Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIs Corporate Greenmania Real?
The "Business of Green" and "Green is Gold" are among the phrases finding their way onto the nation's business pages and into the advertisements of major corporations.
After years of corporate greenwashing, is this wave of corporate greenmania for real? Is it more than hype when the New York Times marks a recent article with the sidebar "The market tells producers: It's go green or goodbye."?
Well, not if the impetus has to come from stronger regulation or environmentally driven government purchases. Those two pressure points have largely been kept dormant or are de minimis.
When business sees environmental management as saving it money, increasing productivity, becoming more competitive and attracting young talent, the prospect of sustainable policies taking root becomes more likely.
Obviously, it was not always viewed this way by corporate bosses who, not long ago, saw our air, water and soil as their toxic sewers.
There is still a long way to go to "green" the entire supply chain from the mines to the markets.
No corporation illustrates this broad continuum better than the Atlanta-based Interface Corporation-the country's largest commercial carpet tile manufacturer. In 1994, founder Ray Anderson started his company on its goal as a "restorative enterprise," which he described as zero net pollution and 100% recycling by 2020. The company is 45 percent there, he estimates.
Anderson speaks figures in his 100 plus lectures around the nation and world. His company's use of fossil fuel is down 45 percent, net greenhouse gas production is down 60%, while company sales are up 49 percent. Water use is down by a third in its manufacturing and the filling of landfill with waste is down 80%.
"Sustainability," Anderson told the New York Times, "pays in customer loyalty, employee spent-hard cash," plus 336 million dollars in savings since 1995.
Anderson is unique in that what he and his team have done is not anecdotal, but system wide in scope. The news is replete with one large company achieving this with lighting or that with their transportation. With Interface, ecological efficiency is across the board.
Since even a stodgy company like General Electric is moving quickly into selling "green" technology as the next profit center, why are the aggregate figures on hydro-carbon use, greenhouse gases still increasing? Because there are no national missions to take these successful examples-these best practices-and make them a mandatory floor for all companies.
I refer to mandatory performance standards by the federal government-not specific design standards-backed up by specifications set by Uncle Sam, who is the buyer of so many products we all use, for its departments and agencies. These include vehicles, building construction, paper and many other goods and services that could be purchased only from solid "green companies." (See: Forty Ways to Make Government Purchasing Green by Eleanor J. Lewis and Eric Weltman. Available from the Center for the Study of Responsive Law for $10. Mail orders to PO Box 19367 Washington, D.C. 20036.)
Mandatory federal standards and government purchasing specifications brought the people safer cars, higher recycled paper content and greater fuel efficiency for their vehicles and appliances. The deregulation craze of the past twenty-five years ended most of this forward progress.
Moreover, the retarding corporate powers are still going anti-green. They oppose a carbon tax and long overdue upgrades of fuel efficiency and pollution control standards. They want to build dozens of costly, unnecessary, unsafe atomic power plants with no less than 100% federal government loan guarantees.
This overall persistence of corporate intransigence needs to be kept in mind as the blizzard of green announcements by companies continues.
To keep our demands on industry and commerce to become more efficient, productive and environmentally benign, it is worthwhile to quote a passage drawn from Natural Capitalism, a book co-authored by a physicist, a lawyer and a successful businessman:
"Whether through better design or through new technologies, reducing waste represents a vast business opportunity. The U.S. economy is not even 10% as efficient as the laws of physics allow. Just the energy thrown off as waste heat by U.S. power stations equals the total energy use of Japan. Materials efficiency is even worse."
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.
84 Comments so far
Show Alljstevens - I actually know 100's of people who are rabid Nader supporters, including people who actually ran his campaign. None of them exhibit the naivety that you attribute to them.
As far as something causing something else, you cannot simply count the Nader votes and assume that they would have gone to Gore. Nor can you simply assume that since a poll suggests that they would have gone to Gore that Gore would have gotten these votes. Also, if you count the votes that would have gone to Gore, if some situation was different, then Nader turns out to be somewhere around 13th on the list of factors that "caused Gore to loose".
By the way, I did not vote for Nader in 2004. In fact I was a delegate at the Green convention and helped nominate David Cobb. I did vote for David in 2004. I most likely won't vote for Nader in 2008, but this does not mean that I will vote for Clinton or any of the Republicans.
As far as knowing what to do to get elected, it seems like the Democrats haven't figured that out either. Let's see what they come up with in 2008, but I am not optimistic, since they are always capable of blowing it.
jimm_barr. If it comes down to Hillary versus Guilliani, I will cast my vote for Ralph. Because, what the heck.
I think Nader caused the loss, but that is truly a tedious argument. What is more relevant for the world today is that Nader is not, (IMO) worthy of the adoration of the Liberal purist. Ron Paul is a long shot who is running an incredibly energetic campaign. He is gaining popularity and recognition. Ralph Nader is a long shot whose actions suggest that he isn't really trying. He spits out uninspiring articles such as this one and everyone gushes over him. Therefore, once again, Ralph is dangerous to all of my causes. People think they have a candidate to believe in and to support, but he's not really trying.
It really is easy to have all of the right causes. It is easy to be ideologically pure. You can offend all of the moneyed interests, you can plant yourself in the farthest corner of the left wing and never budge, but you don't get elected that way, you just get some fans, some attention, and about 2% of the vote. Ralph knows this, but his people don't.
Yes, Gore was the Democratic candidate in 2000. I do remember. Again, I suggest that the Democrats need to learn from their own failures. If you are firmly convinced that Nader caused your loss and if not for him you would have won then believe it if you need to. However, if you wish to convince me or any of the other people who worked and voted for Nader to change their minds and vote for your candidates, you need to do something other than what you are doing.
In fact, not only have the Democrats failed to bring me back to their party, they have driven me even farther away. So stop wasting your time and get back to work fixing your party so that it can attract votes and change policies if you do get elected.
HIllary is not that candidate. Al Gore was.
If the Democrats hadn't wasted so much time blaming Ralph for 2000 they would have figured out why they lost. Instead they took no blame and went ahead and lost 2004 also. They may very well do the same in 2008. Even when they do win, as in the case of 2006, it seems that they are ineffective and ultimately unwilling to stand up to Bush.
Blame Ralph, the Greens and me all you want. I still won't vote for your failed party. Come up with a good candidate and I might. Hillary is not that candidate. If you nominate her I will vote third party, "throw my vote away" and hold onto my soul.
I have a headache from reading these posts, and I blame Ralph for it.
Friends, I fear Nader doesn't read his CD threads because he knows the lame debate over Nader that persists on them...
OK jmacneil,
The Corporate Government are makers of the War Economy and part of the War Machine and MIC.. you are making distinctions without a much of a difference. What I am proposing about the War Machine goes to the heart of the Criminal Gang we both have witnessed throughout history.
Revolution is what I am talking about too... but a peaceful one. if you want a humanistic system, so do I and so does most everyone.
How do we proceed is the question.
What is your vision to bring this about?
Revolution will not happen like magic (presto) without having many new allies to solve the problem of corruption in government yet socialistic systems have criminals and corruption too.
All systems are a mix anyway of private and public ownership... no pure system ever did exist and if you had one you would not be happy with the consequences of some ideal of purity.
I invite you to try and have a revolution or meaningful change outside the system that you and I are all a part of.
The word "revolution" has many meanings and the way you throw it out it sounds like a quick fix but any kind of revolution means lots of work.
You are living in this system so if you want to go outside the system (what ever that means) to have a revolution, go for it.
Please Keep me posted on your progress.
jim.glover@verizon.net
PS Ralph, is there nothing you have to say about the Discussion of your own article, or is that beneath your duty?
