portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements portland metro

actions & protests cheney protests

Plans for Cheney visit!

Anyone who wants to join us in protesting Cheney in Portland: meet at 3:00 PM on Sunday in the North Park Blocks at Park and Couch!
Anyone who wants to join us in protesting Cheney in Portland: meet at 3:00 PM on Sunday in the North Park Blocks at Park and Couch! We will be going from there to the Benson Hotel.

Bring signs if you have them! There will be a sign making party on Saturday from noon - 6 at Liberty Hall (321 N Ivy.) You can also make signs at the rally in the Park Blocks.

For the latest information, sign up for the mailing list by sending an email to  pdx-beirut-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

phone: phone: 503-223-1399

please explain 20.Jun.2002 13:21

anonymous or made up name

Can someone explain more about what will be hapenning? March to the Benson, then what? And what is Cheney doing there? Is there a message we are focusing on?

Don't march, just show up 20.Jun.2002 17:32

steveng steveng@sonic.net

Marching makes it easy to be herded into so-called first amendment zones -- usually blocks from the target of protest and safely out of range of video cameras and reporters.

Just show up randomly outside the hotel, conceal signs if possible, wait for the uber creep's arrival and let him have it. Billionaires for Bush; gazillionaires for Cheney; boatloads of blood for oil. Whatever comes to mind.

Turning backs ala the OSU graduation ceremonies last Friday might also be a good idea.

Best of all, if anyone is so well-connected they can actually get into the place, stand up and face the rear of the auditorium the entire time he speaks -- if that's the right word for his swill. You'll probably be whisked off by security forces but it's unlikely charges will be filed.

See www.turnyourbackonbush.com (might be .org) for details.


sg

Don't march, just show up 20.Jun.2002 17:33

steveng steveng@sonic.net

Marching makes it easy to be herded into so-called first amendment zones -- usually blocks from the target of protest and safely out of range of video cameras and reporters.

Just show up randomly outside the hotel, conceal signs if possible, wait for the uber creep's arrival and let him have it. Billionaires for Bush; gazillionaires for Cheney; boatloads of blood for oil. Whatever comes to mind.

Turning backs ala the OSU graduation ceremonies last Friday might also be a good idea.

Best of all, if anyone is so well-connected they can actually get into the place, stand up and face the rear of the auditorium the entire time he speaks -- if that's the right word for his swill. You'll probably be whisked off by security forces but it's unlikely charges will be filed.

See www.turnyourbackonbush.com (might be .org) for details.


sg

Dick Cheney is NOT welcome in Portland! 20.Jun.2002 17:47

Cheney Unwelcoming Committee

SUNDAY AND MONDAY Protest the unelected reign of Racism, War, and Terror-- Come to the Unwelcoming Committee Sunday June 23rd, 3 PM, North Park Blocks--

And to get the work week started, before Cheney speaks at the Hilton, there will be a free pancake breakfast at 6 AM at the South Park blocks, followed by a Critical Mass and Street Party

Because the Illigitimate Administration will not hear our voices, let's put it to them in a language they understand:

STOP BUSINESS AS USUAL!!

MAXIMUM ECONOMIC DISRUPTION!!

Protest Zone 20.Jun.2002 18:29

someone who does not like being trapped

I have to agree with Steven on the "Protest Zone" thing. I heard there is one set up--before marching a crowd of people into it, I urge organizers to scout it out and make sure it's not a distant cage. Folks should be able to be seen and heard, and should be free to come and go if they please. If that's not the case, then don't go. Even if it looks ok: just one fence, not too far away, etc. I would be wary. It's easy for the cops to seal off that one exit, move us further away, etc. Don't play into their hands, or be duped by their misinformation, like when Bush was here (and someone told organizers that the NE Portland visit was cancelled).

But I disagree with Steven on the not marching thing. I think it is important for people to gather together on this one. Small groups of people right at the hotel, or inside, will be picked off pretty easily. Unless you are willing to get arrested for making a statement, I would stick with the crowd (which of course could also get mass arrested, but is less likely).

CRITICAL MASS!! 20.Jun.2002 18:51

.

Let's shut down the streets at rush hour on Monday!!

Large numbers count 20.Jun.2002 18:52

Disappointed

WE will need a large number of people. Unlike the numbers that turned out for the Roses Festival Protest. So everybody please come out. Even if ti is just for little while.

What happened... 21.Jun.2002 11:17

PDXtran

What happened to the idea of protesting out on Airport Way?

Was it finally rejected as being unfeasible or too blocked off?

Airport Way 21.Jun.2002 13:11

anon

Airport way was chosen because bad information was gained saying that is where he was to speak. But the truth is he is speaking downtown.

I betcha he's not at the Benson, either 21.Jun.2002 19:05

0rganism

Why would this not be disinformation too? It's on the opposite side of the city from the airport, and we'll have a helluva time getting back to NE 82nd.

