Good Corporate Citizen (was Interesting law)

B_Thalhammer · October 24, 2005, 5:45pm

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.24.1245 CDT)]

Dick,

Thanks for setting this up; I wanted to reply to you on this in a supportive comment rather than having to make a defensive comment in opposition to those who support "getting the government off the backs of corporations." I would rather see the government take the government off our backs. The Borland case of course, is minor, compared to the misuse of the environment by global agribusiness, energy firms, and mining. But it is part of the same vile mindset, the way that large corporations have undermined local economies, and the way that bigoted religious leaders have recast citizenship and capitalism into an endgame strategy for religious rightists.

Perhaps there is a definition of a Good Corporate Citizen where the resources and customers are not pitted one against the other, where they engage in sustainable growth, are socially responsible, etc. The Good Corporate Citizen is not just a Citizen of this country this continent or even of the world. The Good Corporate Citizen is an equal part of, not the top dog of, our society. Also, the Good Corporate Citizen, now that tools are available to change the environment quickly and with a devastation of a meteor hit, is a Citizen of the World of the Ages. Some pundits may think this is an exaggeration. I ask those persons if they would like to live in a former petrochemical waste dump, cesspool, or sewer. That is what is happening to people living in areas where world citizens have destroyed whatever balance was possible.

That being said, if indeed we have thousands if not millions of years ahead of us, rather than the scant, uncertain few years promised by the Rapture Right, then we had better develop a way to survive with dignity, instead of betting on farming the Amazon, putting oil platforms in the Arctic Ocean, and so on. There are two forks in the road, the short term cowboy myth of fast profits, money-from-nothing, and the Deus ex Machina of the second coming, OR the more likely long term reality of the neeed for planning for sustainable growth, interdependence and cooperation. While this could be misconstrued as some kind of anti-religious comment or something, sorry, no, I simply am using the science of observation that suggests there is no evidence for that kind of short-term thinking and that rather, the evidence lies in favor of long- (really long-) term thinking regarding the care of the planet, each other, and all its inhabitants.

I have a perception, maybe a principle, that says that it is not patriotic to hoard, to take more than you deserve, to take advantage from others, to gather riches depriving them from others. I think that this perception comes from my reading and thinking about the Galillean cynic guy... who was a liberal.

Finally, I am not a historian, economist, or geographer. However, I can tell when history, economics and geographic facts are misused to support a fallacious argument for endless growth and development and to develop arguments for supporting the exploitation of the planet and its inhabitants. With short-term thinking, we will force our children and their children to breath and eat dirt. How is that for throwing dirt around?

Some resources:

Good Corporate Citizens:
http://www.business-ethics.com/100best.htm
<http://www.business-ethics.com/chart_100_best_corporate_citizens_for_2004.htm>

The Metropolist: Good Corporate Citizens Do Exist
<http://cosmopolity.typepad.com/cosmopolity/2004/07/good_corporate_.html>

The Metropolist
<http://cosmopolity.typepad.com/>

Sustainability:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability>

Tragedy of the Commons - Hardin:
<http://www.constitution.org/cmt/tragcomm.htm>

Sustainable Products:
<http://www.sustainableproducts.com/>

First Sustainable
<http://www.firstsustainable.com/>

An interesting deconstruction of the discovery, settlement, and development of the Americas:
Mann, Charles C. (2005). 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. Knopf. ISBN: 140004006X.
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140004006X/103-1271730-4399049?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance>

--Bry

···

[Dick Robertson, 2005.10.24.1020CDT]
Kenny,

I appreciate that you went into some detail to give me your views on this issue of the responsibility of manufacturers to their customers, and why we "little people" end up taking abuse from them, in the short run. I hope that PCT minded people (especially) will come up with new and creative ways to exercise more influence.

Best,

Dick R

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.22.1935EDT
...
Throwing dirt seems like a waste of time to me. But, it feels good in a sense, I suppose.

Bozo_the_Clown · October 24, 2005, 8:31pm

From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.24.1626)

Bryan, what does any of this have to do with PCT, and do you believe this view represents what “PCT minded” people do, or should think?

If so, what is it about PCT that suggests to you we should all have the same goals and see things the same way?

Regards,

Marc

In a message dated 10/24/2005 1:46:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

···

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.24.1245 CDT)]

Dick,

Thanks for setting this up; I wanted to reply to you on this in a
supportive comment rather than having to make a defensive comment
in opposition to those who support “getting the government off
the backs of corporations.” I would rather see the government
take the government off our backs. The Borland case of
course, is minor, compared to the misuse of the environment by
global agribusiness, energy firms, and mining. But it is part of
the same vile mindset, the way that large corporations have
undermined local economies, and the way that bigoted religious
leaders have recast citizenship and capitalism into an endgame
strategy for religious rightists.

Perhaps there is a definition of a Good Corporate Citizen where
the resources and customers are not pitted one against the other,
where they engage in sustainable growth, are socially
responsible, etc. The Good Corporate Citizen is not just a
Citizen of this country this continent or even of the world. The
Good Corporate Citizen is an equal part of, not the top dog of,
our society. Also, the Good Corporate Citizen, now that tools are
available to change the environment quickly and with a
devastation of a meteor hit, is a Citizen of the World of the
Ages. Some pundits may think this is an exaggeration. I ask those
persons if they would like to live in a former petrochemical
waste dump, cesspool, or sewer. That is what is happening to
people living in areas where world citizens have destroyed
whatever balance was possible.

