Hello Roger,
I was aware from your past postings that you are a Coltrane fan. Glad
to hear you are a fan of the Blues also. I have been a regular visitor
to the Chicago Blues festival in the past. Thanks for the invitation.
As far as music festivals go, I prefer the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage
festival to all others. The best experience for any jazz or blues venue
is in a small club, away from the sponsors and endorsements, however.
You mention Mississippi Blues. Junior Kimbrough’s club in Halley (I
think that’s the name[?]), is the closest thing to a Mississippi
Jukejoint that existed up to a few years ago. (Junior has since passed
on and the last, I heard, the place burned down not long ago). I saw
Junior and R.L. Burnside (along with an assorted mix of locals and
relatives) play there a few years ago on a hot summer Mississippi night
and this was probably the closest experience of down home Mississippi
blues that one can find in these modern times. I was even able to
sample some of the local “white lightin’.” What a quality experienced
that existed completely within the biological level. Went straight to
my groin. If you could have seen the local women dancing and how the
musicians stirred up the small crowd, you would know what I mean. It
was an experience that I will never forget. God Damn!
Anyway,
On, Sat Jul 27 2002 - 14:28:39 BST ROG said:
“Why does this make me the obnoxious, insensitive, embarrassing and
egotistical one? Your allegations seem a bit lop-sided.”
“Over time, we have learned that successful free markets require certain
underlying conditions and that they can only be sustained with active
governmental support., free markets are notoriously ineffective at
addressing many social needs. For example, they are bad at managing the
efficient use of common resources or at protecting the environment.”
And:
“You grossly misrepresent my position…I believe the exact opposite of
what you wrote about my views of free markets”
Andy:
However on, Sat Jul 13 2002 - 14:46:36 BST, ROG wrote:
“The problem with free enterprise isn't with free enterprise, it is that
markets aren't actually free enough.”
Andy:
What I wrote on your views of free markets is simply, “This is the
dynamic quality that describes American culture that ROG and PLATT both
wish to attribute solely to 'Free markets' and 'Capitalism.'" I don’t
think it is a mischaracterization to say that you have been a consistent
defender of 'free markets' as practiced and endorsed by America.
Granted, you have been critical of some aspects of these practices and
have pointed to some deficiencies, but you are quick to point out that
nobody has (yet) developed a better system. I merely argued that it was
the negative low quality traits of American style free markets and
capitalism, that led to these positive high quality art forms (jazz and
Blues) and inferred that the exploitation and injustices of American
influence (endorsements of free trade and infliction of military might)
on the rest of the world were responsible for the dynamic quality of
American culture – not the intrinsic dynamic quality of ‘free markets’
as proposed by you.
As far as arrogance that is embarrassing to a lot of Americans, you
might begin by explaining more clearly your remark on:
Sat Jun 29 2002 - 16:35:34 BST, ROG wrote:
“I get a lot of satisfaction at the US's reticence to enter a misguided
international court and a wasteful Kyoto agreement.”
And your seemingly unassailable position on the 'sustainability
question.'
On Mon Jul 22 2002 - 02:40:03 BST, ROG wrote:
“Please no environmental sustainability arguments. I have shown the
inadequacies of that argument a dozen times on this forum..."
And on,
Sun Jun 16 2002 - 23:39:39 BST:
“This unsustainabilty thing is another myth that I have debunked a half
dozen times in this forum. (to clarify -- I argue that modern standard
of living is not only sustainable and self amplifying, but MORE
sustainable than poverty. I DO NOT argue that overpopulation is
sustainable.)”
By which ROG refers to among - other statements,
From, Sat Jun 29 2002 - 16:35:34 BST
"There are ample resources (as long as we stop over-producing people).
The global ecosystem is taxed not by wealth, but by poverty. Wealth and
environmental sustainability are strongly correlated. Granted, current
contributions toward theoretical global warming may be an exception to
this rule, but I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE (Andy's emphasis) that the
solution isn't less growth, it is to invest into different, more
environmentally-sustainable types of energy. Your assumptions are
incorrect, leading you astray..."