Of course, the Benson area is a nicer place to hang out anyway. No biggie, but I really doubt we get the straight scoop anymore. These bush guys are shifty double-dealing dirtbags, who laugh at our feeble attempts to keep up with their shenanigans honestly.

Ignorance 21.Jun.2002 23:37

Gan3477

This is absolutely hilarious. You don't even know why he is here. He might be visiting friends in town for all you know and you are going to make this a political rally. You base your protest on finding out why he is here. Do you people even realize how stupid you are making yourselves look? Blood superimposed on the fingers of Cheney. You accuse him of this, you accuse him of that, and yet you provide no evidence other than rambling name calling accusations, and oh a guy in Enron was an advisor. Oh boy, can't get past that one! What about the fact that he took himself out of the whole investigation as soon as it was known that there was anything wrong with Enron's books? There is a reason the mainstream liberal media has left the story to die, and that would be because it was already dead. You people keep reaching.
With the amount of intelligence I see displayed in the writing of this so-called journalistic venture, (as a former journalism student, it is amazing to me that you are allowed to call it journalism and not be fined for breaking truth in advertising laws) I find it absolutely amazing you actually are mentally capable of updating or running this web site. Go ahead, protest! I hope the media is there, every single station. I hope the whole US sees you and realizes who it is that is protesting, and memorizes each and every one of your faces, masks and epithets. By your actions you prove yourselves ignorant and foolish. And by your actions you liberals define yourselves as the intolerant bigots you so loudly whine about. Have a ball!

Thanks for titling your post "Ignorance" 22.Jun.2002 14:09

0rganism fuckyou@Gan3477.shill.gop

"Ignorance" is the #1 word I would choose to describe your content. Anything else, as you might say, would be a violation of truth in advertising. In fact, we know exactly why he's here. He's giving a presentation to young rethuglicans, followed by a Monday morning fundraiser for El Gordo Smith, R-ADM. No need for *us* to try to make the trip political, when it already is.

Of course, even if he were here simply to "visit friends," that would not be reason to give Dracula Dick a free ride. Given his track record, we have all the reason we need to protest his presence. Given his position as a public figure, we also have every right we need to do so.

You're welcome to cherish your delusions about the existence of a "liberal" mainstream media in this country, and I'm glad you made them available so there's no question where you're coming from. What you fail to realize, perhaps because you claim to be a _former_ student of journalism from an era of greater freedoms, is that the consolidated corporate media is a dead zone of commercial pap and propaganda. This site, along with countless other independent news/investigative journalism organizations arising worldwide, are the true heirs of the 4th estate. Look along the left frame of the web page, and you'll see links to indymedia sites around the world. This is the internet media voice of a truly grass-roots global movement to shake free of the shackles of the handful of multinational corporations that now own a lion's share of the world's print and broadcast media.

It is only fitting that your post be read as a reminder of what we are leaving behind forever. You can trust me on this, "intolerant bigots" such as myself find your ilk as amazingly hilarious and anachronistic as you find us. You can also bet that aside from the indy press and maybe one local network affiliate, the national media will broadcast as little about the protests as they broadcast about bushco's taxpayer-subsidized repulican fundraising. This is not because these matters are "dead", irrelevant, or even boring, but rather because it suits the owning interests to present them as such.

World wide "independent" media 22.Jun.2002 18:50

Gan3477

So you have yourselves a little network of "media" centers around the globe. Good for you. Your brothers and sisters of the revolution have had a network going around the world since the late eighteen hundreds. And look around you. Not much has changed has it? No, not a whole lot. You still yell and complain about injustices you never can quite illustrate. You make acusations against people you've never met or talked to, and you take whatever another communist says at face value.
Please, you are independent? How many of you are backed by groups such as Earth Liberation Front, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? How many people that are regulars to this site are Abortion rights activists and volunteers for Green Peace?
Did you know there is billions of dollars to be had in the process of calling someone's land unusable for the sake of a fly, buying it for basically nothing and then selling it to the government for top dollar? Guess who does that? Nearly every major environmental group in the country. Green Peace made millions a couple of years ago touting organic foods, and then filling the demand with their own products in Brazil. And how about the fact that most of the directors of the environmental groups as rich as all the rest of those evil rich people? Most of them make over 100K a year.
No big corporate interests in the left huh? What a bunch of bull. While they use redroods to build wrap-around decks for their 5000 square foot homes in the richest neighborhoods, they have all of you out there wringing your hands and crying about the destruction of the very same tree. You have been so duped.
Did it ever dawn on you that those corporations you decry are made up of people? The people work there of their own free will. Those people usually also are stock holders in their companies, and they vote on what the company does and doesn't do. Where is the all powerful demigod at the helm killing all the bunnies in the forest? Oh that's right, he was kicked off the board of directors because the stock holders didn't like his ethics problems. There's a little lesson in reality, your so-called evil corporations are run by regular people who have kids, who use the parks, and who like trees and clean water just as much as you do. Your so-called heros in the environmental groups are just as good at duping people soley for monitary gain as any of the others.
Get a grip on reality. The world runs on the backs of those corporations you call evil. The luxuries you enjoy, such as a toilet, running water, the internet, electricity, tv, etc. all came from a corporation in the pursuit of profit. If you really hate the corporations and all they stand for, take off all those clothes that were made by a corporation, run off into the wild nude and crap in a hole you dug with your own fingers because that shovel was made by someone wanting money too.