That being said, if indeed we have thousands if not millions of
years ahead of us, rather than the scant, uncertain few years
promised by the Rapture Right, then we had better develop a way
to survive with dignity, instead of betting on farming the
Amazon, putting oil platforms in the Arctic Ocean, and so on.
There are two forks in the road, the short term cowboy myth of
fast profits, money-from-nothing, and the Deus ex Machina of the
second coming, OR the more likely long term reality of the neeed
for planning for sustainable growth, interdependence and
cooperation. While this could be misconstrued as some kind of
anti-religious comment or something, sorry, no, I simply am using
the science of observation that suggests there is no evidence for
that kind of short-term thinking and that rather, the evidence
lies in favor of long- (really long-) term thinking regarding the
care of the planet, each other, and all its inhabitants.

I have a perception, maybe a principle, that says that it is not
patriotic to hoard, to take more than you deserve, to take
advantage from others, to gather riches depriving them from
others. I think that this perception comes from my reading and
thinking about the Galillean cynic guy… who was a liberal.

Finally, I am not a historian, economist, or geographer. However,
I can tell when history, economics and geographic facts are
misused to support a fallacious argument for endless growth and
development and to develop arguments for supporting the
exploitation of the planet and its inhabitants. With short-term
thinking, we will force our children and their children to breath
and eat dirt. How is that for throwing dirt around?

Some resources:

Good Corporate Citizens:
http://www.business-ethics.com/100best.htm
http://www.business-ethics.com/chart_100_best_corporate_citizens_for_2004.htm

The Metropolist: Good Corporate Citizens Do Exist
http://cosmopolity.typepad.com/cosmopolity/2004/07/good_corporate_.html

The Metropolist
http://cosmopolity.typepad.com/

Sustainability:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability

Tragedy of the Commons - Hardin:
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/tragcomm.htm

Sustainable Products:
http://www.sustainableproducts.com/

First Sustainable
http://www.firstsustainable.com/

An interesting deconstruction of the discovery, settlement, and
development of the Americas:
Mann, Charles C. (2005). 1491: New Revelations of the Americas
Before Columbus. Knopf. ISBN: 140004006X.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140004006X/103-1271730-4399049?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance

–Bry

[Dick Robertson, 2005.10.24.1020CDT]
Kenny,

I appreciate that you went into some detail to give me your views on
this issue of the responsibility of manufacturers to their customers,
and why we “little people” end up taking abuse from them, in the short
run. I hope that PCT minded people (especially) will come up with new
and creative ways to exercise more influence.

Best,

Dick R

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.22.1935EDT
…
Throwing dirt seems like a waste of time to me. But, it feels good in
a sense, I suppose.

BJORN_SIMONSEN · October 25, 2005, 10:37am

[From Bjorn
Simonsen (2005.10.25,12:45 EuST)]

I thought
you were in a dialogue with Dick, but if you pardon me I come with a comment.

From
Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.24.1245 CDT)

I
have a perception, maybe a principle, that says that it is not

patriotic
to hoard, to take more than you deserve, to take

advantage
from others, to gather riches depriving them from

others.
I think that this perception comes from my reading and

thinking
about the Galillean cynic guy… who was a liberal.

I think it’s
a nice principle. I also think many people will have you as a friend.

From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.24.1626)

Bryan, what does any of this have to do
with PCT, ….?

If so, what is it about PCT that suggests
to you we should all

have the same goals and see things the same way?

I think PCT has to do with all behavior. But neither
PCT nor Bryan suggests all people should have the same goal.

Let me explain what PCT has to do with Bryan’s
principles.

PCT tells us that we control our perceptions.
This control is influenced by disturbances from our environments. We don’t
perceive our environments. We perceive our perceptions.

Nobody is able to tell us objectively (what
everybody will support) what the extern world is. When we do that, we tell our stories about the extern world.

PCT tells us that there is something out
there, something we don’t know exactly.

If everybody knew PCT and this story from PCT,
it is adjacent for me to tell the following story.

I perceive the world as I do. Other people
(if they exist) perceive the world as they do. If I plead that I will perceive
what I perceive I also think it is correct that other people should plead that
they should perceive what they wish to perceive. Nothing in the extern world is correct or wrong for all people.

For people to live together, it is an
advantage that they agree to not wish to perceive the extern world in a
different way.

Many people join common groups and it is best
for them that they don’t wish to perceive the extern world in a different way.

Sometimes two or more groups will gather in
one group. In principle they often have a conflict. PCT tells them how to try
to solve the conflict. MOL and Reorganizing are central themes.

Of course, this is not always done formally.
Most often people grow up in a country or continent and they wish to perceive
the world as national laws ask them to wish. Somebody, most of us, I think, do
that. If somebody don’t do that I think it is worst for them.

I don’t think it is favorable to talk disparaging
about the extern world. Remember there is an extern world but nobody are able
to describe it. When we do that we tell our stories about the extern world, we
tell what we perceive and experience. If those stories are disparaging, nobody
really knows that the extern world hear what we say. We are the one who suffer.
This is absolute true, because we are the on who perceive.

Bjorn

···

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · October 26, 2005, 2:55pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26)]

I want the government off my back, or do you disagree? If I run a corporation responsibly, I want the government off its back too. Or, do you disagree?

