you anything. ;)
Oh goody. You're going to bleed a turnip.
When you say "Briggs", at least say "ole boy". Kinda sounds Ivy League, you know, "Briggs, ole boy".
Take care, Che.
Quite well actually.
Remember:
If Martha's selling high, you sell high.
If Martha's selling low, you sell low.
>You're not qetting squat, Briggs. We are going tno expropriate all your wealth and not compensate you anything. ;)
Oh goody. You're going to bleed a turnip.
When you say "Briggs", at least say "ole boy". Kinda sounds Ivy League, you know, "Briggs, ole boy".
Take care, Che.
Ok, I guess this is off topic so I'll stop and only continue on another thread thats more on topic after this post (and I kinda need to get back to work).
"Quick in Russia got you Stalin. Louis XVI and the guillotine got you Napoleon 12 years later. "
Yep, Revolutions aren’t something you can sit around and create by intellectualizing. They usually spring from inequality and despair. Its not really a question of what you want or what I want.. When people finally cant take it anymore, the results are not pretty.
So the US (and the World for that matter) can head down the road towards a nonhierarchical Socialist society the easy way (like much of Europe was until recently). Or it can let inequalities grow and wait until things explode with unpredictable results. Lenin was probably one of the better leaders to come out of a situation like this, fundamentalists, fascists and military dictators frequently spring up in populist revolts when the people finally can’t take anymore of the existing ruling class.
Although you have your random revolutionary parties and people who go to extremes (like Bin Laden), the shock troops of revolutions that spring from inequality are usually gangsters, muggers, robbers etc... When people see the game as rigged they stop playing by the rules.
"Quick in Russia got you Stalin. Louis XVI and the guillotine got you Napoleon 12 years later. "
Yep, Revolutions aren’t something you can sit around and create by intellectualizing. They usually spring from inequality and despair. Its not really a question of what you want or what I want.. When people finally cant take it anymore, the results are not pretty.
So the US (and the World for that matter) can head down the road towards a nonhierarchical Socialist society the easy way (like much of Europe was until recently). Or it can let inequalities grow and wait until things explode with unpredictable results. Lenin was probably one of the better leaders to come out of a situation like this, fundamentalists, fascists and military dictators frequently spring up in populist revolts when the people finally can’t take anymore of the existing ruling class.
Although you have your random revolutionary parties and people who go to extremes (like Bin Laden), the shock troops of revolutions that spring from inequality are usually gangsters, muggers, robbers etc... When people see the game as rigged they stop playing by the rules.
Yes, anon, I am at times a little harsh toward 'works for me'. I tell myself that he's surely a great guy (and a first class 'small investor'!) and that I shouldn't be caustic, that it detracts from the substance of debate and all that.... and then he pops off with another one of his hackneyed 'works for me-isms' (like, for instance, pointing to the fact that Philipinos toiling abroad send remittances home as an argument in defense of globalizing capitalism). But you're right, as a general rule of thumb being cordial is a good policy. I mean, look at Brigg -- the guy's so nice I almost find myself forgetting that he's a Reaganite. I'll take my cues from Brigg from now on (perhaps).
Nessie--
Did you know Sweeney? More importantly, did you or any of your friends keep anything which might contain Sweeney's DNA?
Did you know Sweeney? More importantly, did you or any of your friends keep anything which might contain Sweeney's DNA?
You've read about Judi's alledged physical and sexual assault by Sweeney and his prior bombing experience? Supposedly Darryl has a DNA sample from the Lord's Avenger letter, but doesn't want to obtain one from Sweeney. What's the real reason behind that? Seems fishy.
------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Anderson interview on 'Judi Bari vs. the FBI' case, pt. 1
Speaking In Tongues;
Radio Station KDVS, Davis, Ca.
Thursday, May 9th, 2002.
