[Jamie Love, who works for Ralph Nader, wrote to me to stress that Public Citizen does not necessarily speak for Nader. This came up in Aaron's article. Jamie says that Nader started Public Citizen in 1970 and is considered close to it and has long relationships with the top people there, but has no official connection. Apparently Public Citizen resorted to stressing this no-official-link in a letter to their Democratic supporters who were upset over Nader's presidential bid in 2000. --Declan] ********* Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 17:30:07 -0400 From: Robert Sexton <robertat_private> To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> Cc: Aaron Lukas <aaronlat_private> Subject: Re: FC: Why Ralph Nader is a privacy hypocrite, by Aaron Lucas and Lizard In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010701090335.0258c840at_private>; from declanat_private on Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 09:12:53AM -0400 Declan, I found Aaron Lukas' commentary rather amusingly hypocritical, perhaps it should have been, 'The only problem with republican party these days is, well, republicans'. We're sure most of them are pillars of society, and those young right wingers who stop poll workers from counting votes, are just "Being Kids". Mr Lukas paints a simplistic picture, decrying the lack of 'careful analysis and reasoned discourse'. It hard to say if this is the result of shoddy journalism or willful ignorance. There has been plenty of both of these, available to anybody who will listen. Like so many people in America, Aaron Lukas does not really understand the anti-globalization movement. It is not an anti trade movement. It is not about preventing commerce, but stopping the erosion of environmental standards, labor laws, and human rights that have come with the expansion of 'Free Trade Agreements'. Under the existing system, when profits come up against environmental laws, environmental laws lose. Its a race to the bottom. The anti-globalization movement is without a doubt growing, and there are a lot of angry people. As long as the architects of free trade expansion continue to meet behind closed doors, without public oversight or input, resistance to increased globalization will only increase. Whose needs will come first: Yours, or Exxons? -- Robert Sexton - robertat_private, Cincinnati OH, USA There's safety in numbers... Large prime numbers. - John Gilmore ********* Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 11:16:41 -0400 From: Chuck0 <chuckat_private> Organization: Infoshop.org To: declanat_private CC: politechat_private Subject: Re: FC: Why Ralph Nader is a privacy hypocrite, by Aaron Lucas andLizard Cato's little insult of the black bloc means that we'll be paying Cato HQ a visit this coming September. People who work in glass buildings shouldn't throw the first rhetorical stones. ********* From: "fablor" <rigbyat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: On manners and results. Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 08:06:39 +1000 Hello Declan, I've stopped lurking around the world to "follow my own rhetoric" as a correspondent from a publication I write for pointed out to me. :-) May we look at the situation of something simple like "Global Free Trade" (nee New World Order) and all pretend we are 19th Century English Diplomats as we do so? This means being very calm, polite and using wiles to replace the Gunboat wherever possible. Look at how far the power of that little group from a little island managed to get, in terms of world power. It works. Aaron Lukas actually prompted me to put electrons to air with: "Nader's double standard on privacy" essay. May I quote Kilneth (writing as a Chinese General)? "Bravery wins many battles, but it is the Treasury that wins the war." Unfortunately the majority who oppose the New World Order have no real Treasury. In a normal conflict of today, two or more richer powers, fight their economic moves on somebody else's ground. The money made from the "Gulf War" by its proponents was astonishing by any standards in todays terms of far more rapid returns on investment than were possible in prior Wars. In older times, Wars were simple. As soon as one power saw another as weaker they assaulted them to take their wealth for themselves. Or, to simply destroy the competition. Aaron Lukas makes his personal political/economic position clear in his summary paragraph: The anti-globalization left demands that people take it seriously, but that's hard to do when confronted by a PR strategy that vacillates between tantrums and pranks. I suppose with no facts on their side, that's the best the activists can do. Mine can be declared as simply: I worked for Our Owners. I saw