What’s the smile for? Could you give me an example of what you want to see the government do?

<The Borland case of

course, is minor, compared to the misuse of the environment by
global agribusiness, energy firms, and mining. But it is part of
the same vile mindset, the way that large corporations have
undermined local economies, and the way that bigoted religious
leaders have recast citizenship and capitalism into an endgame
strategy for religious rightists.>

How many (fraction) of these abusive businesses are run by what you call “religious rightists?” Do you have any facts? Assuming there are some, is their religious affections the sole cause of the misuse you proclaim, or might other variables or affections contribute just as much to their misdeeds?

Unfortunately, you seem not to be aware of such things as the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, conferred on “Good Corporate Citizens” by the President and defined far better and measured factually with data than anything you have offered. Two companies who were employers or clients of mine have won the award. Have you studied their behavior regarding the environment? Do you have any ideas about what the goals of a Good Corporation are in addition to that of the physical environment they operate in? Do they matter and what comes first in importance?

<Also, the Good Corporate Citizen, now that tools are
available to change the environment quickly and with a
devastation of a meteor hit, is a Citizen of the World of the
Ages. Some pundits may think this is an exaggeration. I ask those
persons if they would like to live in a former petrochemical
waste dump, cesspool, or sewer. That is what is happening to
people living in areas where world citizens have destroyed
whatever balance was possible.>

I have been to areas of the world that are cesspools. How about Palestine? How about Cuba? How about India? How about rural areas of China? They are not caused by corporate misdeeds, are they? What in the world are you talking about? And, I guess that you think “sustainability” has something directly to do with HPCT? I think our China hosts for the 2006 CSG Conference do and have expressed some interesting views at prior conferences. Would you mind expanding on its relevance? Will you be attending that conference? It might be very beneficial for all concerned.

B_Thalhammer · October 26, 2005, 4:34pm

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.1135 CDT)]

Kenny,

I appreciate your perspective and I hope that you appreciate the frustration one feels in reading your straw man.

There are a lot of things you wrote, but I will just deal with the statement "getting the government off the backs...". It is not a rigorous paper, and I am sure there are some inconsistencies, but the theme should be pretty plain. I think however, the most I want from this government is to get off my back when it comes to private matters of citizens and residents. Homeland Security and Constitutional Marriage Amendments.... I don't think that My Constitution authorized the rule of bigoted theocrats. My perception is that the thought police are in their nacent stages. But if we don't align our perceptions, acting to oppose them, welcome to the Department of Thought Police. My behavior here is to push back against that dystopic future (I guess I have a high gain for errors in these perceptions).

The delusion we are dealing with is that government is perceived *only* as something that gets in the way of business. If a business pollutes, if a business takes unfair advantage, then the absent government (still in their seats but sitting on their thumbs) is on my back. Well, this government is on my back, polluting my environment and giving unfair advantage to entities that pollute my environment (pollution is more than dioxin or some such...)

I want the government out of my library, out of my bedroom, and out of my decision not to believe in a trumped up diety ("...one nation - indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I want the government off my back when it has its hands in the pockets of large conglomerates. I want the government off my back when the pentagon and homeland security award no-bid contracts for more than one year to a suspiciously-connected large firm. I want the government off the backs of the people when they appoint insiders, cronies, and incompetents in important roles such as associate justices, homeland security chiefs, education, etc. etc. I dont have the time to research.

I want the government off the backs of the people when they permit entities like ENRON, ExxonMobile, BP, Com Ed, Con Ed, to make incredible profits at times when the country faces disaster. I want the government off the backs of the people when they permit energy czars make backroom deals that allow companies to shut off the heat, gas and electric of those who are destitute. Or do these people somehow deserve their fate?

I want the government off the backs of the military, sending them unarmed, unprepared, with the army that Rumsfeld thinks is enough. 300k was recommended, but 140k was what they had. Now, it's 2001 military people on whose backs a corrupt administration has "put" the government. And many more with amputations and serious wounds, physical, mental, and emotional. Not to mention the 100k dead in the region. Not that getting rid of a dictator was bad, or that it should not have been done, but I think most professionals know the difference between "goal" and "execution."

I want the government off the backs of the people in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Puerto Rico, etc. when they appoint an unprepared cronie to take over FEMA. I want the government off the backs of the people when they appoint a secretary of Homeland Security with no experience in the matter. I want the government off the backs of the poor when they are told by Denny Hastert that their houses will undoubtedly be bulldozed, as they are sitting in the Astrodome wondering what the heck they are gonna do next. (They must deserve their fate, eh?)

I want the government off the backs of women who have been prevailed on by the likes of Frist, DeLay, etc., etc. when they describe them as pro-abortion, and make medical diagnoses via redacted video of the flailing movements of a poor unfortunate.

I want the government off the backs of the Native Americans when they let a slimeball such as Abramoff take their money. I would have wanted the government off the backs of the Haudensaunee when they stole lands guaranteed by treaties, but now I want the government off my back by retiring "Chief Illinwek" as the U. of I. "mascot."

There are really many sides to your your one-sided straw man that you propose.

Yes I am smiling because I am waiting for Fitzmas, when 1-5 "points of light" of the current government are taken off the people's backs. My perception--and this is a PCT forbut I think we are digressing somewhat--is that the government has been hijacked by neocons allied with religious conservatives to destroy the constitutional freedoms our country was founded on. This is a disturbance to the perceptual cluster that Bill, Rick, Dick, myself and Bjorn seem to aligned on.