Got any more talking points to share? 22.Jun.2002 21:39

0rganism fuckyou@Gan3477.shill.gop

Nice how your posts are so long on baseless opinions and ad hominem and so very short on verifiable facts. And yet, you want to pretend you're preaching down to us unenlightened liberals, making converts or something. Well, I'll tell you something else: we don't buy your brand of bullshit anymore. Maybe some of us are fooled into funding other forms of bullshit, but at least it's bullshit that gets in the way of your brand of bullshit. And it is so very obviously bullshit.

Example #1: "You make acusations against people you've never met or talked to..." Talk about irony! In the basis of your assault on our collective intelligence, you claimed we have no idea why Cheney is here, yet I just told you exactly why he's here. (Of course, you conveniently dropped that part out of your followup.) What do you really know about us personally? Diddly shit. You probably wouldn't even bother to talk to us if you saw us protesting, except to excoriate us for our opinions just like you're doing here.

Example #2: "...you take whatever another communist says at face value." Although one could infer you think we're communists, you would be hard pressed to point to anything in this thread which is advocating communism. Peaceful demonstrations and protests are hardly the sole domain of the Bolsheviks, and the right to do so is enshrined up-front in the Bill of Rights Dracula Dick and Johnny Asscrack are working so very diligently to demolish.

Example #3: "How many of you are backed by groups such as {the ones my GOP bosses told me to hate}?" You'll never know. Many of us are acting purely from our own consciences, as much as you ever have in your life, and probably moreso. But if it serves your rhetoric to pretend we have affiliations which rob us blind, go right ahead and spout it.

Example #4: "Did you know there is billions of dollars to be had in the process" of lying about environmental groups? It would be so very easy to cite even a single example to illustrate your case, and many more if you really had an honest point to make. Yet all you have is generalizations ("Nearly every environmental group in the country") without any facts to back them up. Go ahead, if you think the story is under-reported in the "liberal" media, write those facts up as an expose', and publish it right here. Publish the name of that environmentalist with the 5000 sq ft home and the wraparound redwood deck. Then call up Rush Limbaugh to tell him you done good.

Example #5: The one verifiable argument you do put forth is part of a total GMF-lobby spin job, almost worthy of a CATO-institute article in itself. Greenpeace fought for over a decade to keep an eye on that GMF crap, and when the USDA issued a reprehensible ruling (on behalf of the Agro lobby) for which foods could use the "USDA Organic" label they were right there with the rest of us "intolerant bigots" trying to get that ruling reversed. As for importing crops grown in Brazil, it's been a huge part of their campaign to give 3rd-world farmers a US import market for organic foods so they don't have to sell out to Monsanto et al.

Example #6: "Those people usually also are stock holders in their companies, and they vote on what the company does and doesn't do." The workers' tiny share in a corporation that substitutes stock for real wages is completely dwarfed by that of the BoD shareholders, even when matters are presented to the shareholding body for decisions. Quite often, the stocks presented as compensation aren't even real stock but rather "stock options," virtual stock which must be redeemed within a certain time limit.

Example #7: "The luxuries you enjoy, such as a toilet, running water, the internet, electricity, tv, etc. all came from a corporation in the pursuit of profit." Ah, the good old "guilt trip the liberal via consumer hypocrisy" trick. How reliable this must be, as reliable as it is misleading. Let's debunk the strawmen one at a time.

* water: Do private companies make the toilets we use? No doubt, but they do not make the water, nor do they make the water run, nor do they make and maintain the sewers. And recent experiments with privatizing natural monopolies such as the water utilities have proven exactly what kind of disaster it is to do so.

* the 'net: Mega-companies once again take advantage of telecom resources and standards developed at the expense of the taxpayer. The internet was used first by DARPA and the DoD, making its way slowly to the consumer market via government-funded university research. The corporations who provide equipment and services for the 'net are selling us products which will only function on our property. Of course they make a profit, this is not in itself a "bad thing," as it makes private sector innovation lucrative while freeing up the government to focus on other matters. The internet is like a bridge or highway built through the labor of thousands and the tax moneys of millions, now used by corporations who no more own it than they own the roads their CEOs drive on to reach their vacation homes.