Host Ron Glick. Guests, Attorney John Clark; Editor, Bruce Anderson.
http://www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/counterpunch-list/2002-May/020187.html
BA: There's got to be some way of explaining the absence of the FBI investigation. You can't blow a person up in the middle of a major American city and not have an investigation. Mr. Clark's quite right; there wasn't an investigation, or certainly no investigation that we knew of. So I have no way of accounting for the absence of an investigation until the records are released -- if they're ever released. Maybe we'll find out the last week or so of this trial, but I doubt that we will. On the other hand, on the Bari/Cherney side of the case, it's not quite true to say that they begged the FBI and the various police agencies involved to investigate the case. They didn't. They wanted the FBI to investigate all aspects of the case except the one that pointed directly at domestic violence or some other kind of in-house violence that implicated them. Darryl Cherney, for instance, posted, or *claimed* to have posted, a $50,000 reward for the arrest and conviction of Charles Hurwitz, the CEO of Maxxam/Pacific Lumber, for destruction of the redwoods. But he's never posted a nickel or made a comparable offer to find the person responsible for blowing up his comrade."
"John: They hired their own DNA experts to try and compare the DNA from the Lord's Avenger letter to a number of people they believed to be suspects. They are the one's who investigated and they investigated a lot more..."
BA: I'm glad you brought that up. Yeah, they tried to match the DNA from the Lord's Avenger Letter, which is a confession, with persons that they *hoped* to implicate in the bombing. None of those persons happened to include Judi Bari's ex-husband. Darryl Cherney said a request of Mike Sweeney for his DNA would be an invasion of Sweeney's privacy! And they say they can't find Judi Bari's DNA. They could get some from her children, I would think. And they have no DNA from Mike Sweeney's girl friend at the time of the bombing, Meredyth Rinehard."
------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Anderson interview on 'Judi Bari vs. the FBI' case, pt. 1
Speaking In Tongues;
Radio Station KDVS, Davis, Ca.
Thursday, May 9th, 2002.
Host Ron Glick. Guests, Attorney John Clark; Editor, Bruce Anderson.
http://www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/counterpunch-list/2002-May/020187.html
BA: There's got to be some way of explaining the absence of the FBI investigation. You can't blow a person up in the middle of a major American city and not have an investigation. Mr. Clark's quite right; there wasn't an investigation, or certainly no investigation that we knew of. So I have no way of accounting for the absence of an investigation until the records are released -- if they're ever released. Maybe we'll find out the last week or so of this trial, but I doubt that we will. On the other hand, on the Bari/Cherney side of the case, it's not quite true to say that they begged the FBI and the various police agencies involved to investigate the case. They didn't. They wanted the FBI to investigate all aspects of the case except the one that pointed directly at domestic violence or some other kind of in-house violence that implicated them. Darryl Cherney, for instance, posted, or *claimed* to have posted, a $50,000 reward for the arrest and conviction of Charles Hurwitz, the CEO of Maxxam/Pacific Lumber, for destruction of the redwoods. But he's never posted a nickel or made a comparable offer to find the person responsible for blowing up his comrade."
"John: They hired their own DNA experts to try and compare the DNA from the Lord's Avenger letter to a number of people they believed to be suspects. They are the one's who investigated and they investigated a lot more..."
BA: I'm glad you brought that up. Yeah, they tried to match the DNA from the Lord's Avenger Letter, which is a confession, with persons that they *hoped* to implicate in the bombing. None of those persons happened to include Judi Bari's ex-husband. Darryl Cherney said a request of Mike Sweeney for his DNA would be an invasion of Sweeney's privacy! And they say they can't find Judi Bari's DNA. They could get some from her children, I would think. And they have no DNA from Mike Sweeney's girl friend at the time of the bombing, Meredyth Rinehard."
Steve Talbot claims that, "Judi told me point blank and in great detail that Sweeney had set fire to this Santa Rosa airport hangar and that he had done it with a rather complicated explosive device. She said that part of the device had worked and part of it hadn’t worked. Helvarg and I looked at the one that hadn’t gone off. It bore some resemblance to the explosive device that was put in her car."