Now, let me again remind the reader that this is not a rigourous paper, but I hope that the theme holds together.

Peace through analogous reorganization.

--Bry

···

[Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26)]
...I want the government off my back, or do you disagree? If I run a corporation responsibly, I want the government off its back too. Or, do you disagree?
<I would rather see the government
take the government off our backs. ;-)>
What's the smile for? Could you give me an example of what you want to see the government do?

Bozo_the_Clown · October 26, 2005, 4:57pm

In a message dated 10/26/2005 12:38:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.1135 CDT)]

Kenny,

I appreciate your perspective and I hope that you appreciate the
frustration one feels in reading your straw man.

There are a lot of things you wrote, but I will just deal with
the statement “getting the government off the backs…”.
Why not just stick with showing where and what you perceive to be a ‘strawman’ in Ken’s questions and statements?

Looks like you are the one tossing in the strawman and one carrying a red herring to boot.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · October 26, 2005, 5:14pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.1300EDT)]

You sound very frustrated. It looks like a rant. But, when you perceive a straw man, do you counter him with another straw man?

I am not frustrated any longer with either government or religions. I gave up trying to control them and reorganized. It works for me and my frustration is very low. I am reasonably free from stress and rather enjoy life.

But, if you insist on ranting and not giving it up like me, here is my suggestion. You have all the makings of a campaign platform there Bry. It is pretty plain what you don’t like about government. So, run for Mayor or Govenor or President and carry through your desires if elected—change it; just do it as someone said. Beats ranting about it, eh?

Unfortunately, the majority of American citizens, or voters, don’t seem to agree with your desires or what to do about obtaining them. They elected Bush II. Pity that. It’s too late to do much about it. But, perhaps you are better and stronger and more convincing than fellows like Gore or Kerry? I suspect the worm will turn, even in the next election. Be ready to run. And, guess what? You’ll get no rants from me.

I am smiling too. I stopped celebrating Christmas (I assume that is what you call Fitzmas?) a decade ago. It is quite a farce, probably something the religious right thought up. 8-))

Well, I rather peceive government has gotten way too big, regardless of who the hijacker is. And, I will humbly point out that it was the writers of this nation’s constitution who wrote that, “One nation, under God,” clause that you now seem to scorn.

It may be, in whole or in part, but why not let them speak for themselves? I have.

Best wishes to all PCTers.

Kenny

Richard_Marken2 · October 26, 2005, 6:08pm

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.26.1110)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26) to Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.24.1245 CDT)

I want the government off my back, or do you disagree?

I don't know what you mean by "wanting government off your back". Do you
want the government off just your back or would you also like it off the
backs of some of those mentioned by Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.1135 CDT)?
Do you want it off the back of only those who behave properly (like those
good corporations you mention) or do you want if off of everyone's back?

Regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

B_Thalhammer · October 26, 2005, 6:14pm

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.1315)]

Kenny,

Nope! Ha ha, tone is hard to determine in an email, wrong guess! I am happy! Peace to you, but this is not a rant, just a rebalancing, redistributing, deconstruction, reconstruction, and explication of the phrase "get the government off my/their back(s)..." But it would not be in alignment with PCT or even charitable of you to say that what I was doing was "ranting" because you might indeed be wrong! As I wrote it , I was listening to a wonderful set of Brahm's chamber works you ought to get (You can hear Stern so clearly there):

<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000002708/103-1271730-4399049?v=glance>
w/ Emanuel Ax, Jaime Laredo, Yo-Yo Ma, Isaac Stern
Piano Quartet No. 1 in G minor, Op. 25
Piano Quartet No. 3 in C minor ("Werther"), Op. 60
Piano Quartet No. 2 in A major, Op. 26

Ah but now, I am listening to the second cut on Green Day's new CD:
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002OERI0/qid=1130347660/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/103-1271730-4399049?v=glance&s=music>

[Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.1300EDT)]
<Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.1135 CDT)>
<I appreciate your perspective and I hope that you appreciate the
frustration one feels in reading your straw man.>
You sound very frustrated. It looks like a rant. But, when you perceive a straw man, do you counter him with another straw man?
I am not frustrated any longer with either government or religions. I gave up trying to control them and reorganized. It works for me and my frustration is very low. I am reasonably free from stress and rather enjoy life.
<There are a lot of things you wrote, but I will just deal with
the statement "getting the government off the backs...". It is
not a rigorous paper, and I am sure there are some
inconsistencies, but the theme should be pretty plain.>
But, if you insist on ranting and not giving it up like me, here is my suggestion. You have all the makings of a campaign platform there Bry. It is pretty plain what you don't like about government. So, run for Mayor or Govenor or President and carry through your desires if elected---change it; just do it as someone said. Beats ranting about it, eh?

Not a rant, explication.

Unfortunately, the majority of American citizens, or voters, don't seem to agree with your desires or what to do about obtaining them. They elected Bush II.

In the first election, the majority of Americans (whose votes were counted) DID vote for Gore, but it was the electoral college and the Supremes who voted for Bush Deuce. In the second election you mention, there was the distinct possibility that there were election irregularities that were swept under the rug.

It was after that second election that I reorganized, and I feel better now, too.