* electricity: this is a particularly sore subject for Portlanders, as we are currently losing our shirts from the fruits of deregulation. PGE was purchased in 1997 by #1 Bush-supporter Enron, and they have since raped us perhaps more than California, if that is possible. Due to the fact that PGE is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enron, and all its FICA is to be paid through utility rates by contract, and Enron sent the last batch of FICA payments to the Cayman islands, we are about to be double-billed. Don't write to me about the wonders of privatized electricity, you ignorant fool. Ever since T.A. Edison, G. Westinghouse, and J.P. Morgan robbed immigrant Nikola Tesla of the profits from his inventions, the electrical industrialists have proven themselves to be nothing more than uncaring irresponsible profiteers. The fact that we must rely on these con men for our appliances is deplorable, but we have little in the way of alternatives.

* tv: Ever since the demise of the "Fairness Doctrine" and the incredibly destructive deregulation of 1996, we have witnessed a total degeneration of television journalism. It dropped straight from any pretense of ethics through tabloid substandards down to the level of talk radio in 3 short years, to the extent that one can actually watch several hours of the Imus radio show on MSNBC every weekday. The E-M spectrum used by broadcasters is still a public trust, which used to be highly regulated by the FCC, and is now the playground of billionaires with no interest in impartiality.

Example #8: "And look around you. Not much has changed (since the 1800s) has it?" Well you'd be right, except that a lot has changed in this nation. Women can vote, women can choose whether to carry to term, women can (legally, if not practically) expect equal pay for equal work. Blacks and other racial minorities can vote, can share public space with white men, and can expect equal compensation for equal work. Hourly workers can count on a safer workplace, a 40-hour work week is now the standard, and hazardous child labor is no longer common practice. The list goes on and on and on. While our problems are still quite real and pressing, the triumphs of activism in the face of power are legion.

Was this post too long? Too bad. Anyone who has argued evolutionary biology with a creationist knows full well that a lie that takes 10 seconds to tell often takes 10 minutes to debunk. Was it slightly off-topic? Yes.

thanks, Organism 23.Jun.2002 00:39

PDXtran

You tell 'im!

Blasting us for "not knowing why Cheney is here" when HE doesn't know why Cheney is here. Grumble-grumble.

Live or Memorex 23.Jun.2002 00:40

CouldBeAnyone

Thank you Organism for a thorough and complete answer to the Gan3477 bullshit. Well done. See you tomorrow!

Thanks Gan3477 for giving it your best shot. If you can both ingnore all that internal certainty in your head screaming I'M RIGHT and keep an open mind, you may be suprised at what you find here. For national coverage with a slightly more refined edge try www.commondreams.org.

Viva Indy!

Gan3477 You ignorant slut! 23.Jun.2002 08:47

StevetheGreen

The evidence against Cheney is mountainous!
The fact that you as "journalism" major are not even aware of it is very revealing as to your obvious bias as well as your allegiance to the corporate mainstream media and their lies of ommision.

Why Cheney is here is really not important.
He could be here to visit his sick aunt, I could care less.
I'll be dammed if I allow him to believe that he can come to my community without my distain for him and his policies of greed, power, and control to be clearly shown in the streets of my city.

This man represents everything that is wrong with our country.

Apart from the obvious and blantant "conflict of interest" he has as shown by steering our foreign policy to increase his own personal profits and his own personal big oil investments, he has dirty hands with Enron.
Just as it took several months for the mainstream to catch up on the facts about the Bush administraion lieing about the amount of information they had prior to 9/11 (The internet had all that information availble for months before the mainstream media was finally forced to tell the truth)
This too will ultimately be reported by your "credible" mainstream media, it will just take a little longer to force the "powers that be" in the media to stop leaving what they know on the cutting room floor"

These people are professionals whose main directive is "plausible deniability" and distancing themselves from the evil they are so deeply involved in. Our current coporate media will not investigate these matters in any serious way until they can no longer deny the facts.

So take your journalism "ethics" about concrete evidence of criminal wrongdoing over to Fox and tell them all about how fair and balanced you are.

Ignorance?
Yeah Gann! You just gave a text book definition of what word means.

Cheney and environmental drivel 23.Jun.2002 21:07

Gan3477

Yes, I knew exactly why the Vice President was here. I knew where and why he was going to be here weeks ago. I was there. And you protestors proved yourselves to be the intolerant bigots again, "Have a heart attack and go to Hell Cheney!" Such loving individuals you are " fuckyou@gan3477.shill.gop", how creative. Go ahead hit me again with your name calling.

Now, onto the generalities of my comments:
 http://activistcash.com

Read it.

There have been numerous articles by the founders of organizations such as Green Peace who are now speaking out against the organizations they created. Why? Because they see what the rest of us were trying to tell them all along. They now see that it wasn't about saving the environment at all. It is about destabilizing the government, demonizing corporations, telling people that people who own property are only out to destroy the land they own - that's logical. The corporations are attacked even after they become conscious of their faults and fix them. The end justifies the means, no matter who or what the means destroys in the process. And if anyone starts seeing the light, and realizing that what goes on in your little world is just the promotion of bitterness, jealousy and hate, they are demonized and declared the enimy by their former friends. What an all inclusive and welcoming community you have.

