[MD] I was talking to this lady

[Heather Perella]

Hello dmb,

     dmb said:  "Yea, OK. Like I said, I don't know
the details of
> that particular situation. 
> But don't you think the point of my post was the
> importance of rights?" 

     Yes.

     dmb said:  "What I'm saying is that little
stories like that are used
> to undermine rights. Am 
> I saying there has never been a petty person on the
> local water board or 
> whatever it is? No. Of course not. I'm just saying
> that clean water 
> regulations are a perfectly reasonable thing even if
> somebody in small town 
> Pennsylvania is a big jerk about it.  Yes, we can
all
> relate to these little 
> injustices. They make the blood boil and all that.
> Which is why they're so 
> handy when we want people to forget about principles
> and the larger 
> implications." 

     What are the larger implications about clean
water freely coming up from a well, or $5000 and a
water bill the township wants her to pay?

     dmb said:  "And if it seems I took you for a
> conservative, its only 
> because you sounded like one in telling that story.
> That's why Platt enjoyed 
> it so much, you see."

     You see what happens when the culture only
preconceives a handful or maybe two (liberal and
conservative) approaches to an event.  Isn't that what
Pirsig called pigeonholing?

     dmb said:  "C'mon SA. Don't you have anything to
say about
> "rights" and the 
> "government-is-the-problem" attitude that undermines
> them?"

     This is a public (government-is-the-problem)
versus private (we need our rights) issue.  With an
increasing population (nationally and globally) we
will have more tension on this issue than ever before.
 Some as terrible as ethnic cleansing, which a larger
population in Sudan publicly rids an unpopular
population, but this is rights vs. public affairs at
its' worse.  So I guess I'm happy we're just talking
about township water vs. well water.

     dmb:  "How can democratic government aimed at
securing the rights of its citizens be 'the problem'?"

     A democratic government aimed at securing the
rights of its citizens is NOT the problem.  When
celebrity-hood, power, and $ are the narrow ways of a
government, then we have a problem.  I'm not saying
this government is doing such a narrow focused
activity, honestly I don't know.  Maybe there's so
much going on in government "for our security" - I
don't know, and I'm not pretending I sit in Congress
or the White House and know first-hand the kind of
activities that happen.

     dmb said:  "Guys like Rockefeller and JP Morgan
used
> things like dynamite and 
> kidnapping to "win" in the marketplace. Not to
> mention the criminal 
> exploitation and pollution that followed victory.
> And did you know that the 
> inventor of fascism preferred to call it
corporatism?
> See what I'm getting at 
> here is that "business" is no friend to democracy or
> human rights. Without 
> laws to regulate their excesses, they can be quite
> evil and tyrannical. Its 
> an historical fact. You certainly don't have to take
> my word for it."

     This is something I do know about.  This country
was founded by business colonies that came here
setting up corporations to exploit the raw materials
and soil of this land.  The expansion west was $
driven, for expanding business ventures, such as the
Ohio Company where George Washington was apart of in
the removal and survey mission of the French in the
Ohio Valley.  This started the French and Indian War,
and sowed the seeds for U.S. independence as the
colonist became more confident that they could fend
for themselves and keep the spoils of the land for
themselves.

 
     dmb said:  "Sorry, your story evoked more than
you intended."

     I intended some kind of response since this was a
real discussion I had with a lady.

     dmb said:  "But I'm quite convinced 
> that little anecdotes, just like the one you told,
> are used to justify 
> de-regluation."

     I'm not trying to broaden the justification,
unless, things like this happen all the time.   I'm so
used to hearing from history stories such as "you
can't sell the land or water, that's like selling the
air we breath."  paraphrasing Tecumseh.  Well,
Tecumseh in the U.S. you can make water yours, and
have free water removed from your hands and you can be
forced to buy water.  Remember how those Hollywood
goofballs set-up a stand to sell 'clean air' and
people bought it.  I don't think it lasted long, but
Tecumseh in the U.S. you can sell air, too.

     dmb said:  "Have you noticed how bad music radio
has become
> since the industry was 
> deregulated? Did you notice the the level of vitriol
> in the public discourse 
> became much meaner and stupider as soon as the
> fairness doctrine was 
> suspended? I'm trying to point out how destructive
> this is. I'm trying to 
> point out that this is at odds with American
> democracy and human rights."

     I'm not sure.  How is public radio unregulated,
yet tuned into, unfair.  Is this a kind of consumer
freedom, and since capitalism is the measure of
freedom in this culture, then the more people buy or
listen, the more freedom there is in this culture. 
Business roots in this culture are manifest destiny. 
I don't agree with it, I'm just saying. 

     dmb said:  "I'm glad the lady has clean water and
I hope she exposes the jerk as such, but 
> what I really care about are the larger implications
> of this anti-government 
> stance.

     This anti-government versus government stance
will become even more tense, as I noted earlier, as
the population grows.

     dmb said:  "And wouldn't rather get your coffee
from a place
> with softer water and less 
> hair. I mean, ground water and hair make for some
> pretty bad coffee. I know 
> from experience."

     Hair adds texture or else the coffee would be too
smooth for me.
 

Thanks,
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com