And, more conclusively, from Sat Jun 15 2002 - 15:35:54 BST, ROG wrote:
“The truth is that modern wealthy societies -- the ones you seem to
believe the earth can't sustain -- are the ones that are best capable of
sustaining their population in harmony with the earth and her resources.
The data shows that as income/productivity/consumption rises in a
society, that the environment and the environmental sustainability of
the society increases dramatically. The World Bank Environmental
Sustainability Index shows the exact opposite of what people assume. It
is the US, Canada, Germany and the UK that are on the top of the list
and it is the collectivist/totalitarian countries and the emerging
nations that are at the bottom.
I could go on for hours about how the rate of discovery or the pace of
extraction knowledge outpaces the rate of consumption on virtually every
nonrenewable resource. Or how dramatically air and water pollution have
been reduced in modern nations. Or how much better the wealthy nations
are at preserving and protecting and rationing consumption of renewable
resources (forests, fishing populations etc).
The truth is that there is a 5000 year supply of oil (including shale)
based upon known, currently extractable reserves -- more than enough to
last us until we learn to replace current energy processes with cleaner
and even more bountiful sources such as hydrogen.
The truth is that modern, free market economies are much more efficient
and environmentally friendly than collectivist or primitive agrarian
societies
Overall, the accusation that wealth and western levels of productivity
is the predominant strain on the earth is a myth that leads to all the
wrong answers. The real problem is poverty, overpopulation, stupid
exploitation of resources (the tragedy of the commons) and
totalitarianism/collectivism.”
Andy:
Lets get to the source of the arrogance. These are a few examples out
of many of the truly obnoxious and embarrassing attitudes I was
referring to. We can just address the sustainability question. I am
stunned by your assertion and I don’t know where to begin. I might
start by asking for your source for “5000 year supply of oil...based
upon known currently extractable reserves.” I am sorry, Roger, but this
is completely fraudulent. Even with your qualifier “including shale,”
which is beyond current technologies to be a feasible source of
‘energy,’ this is nothing short of a lie. Most estimates for the supply
of oil range from 50 to 200 years and for coal from 500 to 1000 years.
These estimates are for both known and, as yet, UNDISCOVERED reserves.
These estimates are also based on existing rates of use, and NOT
estimated for the contiued growth rates of energy use and economies
(which go hand in hand btw, according to all available statistics). If
we include the growth rates of the wealthy economies, we get an even
more dismal outlook. If we try and bring the rest of the world to par
with our rate of consumption we are in even shorter supply of the
plentiful resources you insist are available. If we begin to address
the dilemmas associated with 'negative externalities' from growing
economies of the wealthy nations the unsustainability of our economies
becomes even more obvious. How do you answer the known statistics for
sources for pollution and consumption of fossil fuels that are the main
byproduct for the World's largest economy? What are the known
substitutes for the limited supply of finite resources such as oil. You
call this ‘debunking’ the sustainability ‘myth?’ I ask for more
conclusive evidence. And please don’t cite free market apologist’s
Julian Simon or Bjorn Lomborg, without presenting the long list of
scientists, economists, environmentalists, and others who have provided
detailed refutations to their arguments. You conveniently (like Simon
and Lomborg) ignore many of the arguments that "sustainabilty" advocates
make.
Finally, on Sat Jul 13 2002 - 19:27:39 BST, ROG wrote:
“I think history shows that the leaders of society (big men, chiefs,
emperors, kings, lords, czars, Fuhrers, vangaurd of the proletariat,
congressmen, etc etc) are the MOST likely sources of exploitation.”
Andy:
I agree. But why not add American Presidents? Vice Presidents?
Secrateries of State...? Or CEO’s of many globally influential
Corporations? These are the modern day “big men,” “chiefs,” “lords,”
“Fuhrers,” and “emporers.” And these are the sources of todays
exploitation of the worlds resources and the growing rates of poverty
and human rights abuses found in the world today. They are also the
"Masters of War" who perpetuate the violence that exist throughout the
world today.
"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace."
Michael Franti
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:29 BST