and used their power as a Good Servant. I am not confident of success for the anti-GTO/NWO "activists", they have no money, only the fanaticism of youth, the belief that they CAN make a difference. I see that unless our Owners can come to understand that the ballgame has changed and that their methods of generating personal power and wealth are "old-hat" and that it is far easier to do what say, Bill Gates has done and PROVE how good a "player" they are in the Game, using new methods, that the whole Game may be called off - like so many "Sporting" events today. However as for the concluding propaganda sentence of Aaron Lukas' essay, may I say that thanks to this awful problem for Our Owners, the Internet, in less than an hour, even the most ardent and necessarily Good Servant like Aaron can begin to terrify himself with the overwhelming mountain of facts - produced by Our Owners themselves - as to their next phase of "total world homogenisation by 2012". I would like to simply remind people that under the new regime, the individual's value will be zeroed the moment they are not "useful" any longer. That is good, sound Economics sense. That "homogenisation" means to make all the same. In the Dairy Industry of the West, it was a tactic invented to allow Our (littler) Owners to sell us stale milk. It breaks up any globule bigger than the pre-determined size and makes them all the same. (It stops the cream rising and betraying things.) Our fates are to be homogenised. Brought DOWN to the common denominator, the others will not be brought UP. That would make no Economic sense at all. My regret is that the pen is mightier than the sword and the few with the real talent to use it are quickly made an example of and the rest of us fall back into line, after all, as Our Owners keep conditioning into us, with their untold number of commercial writers and pens: "You can't make a difference, why try". Thank the God/s for the "Activists", for without them that great Milling Machine would have already succeeded, instead of being slowed as it has to date. Just use a Search Engine. Look for "CODEX" and "New World Order." Of course most of it is emotional. Anyone who studies the facts - the facts, Mr Lukas, will get emotional about it. Peace, John Rigby. ********* Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 06:29:33 -0700 To: "Aaron Lukas" <aaronlat_private>, lizard <lizardat_private> From: George Mason <masong002at_private> Subject: Ralph Nader, Agony Aunt and Hypocrite Cc: <declanat_private> In an issue of Liberty Magazine during the recent campaign, one of the frequent contributors reported how he had gotten fed up with Nader on a Chicago talk show so called him up and asked him when he was going to call for the nationalization of the legal profession along the lines of medicine. With salary caps for certain procedures and the equvalent of HMOs. The legal equivalent of Medicare and Medicaid. That kind of thing. This caused a near apoplectic response and the admission that Nader was indeed a lawyer. How many professions could get away with the blatant multibillion $$ rip off of Big Tobacco? With class action liablilty suits that bankrupt large corporations on no scientific evidence? A hui hou-- GM DSS/DH key id: 0xD60CE0F9 http://www.swell.com/sw/surflinehome ********* Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 09:44:26 -0700 To: George Mason <masong002at_private>, "Aaron Lukas" <aaronlat_private> From: Lizard <lizardat_private> Subject: Re: Ralph Nader, Agony Aunt and Hypocrite Cc: <declanat_private> At 06:29 AM 7/1/2001, George Mason wrote: >In an issue of Liberty Magazine during the recent campaign, one of the >frequent contributors reported how he had gotten fed up with Nader on a >Chicago talk show so called him up and asked him when he was going to call >for the nationalization of the legal profession along the lines of >medicine. I've suggested this many times. Consider -- lawyers exist solely due to government actions -- it is governments which pass laws, after all! Thus, they are, to a very large extent, public employees by default -- their entire job depends on laws passed at taxpayer expense. And it is often the case that many who need lawyers cannot afford the best. A good liberal would be aghast at the suggestion that the poor who cannot afford, say, a triple-bypass operation simply drop dead;thus, it seems that, just as anyone is 'entitled' to the most expensive surgery performed by the finest surgeons, we should all be entitled to have ourselves defended by Johnny Cochrane when we have a parking ticket. Socialization of lawyers is clearly the only just, fair, and equitable solution. ********* ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 02 2001 - 20:29:53 PDT