Yeah, there is a reason I don't think it would be profitable to talk to you personally - you would listen as attentively to me then as you have to everything else I have said. All that would happen is what happens every other time I try to talk to liberals, they scream in my face irrationally and ignore everything I say. There is no calm discourse, there is no open minded consideration, all that I have learned to expect is beligerence and hate, egregious ignorance of any documented information as "propaganda" as if what you are spouting isn't some form of propaganda. You will believe what you want to believe, and I know that a lot of you will never change. How I know this is by your demonstration of a lack of respect for my rights to say what I want without being slandered. Talk about intolerance, "fuckyou@Gan3477..." and "Gan3477 you ignorant slut" says it all.

Thank you for proving my points about your attitudes and beliefs.

Generalities 23.Jun.2002 21:32

Gan3477

Here's a specific piece of information you more than likely haven't read. If who is saying this doesn't cause you to wonder about GreanPeace and those allied with it, then you have once again proved yourselves to be the close-minded ones.

"I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates... . Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don't care about the truth."
Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder, writing in Canada's National Post (October, 2001)

Here is a link to the full article -
 http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=A5C7A5C1-1AEF-4421-9672-00EF5DE7CE76

I can find all kinds of dirt on your sacred cows, whether you listen to it is up to you.

Gan

Gan3477 aka Gan666 - Spawn of Satan! 23.Jun.2002 23:56

The Holy Roller

To Gan3477

Do you realize you are a bad person? Does this register? I wonder if it's you who reading this post or one of your split-off multi-personalities. What mask do you where when you speak to people you love? Do you feel love?

As I'm writing this I'm feeling angry about the self-serving bullshit your peddling. Are you Rick Berman, an ignorant republican, or just an asshole? whoever you are most systems of ethics are pretty clear on one point; you'll get yours eventually. Slime.

"Now, onto the generalities of my comments:
 http://activistcash.com

Read it."

Activist Cash is an industry front group. You knew that though. It's likely funded by tobacco money. You knew that already too. Funny how someone so smart can be so DUMB. Who do you think you going to fool here at this sight? Our eyes open, we care and we think. What is your motive for this? Money? Ego?

Here's the counter spin for your crappy lead.

 http://www.prwatch.org/improp/ddam.html

So when you get reincarnated Gan3477 (your NEVER going to get it right in this lifetime), what kind of dung beattle do you think you'll return as. I wonder if they'll let Gan the dung beattle into the Dick Cheney convention with all the other shit heads... somehow I doubt it.

Industry 25.Jun.2002 01:00

Gan3477

Okay Mr. Roller,

Thanks for your assumptions. Yes you are correct when I you think that I knew www.activistcash.com is put together by business owners. Why not? The site you cited is a business too, even if it is a nonprofit organization.

And like you the link that you posted has some pretty broad assumptions itself.
"specifically, the tobacco and alcohol lobbies, as well as restaurant chains and taverns that want to keep employee wages low, avoid paying health insurance, and drive up sales of their high-markup products: booze, soda pop, fatty foods and cigarettes."

Yeah, so they might have backing from the tabacco companies and the beer companies. Smoking and drinking are not illegal. But that isn't the problem with this quote. The problem is the blatent attempt to slander the companies as "want[ing] to keep employee wages low, avoid paying health insurance, and drive up sales of their high-markup products..." That statement is an assumption. A pretty stupid one at that. Tell me, how would these companies stay in business if no one was willing to work for them? How would they get people to work for them if they treated their employees like crap, as that quote suggests they do? It doesn't follow logically.

There is a fundamental problem with the anti-business mindset. That is the idea that rich people don't care about their employees or the people they sell their products to. If that was the case, then I would bet anyone money to show me a company that does the things the above quote talks about which is not on its way out of business or is not already dead. The fact of the matter is that businesses have to care about their customers. Their customers are the only reason they are in business to begin with, and the customers are the last word on whether the business will fail or grow. Therefore it is a symbiotic relationship, not a dictatorship. The same thing happens with the employees of those businesses, unless you live in a communist country where the type of work you do, where you work and for what wage is determined when you are still in grade-school. The employees in a free society have the right to quit their job if they find they can get a better one elsehwere, or what the company is doing they find distasteful, or any other reason they want to leave. The company has to satisfy its employees, and compensate them comparably to other companies in the same markets.

But beyond all of that, those CEOs and Chairmen of the board were once gofers on the bottom rung of the ladder themselves. They know what it is to work for their dreams and to climb the walls that stand in the way of their goals. Who better to lead, and who better to help others along than those who have gone before?