The clarification is that the corporate government is nothing more than a criminal gang, such has existed throughout all of history, of the type of immoral people who wish to control all of everything. It doesn't need any special classification such as "War Machine" or "Military Industrial Complex" to set it's parameters. The only way to get rid of those criminals is to have a Revolution and install a socialistic or humanistic system. Any other proposal is to just work within their system, which is to say, play their game on their own field on their own terms, which equals failure.
jmacneil,
If as you agree cutting down the war machine is a "necessity" that is the most important thing we can agree on.
as for "options" I have offered a way to begin to change the system.
You know it is a necessity and then you say "what is the War Machine supposed to be?"
but then you say "it owns everything"
OK Practically speaking in this context you answered you own question..
Now if you have a better way to begin that Goal I would like to hear it.
You may have a better plan or option so please share it because it is as you say, "necessary".
This is going to take more than just one idea to accomplish.
If Ralph Nader has some good idea's on it, that would be great too.
Hey Ralph, this is your article on CD... How about some comments, Please.
Man some of these posts, every time Nader has a story on CD. Folks please.
We're trying to figure out what to do about the huge effing mess were in here. Anyone?
Ralph Nader's ego? Please.
CNN aired an hour-long Nader biography a couple of years ago. A psychologist and college professor who had written a book about Nader was interviewed. The professor was asked if Nader was motivated by ego. (And frankly, CNN was hoping the answer would be yes.) The professor wouldn't take the bait. He said no, Nader is motivated by a strong conscience and a sense of obligation to country -- that's the way he was raised.
Nader is a brilliant lawyer who could have made millions as a corporate hack. Instead he chooses to live modestly and serve his country. Anyone who "sees" Nader as motivated by ego is blind and bigoted.
Stating the necessity of cutting down the "War Machine" is not presenting any options. If the "War Machine", whatever that is supposed to be, owns everything that is pertinent to the functioning of the country, then how are you suggesting you could affect it? There is only one way to change the country, obviously, and that is to change the system.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."
Buckminster Fuller
All third party candidates will argue that the two big parties of the Two party system are the same. Problem is that is irrelevant because the system is the Two Party and that is why all the 3rd parties will lose. Now, suppose we started to join together on the biggest issue like cutting down the War Machine! That would be an American revolution... Joining together for the most important common cause which well help every other important cause you can think of... We won't have to argue about Super Markets and Free and Fair markets because all these issues are under the domination of the racket of War.
The main Parties don't make policy. They are just long established vehicles to raise money for the candidates who support the system as it is.
But there is a difference between the Candidates. Dennis is a big difference.
Will he win?... of course not ...he will lose just like Nader. and Gore and all the other 3rd party candidates.
Does that mean that it was futile for all the losers to run?
If we had a Fortune Teller who was accurate we could save lots of time to just let the Fortune teller let us know.
I have been debating this with Ralph since 99.
It is possible to work around this if progressives and the Independents and 3rd parties could first unite to support the most progressive in each of the two major parties.
This would greatly give us more influence in the system and it would show that we can organize and network and form new allies.
This is the most practical way to begin to change the system and even form a powerful 3rd Force.
Now out of this greater influence can be the real seeds of a Coalition of the most progressives for the birth of a People's Force for change.
As it stands now, progressives have no real influence.
I hope that Ralph Nader can grow to help lead us to a better world instead of standing as an old symbol of division that is expressed in most of this Common Dreams thread.
Discussions about any candidates or elections in the U.S. is useless so long as the same people own the country. It would have made absolutely no difference if Nader, or Gore or the new distraction, Kucinich, were to be elected when the system isn't changed. When Clinton was president he said that the actual role of president in the U.S. was becoming a mere formality and that cannot be personified any more poignantly than in witnessing the current resident in the white house.
And the car safety thing is not a small issue, but one of the most pressing affecting all Americans. Since the improvements of dashboards and the intallation of airbags instituted since Nader was sticking thorns in the asses of the executives of the automobile companies, those same auto companies have made their cars structurally weaker and that is a direct result of the 50,000 plus deaths and countless injuries on north american roads every year. So, shouldn't there be a monument to all of those innocent dead? Each year's accumulation of people's names added to such a monument would be equal to the total of all the names of those killed in Vietnam! Or are the people who needlessly, and preventably, die on our roads not worth as much as individuals as were the people who were forced to go to Vietnam to kill millions of Vietnamese?
Barn Burner, you got a point.
Nader is a hardworking guy, I think he's got a point here. Although many of us already are aware that big companies lie about their environmental records and that much of what we hear is just PR.
Is there a kind of magazine, online or otherwise, that tracks corporation's products and rates them socially and politically?
I know Nader and others do stuff like this, but it would be great to have a clearinghouse where folks could have one source to go to, instead of all over the web.
Like consumer reports but instead of quality, it would rate the political, social and environmental responsibility of each company, in a searchable form, product by product. Like the website Skin Deep does with chemicals in cosmetics.
Does this already exist? If it does I should know about it.
As an aside-- I dream about someone starting a chain of supermarkets called "Whole Truth". There you could peruse the food, while the store provides an honest, researched history lesson on every brand and product. The global food industry. Multi-media. Why not turn the market we so love into the forum for the truth to be told? It would be an attraction.
One reason to keep the discussion alive is so that we don't repeat 2000 (although admittedly the current election is a world apart from the one in which there was such a huge distinction between Bush and Gore.)
Yes, we all have ego's, but Mr. Nader's ego did a lot of damage. It worked in Nader's favor to claim that Gore was as bad as Bush. This hideous statement and attitude was Nader's justification for running when the Republican Party was helping him and the Democrats weer pleading with him to avoid the race.
The war within the Left Wing which is mainly about ideology versus practicality is indeed pertinent to the future of the planet.
Cool Folks....lets fight about Nader and forget about organizing a more progressive force. Why even bother about what we can do to Change the world when we can fight each other into continual political irrelevance in our system that will not change until we learn to work together to cut down the War Machine when we can gleefully attack each other and accuse each other of being secret enemy agents.
Hell, We can attack each other over car safety.
Everybody has an EGO... it makes us Human!
Can Nader help us get beyond this Nader debate... or will it last longer than the Israel/Palestinian conflict?
The Revolution will start to progress when we figure out how to work together.
Those of us who voted for Nader lost and those of us who voted for the all the others lost and guess who won? We are still stuck in the pattern of losers.
Forget the War Machine the real issue is Nader right?
We are the enemy because we are consumers and have egos... right?
It would be good if Nader said something about how we can heal the old wounds of 2000 and work for progress and more influence in the system we have... That would be a real freakin Revolution.
"In every word, article, and action of Ralph Nader, I see an egotistical man who is extremely successful only when it comes to securing his personal relevance."
So, was Gandhi an egotist; Thomas Jefferson too? What about FDR, or Eugene McCarthy? In what way is being fed up with a sick system and giving up a cushy career to get out and doing something about it, in any way, "egotism".
"but Ralph has never retracted his statement that Bush and Gore are the same, or apologized."
Why should he apoloigize? Based on their campaigns in 2000, as of November 2000, they WERE the same - or Bush was even a bit to the left of Gore.
If you are too young, or too forsetful, to remember the 2000 presidential campaign. please do some research.
I will continue to hold Ralph Nader responsible for the 2000 election. Correct me if I am wrong, but Ralph has never retracted his statement that Bush and Gore are the same, or apologized. Many posters suggest that it is time to get over it, but how can one continue to revere this man who demonstrated such a colossal lack of insight. How can one get over the election where the most ignorant and delusional President in history prevailed over the one guy who could have actually done something about global warming. We are living with the consequences of Nader every day. I'm not over it.
In every word, article, and action of Ralph Nader, I see an egotistical man who is extremely successful only when it comes to securing his personal relevance.
It is difficult to be moderate enough to win an election without compromising all of your principles. Al Gore fell just short in his attempt to win. Nader serves only his own ego, and what could be simpler?
All of the Nader articles I have read on CD are vapid and predictable. "A lot of people died in Chernobyl. Corporations aren't really committed to the environment."
Nader isn't even trying to win the Presidency. All he has to do is show up, and he has instant support (some of it from the right wing). Ego is the answer to every Nader question.