Pity that. It's too late to do much about it. But,

perhaps you are better and stronger and more convincing than fellows like Gore or Kerry? I suspect the worm will turn, even in the next election. Be ready to run. And, guess what? You'll get no rants from me.

Run from whom? But I am only explicating the "get the government off my/our back(s)..." phrase...

<Yes I am smiling because I am waiting for Fitzmas, when 1-5
"points of light" of the current government are taken off the
people's backs.>
I am smiling too. I stopped celebrating Christmas (I assume that is what you call Fitzmas?) a decade ago. It is quite a farce, probably something the religious right thought up. 8-))

Fitzmas may be coming in a couple of days. Although it is probably wrong of me to engage in "schadenfreude," which is a sin I will have to be sorry for in a couple of days.

...And, I will humbly point out that it was the
writers of this nation's constitution who wrote that, "One nation, under God," clause that you now seem to scorn.

I scorn not the phrase but the religious conservative hijackers who attempt to one word beyond its original use. The Framers had nothing to do with "one nation, under God". Better read the U.S. Constitution, Ok, Kenny? <-- see, smiling.

<http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html>

"God" is not in the U.S. Constitution (do a search!), and it appears in the Declaration of Independence only once, but strangely as a possessed aspect of Nature: "...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..." True, this phrase might give you some traction: "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." But then it is the Happiness right that such a diety grants us, and it is Happiness that theocratic hijackers of the Declaration and Constitution are taking away from us, so go figure.

Declaration of Independence:
<http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html>

Bill of Rights Original 12?
<http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/text.html>

No "god" or "creator". Just people. Sorry.

Amendments to the Constitution?
<http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html>

No. No "god" no "creator" no "jesus" no nothing. Sorry.

I was talking about the Pledge to the Flag, which is not in the Constitution, and was written after the Framers were dead for decades.

The Pledge of Allegiance, A Short History, by Dr. John W. Baer
<http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm>

On that site I found two interesting tidbits:

"In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer."

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with *equality*, liberty and justice for all."

<This is a disturbance to the perceptual cluster that Bill, Rick,
Dick, myself and Bjorn seem to [be] aligned on.>
It may be, in whole or in part, but why not let them speak for themselves? I have.

The operative word was "seem" and I just now put in [be]. You stand corrected.

--B.

···

Best wishes to all PCTers.
Kenny

B_Thalhammer · October 26, 2005, 6:29pm

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.1200 CDT)]

Bjorn,

Not a problem, really, I posted on the net, so you are welcome to jump in. I guess where I would not welcome a contribution is where it is accompanied by unprofessional, foul-mouthed posts.

In the States, these principles have been trashed by our Neocon theocracy who replace it with the notion that suggests that financial success is a blessing from the diety. I don't subscribe to that, fortunately. Therefore I see corporations or small business people as Corporate Citizens, Good, Bad or somewhere in between. But I also value the words of a certain Gallilean cynic guy who never wrote a word down, but is credited with the idea of "blessed be the poor, and blessed be the children (e.g., the poor sods, the ones almost sleeping on the street and all that...).

I call this a perceptional cluster, but you know, the theory doesn't specifically mention clusters. But in my cluster of perceptions I control principles about equality, secular governments and views of the "Commons" that seem to be disturbances to those who would wish the government would be off the backs of corporations, but not the people.

I think that speaking of perceptions is part of a PCT forum, so that while I have hardly a fingerhold on the math associated with PCT, or the ability to discuss physiological phenomena, the act of controlling perceptions and the implications of doing that within a group is something I DO understand and can speak on. I suppose my next reading will be Tim's MOL book.

Yes it started with someone concerned how corporations "get away" from their responsibilities as Good Corporate Citizens. I suppose that if one or two did this, it would not hurt much. But the fallacy is that each and every business person thinks he or she can do the same thing unfettered and unconnected with the rest of the world. Whether Hardin's (Tragedy of the Commons) metrics are on or off the theme is well-demonstrated in the Amazon, in regions of Africa, in the Oceans of the world where no government can get on the back of entrepreneurs. It is happening in the Mississippi, in New Orleans, in the wetlands, in the prairies, in the deserts, and in the diminishing ice of the Artic Ocean. So, where is Hardin wrong?

It is connected with the zero-sum game that was discussed, too, where there is an assumed increase of value or wealth. How is that the case? Is that not inflation? Is that not a ruse? Would an increase of $$$ from a resource not lead to a decrease in the value on other metrics? So, to me, increasing value is not totally clear. But heck, I am not an economist, and I might be missing something.

Cheers,

--Bry

···

[Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.25,12:45 EuST)]

I thought you were in a dialogue with Dick, but if you pardon me I come with a comment.

>From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.24.1245 CDT)
>I have a perception, maybe a principle, that says that it is not
>patriotic to hoard, to take more than you deserve, to take
>advantage from others, to gather riches depriving them from
>others. I think that this perception comes from my reading and
>thinking about the Galillean cynic guy... who was a liberal.

I think it�s a nice principle. I also think many people will have you as a friend.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · October 26, 2005, 6:31pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.1310EST)]

I meant me, personally. And my sole proprietor business too, I suppose.

As far as businesses, I think there is way too much federal government. But, I recognize some legitimate roles. If a plant is polluting, the local sheriff paying a visit should take care of it. I have not ever met a CEO that when the sheriff says stop emptying your waste in our river or I’m taking you to jail will not stop. Or, do you disagree that this would work 99% of the time.