And how about those high-priced drinks/tabacco? Is it not the taxes on those items that drive the prices through the roof? How much of the price of a beer is actually going to the company that brewed it? In Oregon at least, I would say the percentage isn't as high as you would like to think in your effort to crucify the Alcohol industry. Kitzhauber, speaking of taxes, recently proposed another 50 cent increase in the tabacco tax. I don't smoke, but that still doesn't make it fair to tax one section of society just because what they do isn't politically correct or popular.

You, of course, will not believe this, but I do have a deep love of people. If I did not care about what people think and believe why would I be saying anything to you or anyone else on this website? I would have taken a glance, laughed and never have visited again. But I do care, and so I do communicate even when it means talking to people who so obviously hate me without cause.

Let it sink in 25.Jun.2002 11:48

Rollers Revenge

*****************************
There is a fundamental problem with the anti-business mindset. That is the idea that rich people don't care about their employees or the people they sell their products to. If that was the case, then I would bet anyone money to show me a company that does the things the above quote talks about which is not on its way out of business or is not already dead.
*****************************

OK. What's the bet? What's the criteria? If you lose you have to nail up 100 protest posters next time Bush comes to town. Still want to bet? Here's a table that might get you thinking. Where did these folks get ALL this money from? Do you think they got it "caring for their customers and employees"? Are they just smart? Who are they out-smarting Gen?

1.7 Richest Individuals and Families in the U.S., 2000
Name Net Worth Source

Walton Family $85 billion Inheritance: Wal-Mart
Bill Gates $63 billion Microsoft Corp.
Larry Ellison $58 billion Oracle Corp.
Paul Allen $36 billion Microsoft
Warren Buffett $28 billion Stock market
Gordon E. Moore $26 billion Intel Corp.
Paul Anschutz $18 billion Qwest Communications
Steve Ballmer $17 billion Microsoft
Michael Dell $16 billion Dell Computers
Sumner Redstone $14 billion Viacom
John Kluge $13 billion Metromedia
Charles Ergen $11 billion Satellite television

Source: Forbes 400 website:
 http://www.forbes.com/400richest/
Data retrieved May 18, 2001. These are rough estimates, and a volatile stock market could mean dramatic changes in rank over time.

Among the industrialized nations, the U.S. has the highest concentration of individual wealth--roughly 3 times that of the No. 2 nation, Germany. (UN Human Development Report, 1998)

Since the mid-1970s, the most fortunate one percent of households have doubled their share of the national wealth. They now hold more wealth than the bottom 95 percent of the population. (Shifting Fortunes)

READ THAT AGAIN Gen, THE TOP 1% HAS MORE THAN THE BOTTOM 95%. Someone got the shaft for this to happen. I think we both know it was not the owners of your benevolent corporations. Maybe it was the bottom 95%. Ya think?

**********************************
You, of course, will not believe this, but I do have a deep love of people. If I did not care about what people think and believe why would I be saying anything to you or anyone else on this website?
**********************************

I believe everyone is capable of love. I also believe we wall ourselves off from emotional response (the holy roller is included in this category) that would be "logical", impartial, appropriate, or natural. In other words we're outraged over the 5000 dead at 911 (we should be) but we rationalize the 5000 children a month who die in Iraq due to the sanctions (we should be ashamed of ourselves!). Real love in my opinion would demand action in both cases. Unfortunately in most cases here in the USA, it does not.

This is why I'm saying your not connected emotionally with the consequences of your statements. I'm going to bet you'll talk about chemical or biological weapons or the axis of evil or something of that nature. It doesn't matter though. If you really want to know where I'm coming from (do you?) try this...

Turn off your monitor, find a pen and paper, and make one dot on the page.... Good!

Now imagine that dot is a child, a child's face. Good! Now kill it. Now make 4,999 dots for the month of June. May as well start on July while your at it, it doesn't look like things will change in time. 10,000 dots. 10,000 kids. Remember to imagine each one dead. No medicine, raw sewage in the street, birth defect from depleted Uranium. 10,000 dead kids. Can you see that? What do you feel now?

What does all this have to do with Tobacco? It's all part of the same network of lies. If you want to see how corporations are part of the story try the book Toxic Sludge is Good for you.

********************************
But I do care, and so I do communicate even when it means talking to people who so obviously hate me without cause.
********************************

You give yourself to much credit. Do your homework and get back to me. And let me know what the bet is going to be. :)

Be good to yourself Gan -

Listen up, progressives, pay attention to Gan 25.Jun.2002 14:46

0rganism fuckyou@gan3477.shill.gop

This thread is not atypical. This thread is not an isolated instance. This thread is not an island unto itself. This is endemic, it is something we have to study and appreciate, because it is vitally important.