A DNA sample from Sweeney would put all of this to rest, so it's very suspicious that neither he nor the people representing Judi Bari want him to do this. If Sweeney takes the test and passes, they can say, "I told you so" and continue on with the evil timber industry allegations, if he fails, they've found the killer and justice is served.
As an objective observer, I can't see the upside to the not taking the DNA test unless everyone close to the situation knows the awful truth and have agreed to prevent it from being made public.
Speculations for their motives:
1) Judi still loved Sweeney enough to protect him rather than feed him to the FBI (or hated the FBI more, take your pick);
2) Judi knew her kids would lose their mother and didn't want to deprive them of their father as well;
3) Judi didn't want Earth First! to lose their credibility when she figured out Sweeney was the bomber but continued with false accusations anyway;
4) like bad cops sometimes do, she figured somewhere along the way the FBI did something bad to somebody, so even if they weren't involved in this bombing, she would get nail them anyway to make-up for all the times they weren't caught.
Now, if your really into conspiracies, consider this: supposedly Sweeney's dad was an official in the Nixon administration and an attorney for a large oil company. Do you suppose Sweeney's Dad has enough money and influence to protect his son?
A DNA sample from Sweeney would put all of this to rest, so it's very suspicious that neither he nor the people representing Judi Bari want him to do this. If Sweeney takes the test and passes, they can say, "I told you so" and continue on with the evil timber industry allegations, if he fails, they've found the killer and justice is served.
As an objective observer, I can't see the upside to the not taking the DNA test unless everyone close to the situation knows the awful truth and have agreed to prevent it from being made public.
Speculations for their motives:
1) Judi still loved Sweeney enough to protect him rather than feed him to the FBI (or hated the FBI more, take your pick);
2) Judi knew her kids would lose their mother and didn't want to deprive them of their father as well;
3) Judi didn't want Earth First! to lose their credibility when she figured out Sweeney was the bomber but continued with false accusations anyway;
4) like bad cops sometimes do, she figured somewhere along the way the FBI did something bad to somebody, so even if they weren't involved in this bombing, she would get nail them anyway to make-up for all the times they weren't caught.
Now, if your really into conspiracies, consider this: supposedly Sweeney's dad was an official in the Nixon administration and an attorney for a large oil company. Do you suppose Sweeney's Dad has enough money and influence to protect his son?
For more information:
http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/judi_...
It's not just Steve Talbot, but let's put that issue aside for a second. Why is there a blackhole surrounding Sweeney? Why are the relatives NOT demanding a DNA sample? It seems to me that the people involved in this are saying a whole lot by refusing to answer legitimate questions.
Bill Simpich: "She (Judi Bari) always related with the workers background far more than the background of even the hippie type contingent for which she's more famous. So with that background, coupled with the fact that in my opinion her husband Mike Sweeney and her were on the outs, that Mike Sweeney had a colorful past, I think that coupled with the fact that they definitely needed to find a way to sabotage this campaign. Whoever these fascists were, be they in government or out."
I can't believe you were ignorant of Sweeney's history or the reasons that make him a suspect. If wasn't for Bill's offhand remark about Bari's ex, Sweeney's connection to the case would never have been mentioned -- and it's a long interview. Was this your first discussion with Bill covering these topics? Did you and Bill do any pre-planning or pre-interviewing? Finally, I'd like to ask you a very frank question, are you're determined to prove that only the FBI could be responsible for the bomb?
I can't believe you were ignorant of Sweeney's history or the reasons that make him a suspect. If wasn't for Bill's offhand remark about Bari's ex, Sweeney's connection to the case would never have been mentioned -- and it's a long interview. Was this your first discussion with Bill covering these topics? Did you and Bill do any pre-planning or pre-interviewing? Finally, I'd like to ask you a very frank question, are you're determined to prove that only the FBI could be responsible for the bomb?