Whenever posters are seen to be continuously stroking each other as a form of validation of each other within a progressive group, and that is not just the case with this site but also in the walking and talking world, then of course it is obvious that they are less interested in the issues than securing a seat at the table, so to speak. The secret services of the U.S. have the largest presence on the web of any group and their style is always the same. They infiltrate a group and when one of them over-extends themselves by expressing an opinion which is not credible but which is revelatory of their true affiliation, they have one of their "sleepers" lurch forward with a shoulder-hugging defense. No progressive is fooled by such low-brow tactics, which is the only type those goofy secret services can employ.
All,
This is the rough and tumble of free speech. We can't expect to control other's content or reaction to our posts. Bashers and trolls, who have no critical thinking skills, feel compelled to disrupt the forum since they realize they will loose any debate based on elucidation of little known rotten Corporate/Neocon behavior. Great civilized minds like Bob K. and Staroftheseas in my opinion, raise excellent points. These reasonable souls, like Nader, are true gentlemen and prefer civil discourse to stinging argument. I tend to agree with everything they proffer. My only counterpoint is that some issues are too important to dissect dispassionately. The power of free speech is in the diversity of the participants. We should not try to pre-script the voracity or content of any free speech within reason (that most naturally follow.) Ideally, no ones opinion should be banned including commander-in-chimp. I agree with the other poster who mentioned that some of his posts are great. And I respect his opinion that Nader and Perot spoiled big party elections, I just don't agree with it.
As for those who feel the comment threads are exclusive somehow to intellectuals, (who I do not consider myself one yet,) I have a suggestion: Try going into a learning phase, asking questions of those you disagree with. Politely challenge them to provide a link (if that's allowed around here.)
Lastly, I feel that his article is as much about Nader as it is about giving attaboys to real-green companies. Ralph, the grand master of progressive change in our country, does not get into only the fights that he feels he can win; he gets into the fights for the little guy who has no chance. He is a true hero for the oppressed. That's Ralph Nadar Ladies and Gentlemen!
Again, these are all just my opinions and I'm open to anyone who can provide evidence (from a credible non-corporate source) to the contrary about anything. Although I like a fierce debate, I have no trouble conceding that I am wrong about something, if that is indeed the case. It does not ruffle my feathers for someone to type "hey you're an idiot pac: here's the deaths per seat mile chart from the NTSB showing highway deaths have increased since Nader's reforms took hold."
If that were the case, I would learn from it, shout some obscenities that none of you can hear, and consider myself just that much less of an idiot tomorrow. Again that's IF some poster I'm attacking for gross distortions of history, is able to provide some foundation for his opinion. (Other than NASCAR tabacco-spitting nonsense.) Yes it's true: Jet-boat carbon capsules would be the safest way to go, however, fooling yourself into thinking that auto executives are going to give up grocery space and openable doors for perfect safety is folly, imho. But the point is that Ralph is not King of the World and cannot wave a magic wand and make things happen. He can only put limited pressure on heartless CEO's and little King George despots and hope to acheive some lifesaving advantage. We have to support him if we want a better world.
pac
I used to think that commander chimp was a genuine Nader basher, now I suspect that he is actually an avid Nader supporter. He seems to sit, lurking, waiting for the first oppotunity to jump on Nader, demonizing him, and slinging unfounded insults at the first oppotunity. Isn't he a little suspect? Same ole thing over and over, everyone gets riled up and rush to defend Ralph. Mission accomplished commander. Progressives can have agent provocateurs as well.
Are you Nader bashers all forgetting that absolutely nothing like the 2003 Iraq war or any other aspect of Bush's murderous ME policy was being, or could have been, anticipated back in November, 2000?
Do you not recall that Bush was running as a purely domestic-issue candidate - often to the left of Gore - in November 2000?
Do you not recall that as of November 2000, Gore had run a campaign tthat gave whole new meaning to the term "milquetoast".
Do you not recall that, in November 2000, if Iraq came up at all, it was over Clinton's murderous bombings and sanctions, with Gore and Bush only proposing cosmetic "smart sanctions"? that only Nader offered a prospect of an end to Clinton's sanctions and low-level war?
Do you understand how time works? Do you think, in November 2000, Nader was gifted with clairvoyance?
About the word warfare starofthesea mentions…
Its funny but I feel like my posts should get a response now and then but don't.
And I also feel like this posting board is taking on an exclusive air.
It seems like less a conversation than a mutual admiration group, everyone posting their opinions just to think to themselves how cool am I the most peaceful person on the posting board.
Honestly when does it become conformity? Mostly people are repeating things they have heard or read that support their worldview, it is completely self-serving. Ego maintenance. Far from activism; Just try'en to fit in with the cool kids, say what they say, do what they do.
What good is bla bla bla …oh I agree. Here's your opinion, here's mine.. oh I agree how nice. The world is going to shit, oh I so agree.
Hardly does anyone mention what they do for a living, how is that not political? What about retirement funds, is the money your going to retire on help fuel the war machine, bet it does. What about insurance? Where do ya think that gets reinvested. Every fiber of the American way of life, as we know it, is at the expense of others. In this country and out.
What good are opinions about hearsay, (unless you saw it with your own eyes and ears than really its hearsay)… I guess if they make you feel progressive or ease your conscious. And what about what you see and hear with your own eyes and ears, its more risky to challenge people you actually know, which means this is safer.
And if it can be this safe how free can it be…
Bill Clinton (lying about the blowjob that would have become a non-issue if he had told the truth)is responsible for Gore losing in 2000.
Clinton poisoned the water so bad that Gore lost his home state of TENNESSEE.
Nader haters are simply aplogoists for the Clintons and need to quit enabling the Clintons.
And I thought Hillary was a polorizing figure??? YIKES!!!
Nadar-haters and Nadar-defenders abound. It amazes me how long some have held onto their grudges----can't be good for your overall health, folks.
Nadar defenders, Unless you love the conflict repetition, or as RichM suggested, believe this verbal skirmish may serve a valuable purpose, how about just letting the bait sit and rot?
In fact, I have read some very thoughtful posts by commander n chimp when his involuntary "I-hate-Ralph" reflex doesn't get triggered.
Commander-n-chimp---- Hey my good man, are you sick and tired of having your other posts never generating any sort of response? Do you provoke because it's certain to get your contribution recognized? Tell you what, I will make a pact with you. I promise I will acknowledge your other contributions, if you work hard to resist the inpulse to generate conflict.
RichM---while I agree that continuing to engage loyal Dems may be a valuable pursuit, I'm not as sure that this particular "broken record" series of monologues serves that purpose. Sometimes we are challenging of having our long held beliefs challenged, and it's tough to reason away a belief.
I believe (deliberate use of word), that those who post here regularly are either going to make up their minds without any of our reasoned arguments as to whether or not supporting Dems is in their best interest.
Has anyone here noticed how much "word warfare" goes on here in these instances? How can we claim to be against the war machine yet not recognize the aggression we all carry within? A conflict is a conflict is a conflict. (Sorry Gertrude Stein for that adaptation.
Blessed are the peacemakers! Don't just keep your powder dry---find a way to dispose of it. There are more powerful tools!
BobK---you have made some excellent points that I didn;t catch until I had posted this the first time. Our time and our energy MUST be better spent or we will get nowhere, fast.
A history lesson that intentionally incorrectly deals with reality is called revisionism. And, no doubt, any pseudo-progressive can work with anyone they want to. And anyone who thinks that the cars made nowadays are safer than earlier models should take that stellar idea to the pentagon and convince the generals. Maybe then the accident-prone warmongers will find their demise at a faster clip than they currently are and we just might see an end to war on this planet sooner than expected. But, somehow, I don't think even those stupid U.S. generals are quite so dumb that they'll by the "collapseable vehicles are safer" sales pitch.