I did not try to respond to Bry’s examples as he did not respond to mine.

I think companies should be innocent until proven guilty. IOW, if you are not running a plant or facility that has ever had a pollution complaint, it should not have to fill out a single form or report.

In trying to go after the bad guys, whether criminals, businesses or travelors, they inconvience the good guys. Do you know what value this government and this country has gotten out of the efforts to inspect my baggage at the airports? It is all a waste hampering people who cause no problem.

Am I more clear, here?

Bozo_the_Clown · October 26, 2005, 6:35pm

From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.26.1429)]

What an extraordinary thread from the two CSGnet ‘gatekeepers’ on manners and etiquette.

Gentlemen, is this your idea of a ‘non-childish’, ‘professional’ discussion?

Shame, shame. What are the Chinese going to think?

Please, in the future, as they say, “put a lid on it.”

In a message dated 10/26/2005 2:25:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

···

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.1315)]
Kenny,
Nope! Ha ha, tone is hard to determine in an email, wrong
guess! I am happy! Peace to you, but this is not a rant, just a
rebalancing, redistributing, deconstruction, reconstruction, and
explication of the phrase “get the government off my/their
back(s)…” But it would not be in alignment with PCT or even
charitable of you to say that what I was doing was “ranting”
because you might indeed be wrong! As I wrote it , I was
listening to a wonderful set of Brahm’s chamber works you ought
to get (You can hear Stern so clearly there):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000002708/103-1271730-4399049?v=glance
w/ Emanuel Ax, Jaime Laredo, Yo-Yo Ma, Isaac Stern
Piano Quartet No. 1 in G minor, Op. 25
Piano Quartet No. 3 in C minor (“Werther”), Op. 60
Piano Quartet No. 2 in A major, Op. 26
Ah but now, I am listening to the second cut on Green Day’s new CD:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002OERI0/qid=1130347660/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/103-1271730-4399049?v=glance&s=music

[Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.1300EDT)]

<Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.1135 CDT)>

_ > frustration one feels in reading your straw man.>

You sound very frustrated. It looks like a rant. But, when you
perceive a straw man, do you counter him with another straw man?

I am not frustrated any longer with either government or religions. I
gave up trying to control them and reorganized. It works for me and my
frustration is very low. I am reasonably free from stress and rather
enjoy life.

<There are a lot of things you wrote, but I will just deal with
the statement “getting the government off the backs…”. It is
not a rigorous paper, and I am sure there are some
inconsistencies, but the theme should be pretty plain.>

But, if you insist on ranting and not giving it up like me, here is my
suggestion. You have all the makings of a campaign platform there Bry.
It is pretty plain what you don’t like about government. So, run for
Mayor or Govenor or President and carry through your desires if
elected—change it; just do it as someone said. Beats ranting about
it, eh?
Not a rant, explication.
Unfortunately, the majority of American citizens, or voters, don’t seem
to agree with your desires or what to do about obtaining them. They
elected Bush II.
In the first election, the majority of Americans (whose votes
were counted) DID vote for Gore, but it was the electoral college
and the Supremes who voted for Bush Deuce. In the second election
you mention, there was the distinct possibility that there were
election irregularities that were swept under the rug.
It was after that second election that I reorganized, and I feel
better now, too.
Pity that. It’s too late to do much about it. But,
perhaps you are better and stronger and more convincing than fellows
like Gore or Kerry? I suspect the worm will turn, even in the next
election. Be ready to run. And, guess what? You’ll get no rants from me.
Run from whom? But I am only explicating the “get the government
off my/our back(s)…” phrase…
<Yes I am smiling because I am waiting for Fitzmas, when 1-5
“points of light” of the current government are taken off the
people’s backs.>

I am smiling too. I stopped celebrating Christmas (I assume that is
what you call Fitzmas?) a decade ago. It is quite a farce, probably
something the religious right thought up. 8-))
Fitzmas may be coming in a couple of days. Although it is
probably wrong of me to engage in “schadenfreude,” which is a sin
I will have to be sorry for in a couple of days.
…And, I will humbly point out that it was the
writers of this nation’s constitution who wrote that, “One nation, under
God,” clause that you now seem to scorn.
I scorn not the phrase but the religious conservative hijackers
who attempt to one word beyond its original use. The Framers had
nothing to do with “one nation, under God”. Better read the U.S.
Constitution, Ok, Kenny? ← see, smiling.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
“God” is not in the U.S. Constitution (do a search!), and it
appears in the Declaration of Independence only once, but
strangely as a possessed aspect of Nature: “…the Laws of Nature
and of Nature’s God entitle them…” True, this phrase might give
you some traction: “…endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.” But then it is the Happiness right that
such a diety grants us, and it is Happiness that theocratic
hijackers of the Declaration and Constitution are taking away
from us, so go figure.
Declaration of Independence:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
Bill of Rights Original 12?
http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/text.html
No “god” or “creator”. Just people. Sorry.
Amendments to the Constitution?
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
No. No “god” no “creator” no “jesus” no nothing. Sorry.
I was talking about the Pledge to the Flag, which is not in the
Constitution, and was written after the Framers were dead for
decades.
The Pledge of Allegiance, A Short History, by Dr. John W. Baer
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
On that site I found two interesting tidbits:
“In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus,
added the words, ‘under God,’ to the Pledge. The Pledge was now
both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.”
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it
stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and
justice for all.”
<This is a disturbance to the perceptual cluster that Bill, Rick,
Dick, myself and Bjorn seem to [be] aligned on.>

It may be, in whole or in part, but why not let them speak for
themselves? I have.
The operative word was “seem” and I just now put in [be]. You
stand corrected.
–B.
Best wishes to all PCTers.