I'm no longer surprised at how GOP forum flamers always find a way to whine about their unfair treatment after jumping into the conversation to let loose with a barrage of ad hominem and baseless bullshit. They predicatably complain about how their arguments are ignored and logic cast aside, yet the more their arguments are analyzed with logic and destroyed through evidence the louder and more persistently they complain about unfair and intolerant bigotry. The more civilly the disruptors are addressed, the more venomously the disruptors respond. This is not merely true of Gan3477, it is a pattern which persists from place to place on the numerous forums I frequent.

Notice how Gan3477 fixates obsessively on the emotionally charged e-mail address flame, as if that "says it all", while completely ignoring a substantial rebut of his 2nd post on eight specific points. By dismissing them offhand as "propaganda" he can continue on to the attack; being completely unable to support any of these fallacies, he relies on an ability to spew forth a scattershot stream of insults, lies and GOP-funded agitprop in a vain attempt to poison the well. By ignoring the points on which he has shown egregious deficiencies in his argumentation, and claiming victory where there is none to be had, he simply goes forth with his dismissive attitude amplified tenfold.

This is the "shotgun method" employed by creationist pseudo-scientists in debates with paleontologists and biologists, only the nouns and verbs have changed to indict the liberals. Watch his posts carefully, because these tactics are part&parcel of inserting doubt where there was none, creating ad hoc fictions and passing them off as facts, employing personal attacks in place of sound argument, and conceding every point to win the game. The perceived armor of factual impermeability is an illusion, and it can and should be challenged when possible. Do so, and do so persistently. These rhetorical vampires turn to dust when exposed to sunlight.

Look, for example, at the site he links first. This is an excellent resource for examining techniques of "poisoning the well" and ad hominem tu quoque.

 http://activistcash.com

In fact, I like that site so much, I'm going to do a little well-poisoning of my own. By relying on out-of-context quotations, dubious allegations, industry think tank websites, and Scaife-funded media smears, I have no doubt whatsoever that Gan can and will dig up dirt on whichever activist he cares to. If there is no real dirt to be had, Scaife or an industry-funded think tank will create fake dirt for his use which will stick as easily as real dirt. He still hasn't found that list of properties rendered unusable and acquired cheap for the sake of a fly that were sold back to the government for top dollar by nearly every major environmental group in the country, and my guess is he never will. Why should he back up a farcical accusation like that with evidence, when the simple fact that he's made it at all would ordinarily suffice? A conversation like we see here seldom takes place in the newsmedia, for lack of time between commercials, and one of the major criteria for selecting authoritative commentators is their ability to make cut&run arguments in the space of 3 minutes or less. Truth is inefficient and time consuming, when distortions and spin are equally effective and more easily obtained.

We could take each and every accusation posted at that activistcash site, examine its sourcing, determine the context, discern facts from fictions, but while we do so another site will spring into existence with a whole new set of accusations. We are bailing out a sinking ship with teaspoons and medicine droppers while the hole in the hull gets larger and larger every day. This is the disinformation campaign we're up against, and don't ever forget it.

By way of exit, I have but one request of Gan3477, he can take it or leave it, but I make it with the most polite sincerity I can muster at this time. Provide, please, the link to the actual 2001 CNP article by Patrick Moore where his statements you quote are originally written, rather than a June 2002 article where he defends genetically-modified cotton farming in China. I could maybe poke around in the archives and find it myself, but I want you, Gan, to have this opportunity -- however insignificant -- to prove your own sincerity and dedication to fact-checking. Otherwise, well, I can find insincere GOP spin doctors hurling bullshit just about anywhere, more's the pity, so you certainly won't distinguish yourself that way.

Cheney is gone from our fair city, and this thread will fade away into the bitbucket eventually, but until we learn the lessons herein activists will forever be at a disadvantage arguing with the neocons and their think tanks.

Patrick Moore 2001 26.Jun.2002 14:01

Gan3477

Here is the article by Patrick Moore quoted, you don't even have to click a link... but for authentication purposes here is the link too.

 http://www.bostonherald.com/lifestyle/lifestyle_trends/tree02122001.htm

"Turning over a new leaf: Environmentalist Patrick Moore speaks out in favor of the logging industry
by Stephanie Schorow
Monday, February 12, 2001

Although he sings the praises of the forest, Canadian environmentalist Patrick Moore is not your typical tree hugger.

You want to make the world a greener place? Then buy wood, he says. Encourage logging. Cut down trees.

``This is the correct path. Not: Cut fewer trees, use less wood. But: Grow more trees and use more wood. Increase productivity of land so there's more wood per acre,'' said Moore, a consultant to the Forest Alliance of British Columbia.

For such statements, Moore - a co-founder of the eco-activist group Greenpeace who broke with the organization - has been branded an ``eco-Judas'' by fellow Greenpeace founder Paul Watson.

A grandson of a logger, Moore became an eco-warrior in the 1970s with ``hair out to there.'' But after 15 years in Greenpeace, he tired of its us vs. them dogma and became a forestry consultant; former comrades accuse him of selling out green in the wild for green in the pocket.