I think Ralph Nader is trying to change attitudes—in both citizens and congress—and promote good-government policies that enhance public safety, public health, environmental protection and the public welfare in general. His efforts are aimed at moving people to the Left, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, independents or nonvoters.
This is what he has always done. In the sixties and seventies he worked with both Democrats (Congress) and Republicans (the Nixon administration) to make cars safer—and yes, with seatbelts, padded dashes, safety glass, etc., they are safer—and to give us the Clean Water Act, the EPA and OSHA, to name just a few of Nader's accomplishments.
As Nader writes above, "the deregulation craze of the past twenty-five years ended most of this forward progress." Clearly, he wants government to become responsive once again to the needs of the people, not the greed of corporations.
So, how to accomplish that? We all know there was a corporate backlash to the progress made in the seventies. Media was bullied or bought up, and the Reagan-puppet and his simple-minded rhetoric were created. Since those dark days, people like Bill Clinton and Al Gore have invented the "new" Democrats (the DLC, the Republican-lites) and moved the Democratic party to the corporate-friendly Right. When the Reagan/Bush-One era ended with the election of Bill Clinton, Nader and other progressives no longer had a seat at the table.
Every political analysis I've ever heard or read says that the Left has "nowhere to go," except to the Democrats. Translation: the Democratic party can kiss corporate butts and ignore the public good without concern of losing votes. Ultimately, Nader concluded that a third party was needed on the Left, partly as a means of pulling Democratic brown noses out of corporate troughs.
Enough of the history lesson. Here we are today, on a progressive forum, where chump smears Nader (and, by affiliation, other Leftists) as a Bush-Two enabler. Meanwhile, anarchists claim our entire political/economic system can never be reformed. Both factions pose, provoke and make inflammatory claims, but offer no path toward more responsive, good-government.
Chump could be an ignorant adolescent, a Democratic operative or a Republican operative. (The same could be said of the anarchists.) It matters little because the effect is the same: to discredit Nader and the Left, to deny the history of progressive accomplishments in this country, to fool people into thinking that progressive policies could never take hold again (absent a revolution), and to build inertia and maintain the status quo.
I agree with Ralph Nader. We CAN support independents to the left of the Democratic Party, we CAN support progressives within the Democratic party, AND we can even work with some Republicans on some issues.
It's too bad that Nader's article is not being discussed on this forum. That's where our energy should be, not in putting out the provocateurs' fires.
It would be good, in my opinion, if CommonDreams would recognize that the provocations of the person hiding behind the commander_in_chimp name—including calling for Ralph Nader's death—are obscene, and ban him/her.
Every time Nader writes a column for CD it becomes a forum for pro or con Naderites.
The message is: some but too few corporations are making a real effort to be environmentally friendly. Whether Nader did or did not draw enough votes to allow Bush to become President is irrelevant and always has been. The reason Bush is in the White house is because of an apathetic U.S. electorate. Anyone remotely intelligent should have been able to understand that a boring Gore or a Kerry were far superior beings than a man who was dependent on alcohol,drugs and now religion and can not speak the English language. But the voters did not see that. By all rights the election should have never been close enough that stealing the White House was even a possibility. Vent your spleens on the voters, not Ralph Nader.
Corporations are NOT going away and if we have any hope of saving this planet we must encourage those who "go green".
PACPLYER: I am a romantic and adore men flirting! I wrote that script in l999 and sent it to Hollywood. I've always felt writers had an obligation to raise public awareness, that film is the most magical medium designed for that ends. However, like so many wonderful tools, they've been co-opted by those that would prefer to sell the masses war, and leave their children in wounded handicaps.
There are a number of on-line publishers. When I was a young girl (always knew I had to write) it cost about $10,000 to publish a book. Such operations were known as "vanity" presses. Thanks to digital technology, the average cost can run $500-1000. to produce a truly professional book. It helps if you have media contacts or a budget for advertising. (I used to do extensive radio and TV in Florida, before all outlets got bought out by born-again Christian owners who decided that astrology/metaphysics and things abstract did not resonate with their viewers!) Right now I have THREE new books coming out via: xLibris.com
The script has been converted into a novel, and it's entitled: The Caretakers. I also have a book that I believe I was born to write. It's an allegory of the Zodiac that explains how Creator poured out the milkyway into 12 molds (to test the idea of signs) to see if it worked. Creator devised a plan wherein 12 rays would all learn and grow together by virtue of the different gifts, aptitudes and views each brought to "the proverbial table," heaven's circle that HAS no sides! I consider this a higher peace model, and plan to introduce this book overseas if the conservative atmosphere in this nation precludes its getting a fair "hearing." That one is entitled: Cassandra's Tale: Invitation to the Circle. (Because I built up a body of works over the past decade and now it's economical to self-publish, I am in the process of reworking all 5 of my intended Hollywood scripts into novels. I am on # 3 right now. I appreciate your asking!) My website is: www.siouxrose.com
There's no going green or Corporate America would have supported Ron Paul's vigorous efforts to LEGALIZE INDUSTRIAL HEMP in the first place. And what about the defunding and stipulating of alternative renewables? Plenty of that shit going on or Big Oil/Coal/Nuclear/Chemical/etc... wouldn't be choking them off with phoney patents in the first place !
RALPH NADER FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008 !!!!!!!!!
So generally speaking, Is Corporate Greenmania Real? NO. It's nice to have an example of the carpet maker who is less wasteful. We recently had a article about how green Wal-Mart pretends to be. Yes, indeed it would be nice if the government put regulations and controls on business regarding pollution and natural resources. And if they would even further inforce them we might have a chance of future survival.
Mr. Nader brings up the point that the government is the largest consumer. I agree. Many of the readers here look to the government to rein in and solve these problems. However, it appears to me that the government brought on the problems in the first place willfully. The Army Cor. of Engineers took the toxic waste off of Honeywells hands, and placed those 1448 barrels in Lake Superior. The US military, well now, that's another can of worms, that spreads it's toxic waste worldwide.
Hey, pacplyer, get your head out of your arse and observe reality. Modern cars do not have rollcages. Modern cars do not have three point safety harnesses. Modern cars are not made of metal, which has strength, but are made of plastic, which is worthless in a crash. If a vehicle is designed to collapse then any excess energy beyond the designed collapseable tolerances is transferred directly and fully to the passenger compartment. Modern cars are designed to collapse in omnidirectional impacts without consideration for impact velocities from an opposing direction, which head-on collisions are the most dangerous on any highway. If the automotive companies optimally utilized physics in their design then they would have the impact forces disperse around the passenger compartments and not through them. If your juvenile understanding of physics prevents you from understanding those simple realities, then perhaps you should enroll in a more prestigious university.
jmacneil,
You have never taken physics have you? That's exactly what I want my doomed automobile to do in a crash: crumple up like an accordion; plastic piece by plastic piece. Otherwise the sudden stop of a steel front end will make your body eject through the windshield, and your brain (if you have one) will collide against the inside of your skull redering it even less observant than it is now.
You WANT your steering column to telescope slowly and not puncture your ribcage, you WANT your windshield to have plastic film on it to make it crumble in pieces and not break off in big lethal shards, you Want seat belts and shoulder harnesses, you want the weight of the vehicle to be 60% on the front end and 40% on the back end......
ALL items you would not have if it were not for Ralph Nader and his hot crusaders. GM fought tooth and nail on all these improvements because it cost them money, and they didn't see how to recoup the safety feature's cost back from the sticker price.
You know so little of automobile history it is shocking. Ralph did push for roll cages and better crash standards but big corporate detroit would hear nothing of it until forceD by the DOT to put reenforced steel in doors and roof members years later. This is why so called "Gray market" mercedes autos from europe could not get insurance coverage in the 80's: they didn't have any of these features.
Now we have airbags, antilock brakes, safe electric window controls (fought by automakers and police departments (that is another story altogether;) All items Ralph Nader pushed for at absolutely no personal profit for himself.
He fought this good fight his whole life for one reason only: To save your ignorant skin out on the highway.