I can't say I know that much about Held, but comments like, "I’d sure would like to see somebody pin something on Held, though. He’s truly evil. He deserves the worst that life can deal a man, and then some." call into question your objectivity on the matter.
You clearly have a motive (consciously or subconsciously) to look for only those things which implicate Held and to overlook anything that doesn't. If you really are interested in the truth, then you have to be as fervent as investigator for all suspects, including Sweeney.
You clearly have a motive (consciously or subconsciously) to look for only those things which implicate Held and to overlook anything that doesn't. If you really are interested in the truth, then you have to be as fervent as investigator for all suspects, including Sweeney.
It doesn't help your argument to accuse someone else of subjectivity. Subjective argument helps bring out truths. Would you want a lawyer working in your defense to be objective?
To question why there is an absence of questions being asked about Sweeney and his providing a DNA sample are fair to ask. He is a prime suspect to a murder investigation, and if someone is attempting an honest and thorough investigation, then I don't why the questions shouldn't be raised.
But the more I look into this, the fishier it gets. Why are there so few people asking questions about Sweeney? Why are fewer still willing to talk about him? What possible motive can Bari's family have for not wanting Sweeney's DNA? Why would anyone not be curious about this?
But the more I look into this, the fishier it gets. Why are there so few people asking questions about Sweeney? Why are fewer still willing to talk about him? What possible motive can Bari's family have for not wanting Sweeney's DNA? Why would anyone not be curious about this?
"I’m not interested enough in Sweeney to put a lot of time and resources into investigating him. He is, at most, small potatoes."
"The bomb was, IMHO, not intended to kill her"
Well, that's the point -- if you haven't investigated Sweeney or his involvement in the 1980 , then you don't know he's small potatoes. I must point out that you are making prejudicial assumptions based on personal opinion and a lack of evidence--just as did the OPD and the FBI were convicted of doing. They presumed (or had an agenda) that it was an Earth First bomb. You presume (or have an agenda) to prove it was an FBI bomb. Neither wants to presume that it might have been an abusive ex-husband attempting to murder his wife -- unfortunately a far too common scenario.
Just suppose for a moment that Sweeney is the culprit. Is it right that he should walk free and unchallenged? Who has an interest in finding the truth?
What I see are two groups with mirror image agendas about not asking questions, and I can't say I like it. You have the right to question the FBI about a conspiracy to frame Earth First!, but I also have the right to question your deliberate side-stepping of the whole Sweeney issue. If you really have an interest in a fruitful investigation of tyranny, then it's best to know exactly what the FBI did and didn't do. With Sweeney's DNA sample, we might know immediately if he is to blame, preventing you lot of wasted time and energy on your part tracking down false leads, and bringing to justice a very bad man.
So am I doing an investigation? I don't think so (I don't need another obsession). But you are a self-proclaimed investigator and a member of the independent media--who better to ask about Sweeney and the family's refusal to test his DNA? Who else might have the public's best interest at heart in finding the real attacker?
But you are right, I should have said "attempted murder" and not "murder."
"The bomb was, IMHO, not intended to kill her"
Well, that's the point -- if you haven't investigated Sweeney or his involvement in the 1980 , then you don't know he's small potatoes. I must point out that you are making prejudicial assumptions based on personal opinion and a lack of evidence--just as did the OPD and the FBI were convicted of doing. They presumed (or had an agenda) that it was an Earth First bomb. You presume (or have an agenda) to prove it was an FBI bomb. Neither wants to presume that it might have been an abusive ex-husband attempting to murder his wife -- unfortunately a far too common scenario.
Just suppose for a moment that Sweeney is the culprit. Is it right that he should walk free and unchallenged? Who has an interest in finding the truth?
What I see are two groups with mirror image agendas about not asking questions, and I can't say I like it. You have the right to question the FBI about a conspiracy to frame Earth First!, but I also have the right to question your deliberate side-stepping of the whole Sweeney issue. If you really have an interest in a fruitful investigation of tyranny, then it's best to know exactly what the FBI did and didn't do. With Sweeney's DNA sample, we might know immediately if he is to blame, preventing you lot of wasted time and energy on your part tracking down false leads, and bringing to justice a very bad man.