Kenny_

Richard_Marken2 · October 26, 2005, 6:37pm

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.26.1140)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.1300EDT)

Unfortunately, the majority of American citizens, or voters, don't seem to
agree with your desires or what to do about obtaining them. They elected Bush
II. Pity that.

Indeed. The problem of course is that we are all in this together. So as
Bush II proceeds to ruin the country at the behest of the slight majority
that elected him, he is making life more miserable for most of those who
voted for him as well as for most of us who didn't. It's one of the
downsides of democracy, though I still think democracy is the best way to go
by far.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

B_Thalhammer · October 26, 2005, 6:58pm

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.1350 CDT)]

I repost this and all its warts, along with convenient citations, especially for Kenny:

<http://www.constitution.org/cmt/tragcomm.htm>
<http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html>
<http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/text.html>
<http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html>

"...how corporations "get away" from their responsibilities of being Good Corporate Citizens. I suppose that if one or two did this, it would not hurt much. But the fallacy is that each and every business person thinks he or she can do the same thing unfettered and unconnected with the rest of the world. Whether Hardin's (Tragedy of the Commons) metrics are on or off, its theme is well-demonstrated in the Amazon, in regions of Africa, in the Oceans of the world where no government can get on the back of entrepreneurs. It is happening in the Mississippi, in New Orleans, in the wetlands, in the prairies, in the deserts, and in the diminishing ice of the Artic Ocean. So, where is Hardin wrong?..."

--B.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · October 26, 2005, 7:05pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.1340)]

It looked like ranting to me. If I was wrong, I apologize. I would leave it for others to decide if your “paper” was a rant, a complaint, an observation, a critique or a kindly statement of how to make government better.

BTW, when you made all your assumptions about my one word answer to Dick, “Reorganize” and what it meant or why I made it, what was that all about?

Kenny said:

<*Pity that. It’s too late to do much about it. But,

perhaps you are better and stronger and more convincing than fellows
like Gore or Kerry? I suspect the worm will turn, even in the next
election. Be ready to run. And, guess what? You’ll get no rants from me.
<Run from whom? But I am only explicating the “get the government
off my/our back(s)…” phrase… :)>*

I meant run for office Bry so you can act and change and not just esplicate.

My recollection is that the writer of “One nation, under God” was one of the men who wrote the Constitution. I did not say those words were in the Constitution. Do you read what I write? Do you know the answer? I’ll believe you and correct my statement if it is wrong.

Anyway, when you see the words that are in the Declaration, “one nation under God” and then see in the Constitution that “all men are endowed by their Creator” that the the founding fathers were takin about monkeys or particles or nature?

You are right about the Pledge though, I have no problem leaving under God out. It certainly is not true in 2005 anyway. I suppose it offends you too when our money says “In God we Trust.” That darn neocon Bush II, he probably was behind that one too.

Bry said:

*> <This is a disturbance to the perceptual cluster that Bill, Rick,

Dick, myself and Bjorn seem to [be] aligned on.>

Kenny said:

*> It may be, in whole or in part, but why not let them speak for

themselves? I have.*Bry said:

The operative word was “seem” and I just now put in [be]. You
stand corrected.
–B.

I still think Bill, Rick, Dick and Bjorn would rather speak for themselves than have you charaterize how their views seem to be like yours. They are autonomous control systems ain’t they? And, they speak quite well and almost alway professionally.

Enjoy your CDs. I feel pretty good today too.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · October 26, 2005, 7:15pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.1500 EDT)]

Thanks for the Civics references. If I was 10% as much interested in that today as you are, I would take the time to use them.

<"…how corporations “get away” from their responsibilities of
being Good Corporate Citizens. I suppose that if one or two did
this, it would not hurt much. But the fallacy is that each and
every business person thinks he or she can do the same thing
unfettered and unconnected with the rest of the world.

That kind of generalization won’t help your cause with me. There are way more than one or two, I can even testify to at least six myself.

Don’t know and don’t much care. People, all of em, you and me included, are real terds at heart. It’s their PCT nature. I don’t need his book to figure that one out.

Richard_Marken2 · October 26, 2005, 7:19pm

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.26.1220)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.1315) to Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.1300EDT)

But it would not be in alignment with PCT or even charitable of you to
say that what I was doing was "ranting" because you might indeed be
wrong!

I don't know about "alignment with PCT" but I definitely agree that this
kind of thing (calling a post a "rant" or "insulting" or whatever) is quite
uncharitable. I know because I've been subjected to it myself. But I don't
think there is anything we can do about it, short of moderating the list,
which I'm against. I think you are dealing with it in the best way you can;
remain centered, know thyself and accept the fact that, while some
proportion (perhaps the majority) of the audience will believe what is said
_about_ your posts, the rest will read what you say and decide for
themselves.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

B_Thalhammer · October 26, 2005, 7:32pm

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.1430 CDT)]

The control behavior in the light of your reply "reorganize" was to combat or push back on the simplification to the more complex problem, and a push back on the attempted humor of the admission that we are powerless to fight city hall.