Few politicians have looked out for the common man like Nader has.
Ever heard of food labeling?
pac -out
What a fatuous posting. Obviously, to anyone who is conversant with reality, there is no demarcation between "republican" and "democratic". They are the same scumbag organization and anyone who presents one as being somehow superior to the other, such as those advocates of Kucinich, are trying desperately to deceive the gullible within the electorate so that they can try to maintain their evil system in some form that will allow them to govern.
The explicit way in which the honest people of society will gain the power of the government will be by Revolution. Whether that is by peaceful means or by armed intervention is still quantifiable, but you can be absolutely sure that it will happen, and sooner than you'd expect.
RichM's latest self-serving rant:
> "there can be no way forward in American society (for example, to genuine pro-environment policies), until the Democratic Party, and the mentality that supports it, is entirely discredited.
The corporatist 2-party system rests on foolish illusions in the DP. The DP, in turn, is the single greatest obstacle to the emergence of a true "left" political movement that would be not only genuinely green, but fundamentally anti-militarist, anti-corporatist, & pro-equality, as well. In other words, if society is to be organized on principles more enlightened than corporate profit, a necessary first step is destroying the Democrats."
Discredit, destroy... where is your positive agenda, where is your strategy that makes any sense? You do not have a credible plan. Revolutionary Marxism, Green Party, Nader, it's all failed over and over. But you cling to the illusion that by denouncing "the Democrats" you will accomplish something more than strengthening the hand of the Republican Party and helping it elect more troglodytes to unloose ruin on the world.
If you can organize "a true "left" political movement that would be not only genuinely green, but fundamentally anti-militarist, anti-corporatist, & pro-equality, as well" then please go ahead and do so. If it can deliver votes on election day, it will be able to have influence over Democrat politicians. If it can deliver enough votes to actually win an election, it can nominate its own people to run as Democrats and when they win it can take over the Democratic Party.
YOU NEVER EXPLAIN HOW YOU ARE GOING TO WIN POWER OUTSIDE THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM IF YOU CAN'T WIN IT THROUGH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. YOU NEVER EXPLAIN HOW THE "CORPORATIST" DEMOCRATS ARE ABLE TO PREVENT YOU FROM WINNING DEMOCRATIC NOMINATIONS IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS IF YOU CAN ORGANIZE ENOUGH VOTERS TO WIN AS A THIRD PARTY. YOU NEVER EXPLAIN HOW YOU ARE GOING TO WIN OFFICES IN GENERAL ELECTIONS, WHERE HALF OF THE VOTERS ARE REPUBLICANS AND MORE RIGHT-WING THAN MOST DEMOCRATS, IF YOU CAN'T WIN NOMINATIONS IN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY ELECTIONS WHERE MOST VOTERS ARE MORE TO THE LEFT THAN EVEN THE AVERAGE DEMOCRAT, LET ALONE THE AVERAGE VOTER.
Since you never address these simple questions, all your rhetoric is just self-serving rationalization for going on playing the same pretend politics game which I'm sure works for you and your personal needs but does not move us forward.
Why blame Nader at all? What about Harry Brown the Libertarian candidate or Pat Buchanan who all received thousands of votes. Besides the Florida election was rigged anyway(go read Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy) it didn't matter who had the most, in the end Bush had it in the bag... and the Supreme Court!
What are you referring to, Ralph, when you say that people now have safer cars? All of the cars manufactured nowadays are collapseable and are the worst designed in the short automotive history. The damn things are made of plastic and fold up like an accordian in the most minimal of crashes. Perhaps you should review the death and injury rate on North American highways and look at some of the pictures of vehicles squashed like a cardboard box and imagine the fate of the people who were the occupants. The automotive industry knows exactly what it would take to ensure the integrity of an automobile in a crash, which is exemplified by their developing racecars, and it is only necessary to include a full rollcage with every vehicle to ensure that the occupants will survive and be relatively unscathed in crashes. To laud the automotive companies on their abysmal record is to assist them in promulgating a product which is designed to fail so that it will generate more profits in the short term.
I appreciate and respect Nader. I honestly believe that folks like Commander n Chimp are paid by the DNC to troll boards and create controversy about Ralph. It take a mental midget to blame Nader for Bush.
Why blame Greens or Nader supporters? What about blaming Republicans, or Democrats who voted for Republicans, or Democrats who didn't bother to vote? Only in a fascist state would one argue that only corporate candidates are allowed to participate.
RichM, go with your first instinct! Here's mine:
Lately, I've noticed an increase in mega-corporations advertising their "green" products, and it seems like pandering. I feel disgusted, and dismayed. BP Oil is one corp., Marathon Oil another.
Corn ethanol as a method for reducing our need on fossil fuels sounds great on one level, but there numerous issues:
1. Corn for ethanol becoming more valuable than other crops - demand increases, its price increases. Growers will shift more of their land from soybean production to corn; side effects are soil erosion, nutrient loading, crop mix and livestock prices. (Source: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/05/usda_projects_i.html)
2. "Fuel or Food Debate." Also, less land used for food crops in the U.S. will increase the need to import MORE food from countries with standards even more lax than the USDAs. (My opinion.) (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol)
3. How much fossil fuel is required to produce corn ethanol? This is debatable, and confusing, but still necessary to consider. Includes use of oil (gasoline) in fertilizer production used to grow corn, plus oil used in ethanol conversion process. Also, transporting corn ethanol in trucks to market as existing pipelines cannot be used. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol)
4. Water quality issues from increased corn production (Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071010120538.htm)
5. Corn is a water-intensive crop. (Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071010120538.htm)
6. In the U.S., out of approx. 135 million automobiles total, only 5 million are "flexible fuel" cars. These are capable of using the E85 fuel produced from ethanol; however, if U.S. automakers aren't jumping on board the "alternative fuel vehicle" production bandwagon, production of corn ethanol won't be cost effective, and its price per gallon will remain high. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol)
Energy companies, such as Marathon Oil, advertise on TV, even on PBS, about their "improved methods" that will make millions of gallons more fossil fuels available to Americans. An article about Marathon, insisting that the U.S. "lessen its dependence on foreign oil by improving energy efficiency, diversifying into greater use of nuclear energy and clean coal and by continuing to push sophisticated technology to harvest fossil fuels..." can be found at the following link: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/5287389.html)
Oh goody! Maybe we won't have to change our living habits after all!
Or, we can look locally for small companies that actually are "green" without all the fanfare. Less money spent on advertising, more money going into improving their products. Buy local, support your local economy, plus it's cheaper to get the products to your home.
Consumers are just as concerned about their "bottom line." Other products and means of production are much better for the earth AND for our pocketbooks. We don't have to settle for something we don't want to use. No demand, prices stay low, and food crop production in the U.S. is protected.
"So now I vote my conscience. At the end of the day, I know where I stand."
That's right rhombo, it's ALL ABOUT YOU. The sons and cousins of one million Iraqis couldn't agree more.
You know what a Nader voter is?
AN AMERICAN CONSUMER.
You know what Nader's presidential candidacies have been?
CONSUMER FRAUD.
I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and my vote counted as a witness to my personal belief that Nader's thinking and policies most nearly represent my own. Nader is right: the US is essentially run by one party with two names. Two things prevent change: corporate money that keeps candidates in line, and gerrymandered district boundaries. Nader accomplished most everything he's done before these two forces put a stranglehold on government. I know a vote for any candidate in either major party is essentially an exercise in futility. So now I vote my conscience. At the end of the day, I know where I stand.
It's misleading to lump all the corporations into the greed bucket just as it is to dump all human beings, politicians or otherwise there; this pattern of blame seems like another form of bias.
That said the new book the Blue Way explains the problem with statistics. That is 17 companies within the S&P 500 donate primarily to progressive policies and also tend to display Progressive Leadership qualities such as eco-efficiency and investment in employees well being. These blue companies have outperformed the red companies the latter of which many of us might still be shopping at.