Moore fights fire with fire. In a recent appearance at the Northeastern Retail Lumber Association conference, held at Boston's World Trade Center, he lashed out at environmentalists who are ``stuck in the '70s'' and who see forestry as the ``Darth Vader'' of ecology.

``I wanted to be involved in sustainability and solutions,'' he said in an interview.

Moore outlines those solutions in his self-published book ``Green Sprit: Trees are the Answer'' ($15, www.greenspirit.com). He argues that clear cutting and reforestation can be beneficial both for forests and for humans, ``contrary to conventional environmental wisdom.''

Moore's nature-is-powerful message clashes with dire predictions about ``irreversible impact.'' He believes, for example, that if properly managed, logged forests will regenerate, that wood fuel is far better for the environment than fossil fuel, and that the real threat to biological diversity is one-crop agriculture.

``If we eat less meat we would be able to free up vast areas of land that is now being used to produce animals for food and we could grow forests on it,'' he said.

He points at a parking lot abutting Boston Harbor outside the World Trade Center. ``If you took all those cars and drove them into the ocean and left that piece of pavement alone, it would grow back into a forest. Seeds would find their way there. It would take a long time because it's in an isolated location. But the street trees and the weeds would spread seeds in the cracks. Within 50 years, it would be completely green, and within 100 years, turn back into a forest again.''

Indeed, forests have been making a comeback in the Northeast as trees grow back on former farms and logged areas. Tree cover has increased from about 35 percent in 1900 to about 59 percent today, he said.

But many dispute Moore's optimism. Although Christopher Kilian, the Vermont-based natural resources project director for the Conservation Law Foundation, agrees that New England's forests have regrown, he said it's ``ridiculous'' to assert they are the same as they were. ``The forest is a very low-quality transition forest,'' he said. Pollution and soil depletion from erosion also have diminished tree health: ``We could see the demise of sugar maple in a few years.''

Moore insists forestry has changed, that the clear-cut-and-clear-out mentality has been replaced by sophisticated replanting techniques.

Mike Anderson, Seattle-based senior resources analyst for the Wilderness Society, agrees there has been a positive shift in forestry management with the U.S. Forest Service and private companies.

But he distinguished between ``tree farms'' - those with fast-growing species needing pesticides - and a diverse forest. Moore said even a monoculture tree plantation is more diverse than a food-crop farm.

Moore's chief argument, however, is perception vs. reality: ``The clear cut looks ugly but it will soon begin recovery to a healthy, diverse forest ecosystem. The hayfield looks pleasant but it is a deforested area with little diversity and is dominated by exotic species of plants and animals.''

Anderson amplifies this point: ``Some of the top forest ecologists have been promoting what they call `ugly clear cuts.' Leaving some of trees on the ground may look bad but it provides habitat.''

But Kilian uses Moore's image argument against him. Moore's book features a photo of a forest near his Vancouver home to show how, 90 years after clear cutting, it resembles a ``pristine old growth'' forest. Kilian argues that someone walking in the White Mountains will see certainly see trees, but they might not realize how fragile that forest is.

``In New England, we don't have wild rivers, we don't have wild virgin forest, and we have no idea what a wild virgin forest looks like so we don't know what we're looking at,'' he said.

Moore dismisses this as the ``fake forest'' argument.

Anderson does agree conditionally with Moore's contention that buying wood encourages tree planting, adding, ``I would say buy certified wood.''

The international Forest Stewardship Council (www.fscoax.org) has established principles for responsible forestry and has designated organizations that will certify responsibly produced wood. Among them is Vermont-based Smart Wood (www.smartwood.org). Certified wood bears the FSC logo."

There you go. There is the article I was challenged to provide. Now, there are some more arguments that can be made in support of Moore's beliefs as they are stated in this article. Moore contends that cutting down trees makes planting more trees necessary to sustain the amount of wood being used by industry. The process of logging also promotes the health of a forest by getting rid of undergrowth that chokes out trees and makes the forests a fire hazard. Logging provides roads for fire-fighters to get to the fire before it spreads beyond control and destroys people's homes.
There has been a fundamental change in the last 10 years of how we treat federal forrests. There have been hundreds of roads "reclaimed", or rather destroyed, in the name of a pristine forrest. The results can be seen in Colorado and Arizona this year, New Mexico last summer. Without the roads and without the logging the undergrowth provides the fuel necessary to make a fire hot enough to consume the trees of the forrests which are supposedly being protected by environmentalists when they take all human activity out of the picture. But beyond the people, there is the question of the animals in the forrests which are supposedly cherished by environmentalists. The fish in the streams are choked by ash, the bear, deer, and countless other species have lost their habitat and a large number of the experts are saying the fault can be directly attributed to the policies which exclude human activity from the forrests.
Yep those forrests look healthy now don't they?