It would be better to not leave yourself open to control behavior in the CSG Commons by explaining what you meant. <--still smiling and singing!

[Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.1340)]
<Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.1315)>
<But it would not be in alignment with PCT or even
charitable of you to say that what I was doing was "ranting"
because you might indeed be wrong!>
It looked like ranting to me. If I was wrong, I apologize. I would leave it for others to decide if your "paper" was a rant, a complaint, an observation, a critique or a kindly statement of how to make government better.

Yep. A kindly restatement of your opinion, deconstructed with the facts.

BTW, when you made all your assumptions about my one word answer to Dick, "Reorganize" and what it meant or why I made it, what was that all about?
Kenny said:
</Pity that. It's too late to do much about it. But,
> perhaps you are better and stronger and more convincing than fellows
> like Gore or Kerry? I suspect the worm will turn, even in the next
> election. Be ready to run. And, guess what? You'll get no rants from me.

Not a rant.

<Run from whom? But I am only explicating the "get the government
off my/our back(s)..." phrase... :)>/
// I meant run for office Bry so you can act and change and not just esplicate.

There are many candidates with deeper pockets and better skills than me....

/<I scorn not the phrase but the religious conservative hijackers
who attempt to one word beyond its original use. The Framers had
nothing to do with "one nation, under God". Better read the U.S.
Constitution, Ok, Kenny? <-- see, smiling.>/
// My recollection is that the writer of "One nation, under God" was one of the men who wrote the Constitution. I did not say those words were in the Constitution. Do you read what I write? Do you know the answer? I'll believe you and correct my statement if it is wrong.

Believe me, then. The man who wrote "one nation, under God" was born in the 1850s, not a Framer. Please read the article.

^--smiling, singing with the Green Day: Boulevard of Broken Dreams cut from their new CD:
"My shadow's the only one that walks beside me
My shallow heart's the only thing that's beating
Sometimes I wish someone out there will find me
'Til then I walk alone

"Ah-ah, Ah-ah, Ah-ah, Aaah-ah, Ah-ah, Ah-ah

"I walk alone, I walk a..."

Anyway, when you see the words that are in the Declaration, "one nation under God" and then see in the Constitution that "all men are endowed by their Creator" that the the founding fathers were takin about monkeys or particles or nature?

"Nature's God?" The founding father who wrote the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, was among deists, not Theists, who subsequently penned the Constitution.

<Resources for Family Engagement from the Library of Congress | Library of Congress;

You are right about the Pledge though, I have no problem leaving under God out. It certainly is not true in 2005 anyway. I suppose it offends you too when our money says "In God we Trust." That darn neocon Bush II, he probably was behind that one too.
Bry said:
/> <This is a disturbance to the perceptual cluster that Bill, Rick,
> Dick, myself and Bjorn seem to [be] aligned on.>
> /Kenny said:
/> It may be, in whole or in part, but why not let them speak for
> themselves? I have.

/Bry said:
/The operative word was "seem" and I just now put in [be]. You
stand corrected.

--B./
// I still think Bill, Rick, Dick and Bjorn would rather speak for themselves than have you charaterize how their views seem to be like yours. They are autonomous control systems ain't they? And, they speak quite well and almost alway professionally.

Mine was an opinion of alignment not a communiqu� as a spokesman! <--smiling w/ teeth.

--B.

···

Enjoy your CDs. I feel pretty good today too.

B_Thalhammer · October 26, 2005, 7:36pm

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.1435 CDT)]

Kenny,

I wasted my time to receive a sour reply like that? Tsk tsk.

I let your words stand as your concluding comment. <-- sad face.

--Bry

···

Thanks for the Civics references. If I was 10% as much interested in that today as you are, I would take the time to use them.

That kind of generalization won't help your cause with me.

Don't know and don't much care.

> I don't need his book to figure that one out.

B_Thalhammer · October 26, 2005, 7:42pm

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.1437 CDT)]

Yes, Rick, I realize what you are saying. Um, alignment was the wrong choice, what I meant was that of course I was the intended victim of someone trying to describe my own reference signals and stuff. REALLY, I am much better in this round than in others, and I am kinda laughing and chuckling as I conduct this duel.

The point is that Bill's original post got my attention because perhaps he was really astonished at the arrogance of the bald statements by Borland. I see nothing wrong with that astonishment and the dismay at the future, if we do not restrain open mercantilism of the planet. I made a statement earlier, that this rape of the environment is not just of this world. The Moon Race is back on, with the goal of finding (something?) on Mars we can put to our use. Schwartzenegger may yet make it to Mars!

--B.

···

[Rick Marken (2005.10.26.1220)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.1315) to Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.1300EDT)

But it would not be in alignment with PCT or even charitable of you to
say that what I was doing was "ranting" because you might indeed be
wrong!

I don't know about "alignment with PCT" but I definitely agree that this
kind of thing (calling a post a "rant" or "insulting" or whatever) is quite
uncharitable. I know because I've been subjected to it myself. But I don't
think there is anything we can do about it, short of moderating the list,
which I'm against. I think you are dealing with it in the best way you can;
remain centered, know thyself and accept the fact that, while some
proportion (perhaps the majority) of the audience will believe what is said
_about_ your posts, the rest will read what you say and decide for
themselves.

Best

Rick