The world is the way it is because of each one of us made it so and will change when each one of us assumes responsibility to make it better; next time you feel blame rearing its useless head consider what good you can do instead.
federal mandate, or also know as, Executive Order 13123. heh. oops. sorry.
okay, damn it. I can't resist the bait....
all this Nader is an egotist, and the Iraq War is Nader's fault reminded me of Eric Alterman's (nation mag) attack on Nader. Of course, I had to come up with a source from CD (naturally),
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0210-29.htm(
Will everybody be okay if I comment on the article? heh.
The largest consumer in the US is the federal government.
Nader's doing us a favor by reminding us how important it is to get the feds
to help our world out if we are serious about going green. Under Bush, the fed has substantially cooled its heels in the department of conservation. Most of the efficiency moves (federal mandate 13123, I think) since Bush came to power actually mandated before he had power.
Anyway, it is a given, but sometimes taken for granted, that the federal government
has been influential in the development of new technology-- from federal grants/ sponsorship of electric car technology, to solar panel and wind technology to L.E.D flat panel TVs (via NASA, and universities like UC Irvine...) Come on, give it up for flat panel technology....
The political system we have today, is the subjective expression of the objective economic system. The political parties, the congress, the police, the army, the MSM, the educations system, etc, all of this superstructure support capitalism.
"Just 1 percent of Americans currently hold about half the financial wealth of the entire United States.
Meanwhile, notes Washington University sociologist Mark Rank, the nation' s bottom 60 percent hold less than 1 percent of that wealth, and 75 percent of Americans, sometime in their adult lives, can now expect to "experience a year either in poverty or near poverty." ...
The paradigm of globalization is the robot. Robotic or automated production personifies wage-less production. As jobs are being permanently eliminated, the value of the labor of all workers is measured in terms of the robot. This new reality is creating a new kind of poverty, and a new class of poor. They are the homeless, the absolutely destitute, and they are also the temporary worker, the day laborer, the part time, and no benefits worker, the throwaway worker on the way to becoming permanently unemployed. They are the locked out, the dispossessed.
This economic reality is objective not subjective. Capitalism can not change its course. No one running for office can change capitalism's course.
So, if you "think" capitalism can be reformed then you have many candidates to choose from. If not, then expose the two party system for what it is, and start building a political party that does represent your interests.
Siouxrose,
You took the concept right out of my daydreams: to clone about 500 Ralphs and run them all for congress.....
Siouxrose, I think I am falling in love with you.....
Sorry, that was uncalled for; I'll try to restrain myself from now on! But please give us a link so that we may purchase your tantalizing screenplay.
pac
p.s. since this comment thread has already degenerated into a corporate troll bait (blame ralph for the sun setting & try to marginalize his being the only rational civic critic alive.) I feel the wonderful free speech afforded by Common Dreams may allow me a little flirtatious excursion with one of the most interesting minds frequenting CD. And speaking of you Rose, how does one self-publish these days? Any advice where a neophyte can begin reading on the process? I am sickened by all the right-wing fear press that keeps getting books on the bestseller list these days. Maybe we should all push for an underground bestseller list of self-published progressive books. Maybe it already exists?
ditto tetti_tatti
and the cretin=Chretien thing is a joke regarding former Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien. The word cretin actually comes from the French word, chretien, meaning Christian.
brujos1 (7:06 pm) attempts some cheap-shot Nader-bashing:
Clearly, in 2000 he stepped out of his league...
- Clarity, I guess, is in the eye of the beholder. To me, Nader was the only honest candidate who spoke substance about real issues, in 2000. I guess this somehow escaped your notice.
Even in his element, did Mr. Nader crunch the numbers of his agenda for each business and aggregate them for a national policy? Did he back then do his homework ...?...
- Oh, and did Gore do that? Did Bush? Nader knew all relevant numbers better than either of those two phonies. He certainly did his homework better than either big-business candidate. Despite that, the 2 parties conspired to keep him out of the debates, where he would have beat the living shit out of both of them. // Gore, as you might recall, was not even able to "win" debates with a dolt like Bush. He managed to stagger to a draw, at best, with an ignoramus.
Did he ....even try to negotiate his position with Al Gore as part of the Democratic platform?...
- Are you serious? Since when is it obligatory to "negotiate your position" with Gore or the Democrats, when you're running against them? No one "owes" the Democratic Party a damn thing.
Mr. Nader predictably inserted a little jab at the nuclear industry yet had nothing to say about coal fired electricity.
Overall, this article is uninspiring. The little paragraph at the end about waste heat should have been expanded to include the hideous waste of resources that is rampant in America--plastic bags at grocery stores, excessively packaged goods, businesses that set their thermostats to 60 degrees during the summer months. Come on Ralph. You always seem to have an audience; you should try a little harder.
I read Ralph Nader, curious about what he had to say, more curious about what others had to say about him. Clearly, in 2000 he stepped out of his league; i.e. consumer advocacy and tarnished his reputation rendering him ineffective on all fronts. Even in his element, did Mr. Nader crunch the numbers of his agenda for each business and aggregate them for a national policy? Did he back then do his homework and even try to negotiate his position with Al Gore as part of the Democratic platform? Is he doing this today? This could be his legacy yet, leaving ego at the door.
The Nader issue has definitely been an area of contention on the left. It boils down to an argument between idealists and pragmatists. I think commander_n_chimp's frustration comes from the fact that Nader knew he wouldn't win, and if he hadn't run, Gore would have likely been president. And in spite of the fact that Lieberman would have been vice-president, it is fairly likely there would not have been an Iraq war. Even 9/11 may have been intercepted (we all remember Bush/Rice's negligence), and a lot of the really bad stuff may not have happened. I think we all know about Clinton's crime of the Iraq sanctions, but commander_n_chimp is picking the lesser of two evils.
On the other hand, minority parties have an important role of pressuring the mainstream parties. When people on the right were fed up with the Republicans, they let Ross Perot split the vote. Same with the Democrats. Perhaps if Gore/Lieberman had adopted some of Nader's policies, they would have attracted some of those votes back.
What it really boils down to, unfortunately, is the curse of the older democracies, like in the US and Britain. That is the lack of proportional representation and run-off voting in the electoral system. These "first-past-the-post" systems allow majority control on a minority of votes. I think this at least part of the reason for the extremist foreign policies coming from the US and UK, as we have seen. Newer democracies which have PR and IRV tend to have a more balanced parliamnet, with minority parties, like the Greens, beiing able to shift policy by forming coalitions.
The trouble is, is that the system is intractable. Who in the Democrat or Republic party is going to vote for a fairer electoral system which means they would lose power? I hate to be pessimistic, but I think we're stuck with a system that is extremely hard to break. I think only an economic depression could shake things up (not out of the question). Or a new party which is able to garner a mass defection from the democartic party's left wing.
Good post, Ramsay (4:57). Your 2-sentence synopsis of what the debate really is, is right on the mark. Figures like Nader can certainly be criticized -- but from the left, not from the right (in other words, not by angry Democrats, but rather by those who question Nader's thesis that capitalism can work, with appropriate "reforms").
To ask the question Can capitalism fix what capitalism caused? goes a long way towards answering it. Though it skips a few steps to put it in this oversimplified form, much of the reason for the pathetic phoniness of what passes for "the political debate" in the US today, is that the real issue is capitalism itself, & its inevitable consequences. (IOW, the question that Ramsay raises.) But one of capitalism's characteristics is that it refuses to tolerate a debate about itself. Knowing that a genuine debate about capitalism would be damning, its political defenders refuse to put it "on the table" for examination.
Both parties are defenders of the status quo, & adamantly refuse to allow any questioning of capitalism.They are obliged to invent pseudo-debates -- because the thing that must be talked about, can't be talked about. So we hear "debates" on all the non-issues, like UFO's, gay marriage & abortion, etc, while the US economy is being hollowed out, the Constitution is being dismantled, we're torturing & bombing people, & the planet is warming.