So am I doing an investigation? I don't think so (I don't need another obsession). But you are a self-proclaimed investigator and a member of the independent media--who better to ask about Sweeney and the family's refusal to test his DNA? Who else might have the public's best interest at heart in finding the real attacker?
But you are right, I should have said "attempted murder" and not "murder."
An interesting idea...
> I budget my time.
How much time do you budget each day for Indymedia chit-chat?
How much time do you budget each day for Indymedia chit-chat?
The example posted above by Nessie is the final portion of a white paper titled:
COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story
Compilation by Paul Wolf with contributions from Robert Boyle, Bob Brown, Tom Burghardt, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Kathleen Cleaver, Bruce Ellison, Cynthia McKinney, Nkechi Taifa, Laura Whitehorn, Nicholas Wilson, and Howard Zinn.
It was presented to U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa by the members of the Congressional Black Caucus attending the conference: Donna Christianson, John Conyers, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Cynthia McKinney, and Diane Watson, September 1, 2001.
The section on the Bari case was written by Nicholas Wilson, who also writes for the online newspaper Albion Monitor (http://www.monitor.net/monitor)
Anyone wanting to see the complete paper will find it at http://www.derechos.net/paulwolf/cointelpro/coinwcar3.htm
It's on Paul Wolf's amazingly complete COINTELPRO website http://www.cointel.org
Paul's site includes the complete book "The COINTELPRO Papers" by Ward Churchill and Jim Vanderwall. It also includes the reports of the 1976 Church Committee of the U.S. Senate.
The URL given by Nessie for the article is broken, and not the original source anyway, but thanks for posting it, Nessie.
COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story
Compilation by Paul Wolf with contributions from Robert Boyle, Bob Brown, Tom Burghardt, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Kathleen Cleaver, Bruce Ellison, Cynthia McKinney, Nkechi Taifa, Laura Whitehorn, Nicholas Wilson, and Howard Zinn.
It was presented to U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa by the members of the Congressional Black Caucus attending the conference: Donna Christianson, John Conyers, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Cynthia McKinney, and Diane Watson, September 1, 2001.
The section on the Bari case was written by Nicholas Wilson, who also writes for the online newspaper Albion Monitor (http://www.monitor.net/monitor)
Anyone wanting to see the complete paper will find it at http://www.derechos.net/paulwolf/cointelpro/coinwcar3.htm
It's on Paul Wolf's amazingly complete COINTELPRO website http://www.cointel.org
Paul's site includes the complete book "The COINTELPRO Papers" by Ward Churchill and Jim Vanderwall. It also includes the reports of the 1976 Church Committee of the U.S. Senate.
The URL given by Nessie for the article is broken, and not the original source anyway, but thanks for posting it, Nessie.
For more information:
http://www.derechos.net/paulwolf/cointelpr...
And the proof of this is?
The Sweeney accusation is one of those red herrings that Nessie said I'm famous for. It was posted here by mf, whose real identity is Irv Sutley, an agent provocateur and police informer who has been assigned to work against Judi Bari since November 1988. The Mendocino County D.A. dismissed the efforts of Sutley and his Flatland posse in 1999 to persuade him to investigate Sweeney. He said there was nothing to investigate. He said the "evidence" they gave him was nothing more than guesses ,speculation and innuendo.
I don't understand the point of arguing about who did it. The point is: The FBI and Oakland PD use the bombing to frame Judy, COINTELPRO style. They never tried to find out who was actually responsible for planting the bomb, as a jsut law enforcement should do. They behaved like political police, which is scary and un-American. All those responsible for this attempted frame up should be tried and punished, especially the scumbags at the top. Otherwise, they will continue to act with impunity. I don't care what your political bent is, this is not acceptable in a democracy.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network