Here is the debate, and it's not Ralph Nader, it is:
Can capitalism fix what capitalism caused?
Will the "free market" provide the necessary solutions?
Ralph Nader, Al Gore, Robert Reich, and others believe that reform, government regulation, and self-interest, of the current capitalistic model of economics is sufficient.
That is why Ralph applauds tile manufacturers, Al joins venture capitalists, and Robert writes books.
There is no debate about whether corporations are using "green" as a marketing ploy. They are profit driven enterprises, and if $5 spent on P.R. will generate $20 in profit, or prevent regulation, or be used for competitive advantage - they'll do it. Corporations have no heart - they are not human.
So, let's discuss the role of capitalism and corporations in addressing our enviro-crisis. Much more interesting and important.
Debating Ralph Nader, is as boring Ralph Nader, is himself. (I voted for him - I'm entitled)
Ramsay
I did what I could to immortalize Ralph Nader in a movie script based on a surreptitious order of geneticists choosing who was most worthy of being cloned. That script is now a novella and is in production. It's entitled, THE CARETAKERS. The young NY Nader clone argue against free trade for his moot court assignment at NYU. I wrote this in 2000 and the argument was bold then, and certainly resonates with much that we read on CD today. Hollywood rejected it... but self-publishing is economical enough to provide me a means to get the word out! Hail Ralph!
> "Yes we should all hate Mr. Nader for daring to think that any American has the right to run for office in America,"
Yes, that's right Mr. and Ms. America, it's all about YOU! I mean, it's all about ME!
Yes, support the ultimate in democracy and personal expression. RUN FOR PRESIDENT!! VOTE FOR YOURSELF (or whomever you want). VOTE FOR ME!
Hey, it's not like it actually matters who controls the world's most powerful military machine and law and policymaking in the world's largest economy. Don't let conscience interefere with YOU BEING YOU.
www.ME2008.com
This whole corporate green movement reminds me of the corporate CSR (corporate social responsibility) movement. Corporations do CSR iniatives and now green intiatives to attract consumers. However, just like the CSR intiatives we need to be careful with so called green ones as this requires investigating corporations and not just taking them at their word because "it feels good" to buy "green products" and they claim their products are "green ones". We need to make sure those products are truly green and truly good for the earth and not just a sales tactic.
Jeez, c_n_c, did you wait up all night for Ralph's article, like a kid on xmas eve? look at you, first one up there whining about your loser dems. pathetic. YOU ARE PATHETIC! And you once had the dimentia to claim your ego's not all messed up in your posts - YOU shaming Ralph Nader?! Puh-Leez, you pathetic egomaniac, go change your diaper.
Ralph has blood on his hands? Go look at the bloody red palms of your bullsh*t dems. Now there's some blood, and blood money they're always happy to give W the executioner. All but one of your precious dims are bloody up past their elbows.
RichM's 1:44 post hits the nail on the head - Thank you RichM, tho it is tempting to jump in and try to re-educate the dim trolls like chimp. However, educating the dims, the dim apologists, and the Nader-haters is possibly a complete waste of time, so how do we rid ourselves of these pests? D-Con Schm*ck Gone? Progressive Prisons for all the dims? Or a nice non-violent execution for those who question the almighty Left? Maybe put them all in one big stinky diaper and flush them. Seriously, chimp, you're stinking up the place...
ezeflyer - I'm with you, I skip the post when I see the chimp's name.
Jonno - I voted for Nader in 2000 and felt good about it. I voted for Kerry in 2004 (peer pressure), and regretted it. In the end though, it didn't really matter since tons of evidence of vote rigging was unearthed. I don't blame the non voters - they probably just realize rightly that their votes won't be counted fairly anyway.
"This overall persistence of corporate intransigence needs to be kept in mind as the blizzard of green announcements by companies continue"
Of course the corporations will continue to advertise happy horsemanure -- but the shift in the advertising means that the younger generations are well aware that the whole planet is at risk.
"on second thought, it's quite possible that demolishing the pro-Democrat/Nader-bashing mentality is a more urgent task than discussing corporate "green"-ism. This is because there can be no way forward in American society (for example, to genuine pro-environment policies), until the Democratic Party, and the mentality that supports it, is entirely discredited."
David Lindorff's piece yesterday from a couple of other leftsites gives clear warning that Dead Dog Dem strategy of You-Have-to-Vote-for-Us-or-Enable-Republicans is a sure loser.
There is nothing to choose between Karl Rove and Howard Wolfson, Hillary's Rove. At least Obama didn't let the little slander whispered to Robert Novak go unchallenged & demanded the Hillary's campaign discountenance it -- but they did so in a way that they could still blame Obama.
Just ignore the chimp and he'll go away........
The actual people to blame for the last two elections 2000/2004, is all those lazy ones who couldn't get off their lard butts and go vote, to busy watching Paris, Nascar,Idol and maybe Springer, now they whine about who was the cause of the loss, if you don't VOTE you don't get what the majority wants, so blame the NON voters
my desk chair is far from comfy….. and by the way its people like us that create leaders like Nader not the other way around.
Its groups of opinionated people that make leaders, not the bassackwards version of leaders creating people to lead, we are doing what we need to be doing, bouncing thoughts back and forth creating the environment of activism from which a leader can emerge….
The other way is part of the MSM hero worship that keep us spectators and advertising targets.
I looked up cretin in my dictionary and it is spelled correctly.
And I'm another one who's for skipping posts by dolts who blame Nader for Bush being in the White House. Nader is on my list as one of my top 5 favorite Americans for everything he has done and is trying to do for us. His vision into the future has proven uncannily accurate. Remember he foretold the extent of the calamities that W being in the white house would bring upon us, to our environment, and to our economy and stature on the world stage.
Not many of us listened, but I would count those who did as among my smartest fellow citizens.
Take heart, though, for he also told us that the backlash from 4 or 8 years of W would align most of the country for a push in the right direction. I only hope he was wrong when he also suggested that there wouldn't be much of any of our American way of life and natural resources left to save once Bush is gone!
The move to green tech is an opportunity for any one who pursues it.
For me, the scary part is when the corporations own all the green tech and control access, through price.
Green, for those who can afford it.
What difference does it make to the wage slave who manufactures the green products, but cant afford to purchase any of them?
To the poor they been "taking it" for so long that the earth burning up is less painful than a life of stress, and suffering; and at least that way the man "takes it" too.
Finally equal.
Commander chimp, you've lost any credibility. I think most of us just scroll down past your post when we see your name. That's the fate of flamers and trolls.
When corporations pollute things we eat, we lose trust in them and increasingly buy organic food. It seems the same will happen with everything else they taint, from toys to government.
With the terrible yet often well deserved reputation corporations have made for themselves, very few people trust corporate bought politicians to keep us safe and secure. As a result, we are all becoming better informed about what we consume.
Being the most knowledgeable person in all these areas, Ralph Nader has been, is, and will likely remain the person we trust the most to keep us informed, safe and secure. Thank you Ralph.
It's tempting to suggest that all intelligent CD posters should agree, from this point on, to simply ignore the idiotic provocations of Nader-bashers. Here we have an article by Nader that, as usual, raises points of genuine substance -- yet once again, the thread has been hijacked by the dumbest person here.
But on second thought, it's quite possible that demolishing the pro-Democrat/Nader-bashing mentality is a more urgent task than discussing corporate "green"-ism. This is because there can be no way forward in American society (for example, to genuine pro-environment policies), until the Democratic Party, and the mentality that supports it, is entirely discredited.
The corporatist 2-party system rests on foolish illusions in the DP. The DP, in turn, is the single greatest obstacle to the emergence of a true "left" political movement that would be not only genuinely green, but fundamentally anti-militarist, anti-corporatist, & pro-equality, as well. In other words, if society is to be organized on principles more enlightened than corporate profit, a necessary first step is destroying the Democrats. // Thus, practise in demolishing the arguments of dimwits like c_in_c is actually time well spent.
tetti_tatti says: I'm glad and delighted to expose you for the CRETIN that you are.
That is Chretien, NOT cretin.
One does seem to over estimate the difference between most Dems and most Repugs. Kucinich would make the best President of the bunch of Dems - but his policies have more in common with Nader's than Clinton's. The more I see of Hillary Clinton, the less I want to see her take over from Bush.
And I should note that Gary Doer wants to help all American States wanting to go green. Manitoba Hydro is one of the more environmentally friendly sources of electricity.
Terry Tamminen, Arnold Schwarzenegger's Environment Minister, wants Al Gore as President so Republicans are not that different from Democrats:
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1493
Corporate America doesn't care about any of the resources that it uses to get richer. Natural and human resources will be considered as economic overhead and everything done to minimize the cost. That's what globalization is all about. Putting the cheapest natural resources together with the world's cheapest labor. So don't be fooled by Corporate America trying to suddenly become Green. To Corporate America the future won't even take place on the earth so there is no need to try and save it.
Hoa binh
Unfortunately, Nader represents a bygone era - so you can make all the comments you want as to his 'timely' rhetoric - and is now an old man who once did something. Unlike me and all the rest of you, he did something physically to represent his desire for a better country... Instead of just positing some caustic opinion from his comfy computer chair. Grow up, 'netjobs.
BRITISH PETROLEUM (BP) GOES GREEN WHILE FIXING PRICES
Recently, BP paid $373 million in fines for fixing energy prices in 2004, including attempts to corner the propane market.
BP recently funded Berkley et al with $500 million for alternative energy research.
It 2005, BP announced plans for investment in alternative energy, a year after it had initiated the price fixing scheme.
Recently BP cut in half its estimate of avoided CO2 emissions.
Corporations don't go "green" to save energy or avoid pollution. They do it because it's profitable. The "green" part is a side benefit they exploit as part of the public relations and marketing value.
Likewise, Nader's example of the carpet tile manufacterer is becoming more common, not due to any sort of personal or spiritual belief in being "green", but out of sheer self interest.
The essential problem is that "free markets" don't mean "competitive markets" or "pollution-free" markets. If it did, BP could not be fixing prices and financing energy alternative grants at the same time, not to mention existing off of huge tax subsidies.
The only way to get to "100% green" is to take all the "output" streams of waste and plug them into the "input" streams, i.e. moving the effluent pipe from downstream in the river next to the upstream intake pipe. That get's their attention real quick, just like people with wells and septic systems know - NIMBY.
If the market can't achieve the desired waste reductions, forceful regulation must be applied, as is already starting with water problems.
Honestly, the Nader bashers reek of ignorance. Ralph's campaigns were long on issues and short on soundbytes. He continues to address substantive problems and offer solutions. Only through fundamentally flawed and tortured logic can he be blamed for what is currently going on Iraq. Perhaps the President of the United States would be a better target for your ire. Or the Senate. Or the Congress. Or the lack of popular action. But to blame the person who has worked tirelessly throughout his life, up to and including today, to prevent needless suffering makes no sense. It makes sense if you like arguing your points through baseless rhetoric, but not if you understand actual cause and effect. Ralph "aiding and abetting Bush's presidency"? That is the language of someone who is obviously not a lawyer trying to use legal words to make a point that has no basis in fact. Please, try to think before you post. And don't think, "I'm going to say something inflammatory regardless of the substance." Try thinking, "What does it mean to aid and abet?" Or, "Are my energies better spent attacking someone who stands for the same principles as me on an internet site filled with liberals, or should I step away from the computer and organize a demonstration, write a letter to the editor, meet with my state and federal elected officials, etc.?"
Nader is about as responsible for anyone's death as he is for the psychotic gibberish of commander-in-chimp above. The notion that the gore-ish democrat party is less responsible for the war dead than the darth-chimp junta is foolish. Democrats voted for war and they are voting to fund it today. And if any of the alleged Demo frontrunners gets placed in the oval office they will continue it. Big business leads them around by the gold ring in their noses. If the genocide stops, the oil and water are up for grabs. When the oil and water are up for grabs, the empire is thrown off its footing. When the empire is thrown off its footing the corporatocracy is vulnerable to collapse. When the corporatocracy collapses, paint your own picture and leave Nader alone to paint his.
yes commander_n_chimp I'm glad and delighted to expose you for the CRETIN that you are. Nader is not aiding and abetting Bush's presidency, Pelosi, Reid and all the Democrats are. They're the ones who gave Bush the power to go to war and refuse to impeach him for all his crimes, how dare you blame Nader, moron?
You're an imbecile of the greatest order, no wonder your feeble brain operates in terms of Democrat versus Republican, everything is black or white for you, isn't it? You're not worth the cyber space you occupy on CommonDreams.
So you're glad and delighted that the death rate in Iraq has doubled thanks to your hero Ralph aiding and abetting Bush's presidency? Hang your head in shame!
Yes we should all hate Mr. Nader for daring to think that any American has the right to run for office in America, that freedom actually means freedom and that the Constitution is to be applied to the American way of life.
The first person posting on this subject, Mr. Mensa, is correct, all good democrats, or should I say good germans, showed their loyalty to America by (with the help of a rather large dose of willful ignorance and a sprinkling of fascism) demanding that only the corporate candidates, only the candidates deemed "electable" by our corporate masters were real and that any others choosing to run in the face of corporate charges of "unelectability", who were actually American enough to believe in the Constitution and freedom, were/are, as Mr. Mensa put it, "traitor"s.
Mr. Mensa, like his cohorts in Congress, prove Mr. Nader correct with their every utterance......."The similarities between the two parties tower over the dwindling, the real differences they are willing to fight over".....true words that have been twisted by the Mr. Mensa's on pretend left wing blogs to justify their own dishonesty and allegiance to corporate totalitarianism.
commander_n_chimp you're an idiot, like every Democrat. Are you still mad about Sore/Losermann? By the way, Clinton bombed Iraq for 8 years, plus his sanctions killed millions of Iraqi children.
Morons like you are and all the posters on Democratic Underground are the reason we keep getting criminals in the White House. I'm GLAD, DELIGHTED Nader 'spoiled' 2000, I was living in Naples, Fl. at the time and happily voted for him. I voted for him in 2004 and I hope he runs against Hitlery next year. We can't afford another 8 years of Hellary and her serial adulterer husband in the White House.
Hey, guess what? I saw the documentary "The Corporation" too! Big deal that Traitor Nader used Ray Anderson's name. Big fat hairy deal!
I remember growing up seeing Nader as a hero. I haven't changed my mind. One can also argue that Kerry stole votes from Nader.
Bush is starting to talk Green. But it seems that Blair, Bush, Steven Harper and Australia's John Howard have all promised to reduce "emission intensity." What does the phrase "emission intensity" mean?
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/
Ralph Nader on The Hour:
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1571
Hey, commander and george h.,
I think it KUDOS the mention of Ray Anderson's name, in the article by Nader. And, excuse me....
The mantra of "what kind of world do you want to leave your children and grandchildren?" is as silly and out dated as "three out of four doctors who smoke, smoke Chesterfield Kings." "The 11th hour" was so 1984. We've heard 12 gongs not 11. We've already lost the race against the ticking clock of global warming, and acidifaction of the seas. Without implementing redisigned transportation systems and redisgning the entire urban lanscape fusing architecture and ecology from the ground up now, our planetary holocaust will destroy human survivability in our lifetime as well. That's not a prediction, that's yesterday's report.
Hey boys and girls! It's Traitor Nader, the useful idiot of the Republican party who helped put George Warmonger Bush in the White House!
How does it feel to have the blood of innocent Iraqis on your hands, Ralph? How does it feel to have the blood of one million Iraqis on your hands, Ralph? You should hang your head in shame for enabling the warmonger in the White House.