Local activist banned from Whole Foods : Houston Indymedia

Janice Blue, local activist and host of Go Vegan Texas!, was recently treated injustly by Whole Food management when she spoke up about buffalo franks. She noticed the buffalo on her way in the store to do some shopping, as it was being sampled near the front doors. “Is that buffalo?” she asked, and to her dismay she was told that it was. She then began to express that buffalo are our nation’s heritage and we should let the buffalo roam. Management was called over immediately, and Janice was told by the store’s manager that she must leave that instant and she is no longer welcome at Whole Foods. “But I haven’t finished my shopping,” Janice stammered. “We don’t want your kind here,” was Whole Foods’ reply.

We must NOT stand for this treatment of animal rights activists. Janice was not soliciting, nor was she making a scene. Whole Foods is demonstrating their corporate power to control our first amendment right of free speech. Corporations do NOT have this power, nor do they have this right. Use YOUR first amendment right and call or write to Whole Foods expressing your disgust and insult at their behaviour.

Whole Foods
2955 Kirby @ Alabama, 77098
(713-520-1937)

Whole Foods
4004 Bellaire Blvd., 77025
(713-667-4090)

John Mackey, CEO/Founder
Whole Foods
601 N. Lamar Blvd., Suite 300
Austin, TX 78703
512/477-4455

Whole Foods claims to be a compassionate store, but they are the least responsive to our cause. Whole Foods continues to sell factory farmed Grimaud ducks, refuses to donate for animal friendly events such as “meat out day“, and harasses animal rights activists for having a voice. Whole Foods does not deserve one more penny. Boycott Whole Foods!

(For more information on the factory farmed ducks, visit: http://www.vivausa.org/Campaigns/Ducks/ducks.htm).

Of all the people in the world to complain about someone causing a scene. . . Edwin Johnson?????

This guy disrupts every meeting he goes to. He's ruined so many KPFT meetings no one can keep count, and Bradley never did a thing about it.

Janice Blue speaks from conviction, whether one agrees with her or not. Edwin is just an ass who embarrasses himself to call attention to himself, like a small child. Edwin, do you have any idea how deeply despised and disregarded you are, how irrelevant you are. People only respond to your posts to get you worked up. You're the neighborhood dork who everyone picks on just because it's fun.

Hey Edwin, did your girlfriend give you your allowance yet today?

The Food Whole has a long history of not only abusing animals but also abusing workers! In the past year around the country the Food Whole has been union busting, intimidating workers and firing some for attempting to form a union. We have so many reasons to not only boycott the food whole but do what we can to drive them out of business. From the refusal to buy FAIR TRADE coffee, workers rights, animal rights and environmental reasons don’t buy from the FOOD WHOLE. By the way they are a great place to get "free" food and go home with tons of "donated" groceries.

The above is for entertainment purposes only; I would never encourage anyone to do any thing illegal especially if it made any real change.

you ms. blue need to see an attorney. You have the right to comment as long as you are not doing it disruptively, and you have the right to shop in any store
open to the public.

If I choose to eat buffalo as my ancestors did.. thats my business. Despite, you are still allowed to comment based on your fundamental beliefs.

The WALL in DC and many other monuments give you that right/gave you that right. Never forget.

Joe Oliver
Houston, TX
REPARATIONS FOR AMERICAN INDIANS FIRST

The little airhead in question has every right to say anything she pleases on public property. She does NOT have the right to say what she pleases on the private properly of someone engaged in a commercial enterprise regardless of her personal feelings about what that store is selling They have EVERY right to ask her to leave the premises if her actions are prima facie designed to discourage other patrons from purchasing a product for sale there.

I am not offended by the posting entitled: "buffalo s . . ." The goal of the author has little, if anything, to do with free speech at a grocery store. It has everything to do with a broader, organized effort by the globalized right wing cabal (GRWC) to take "the offensive" against human and animal rights.

Most readers are left with two choices after reading such articles. The first choice is to take the article at its face value. Thus the reader falls prey, is surprised and appalled, or "shocked and awed" by what appears to be an individual's reactionary rage. By doing this, the reader expends unnecessary energy and goes "on the defensive," This oppressive tactic is as old as the hills. Yogi Berra might say: "Its like 1984 all over again."

The second choice is to recognize the message for what it is: a small weapon in a large media war in which the hidden, primary goal is unrelated to the superficial text. The second choice leaves more time and energy for one to maintain the growing offensive against the GRWC. The less one reacts to "shocking" messages, the more time and energy one can devote to exposing right wing hypocrisy, oppression, and violence.

The GRWC recognizes this vulnerability and has recruited an infantry to publish articles, go on the radio, and become television newscasters. Their messages seem offensive but are actually defensive reactions. Articles like "buffalo s. . ." indicate damage to the cabal's media assault.

This is not a time to be easily offended. Like the driver who shouted from his car to me during one of many successful organized efforts against the GRWC:

ITS TIME TO GET BUSY!

Whether or not panty wetting paranoids like 'Soy Yo' are offended by my messages is irrelevant. I am not part of some imagined ' great right wing conspiracy' I am a free and independent agent. This is not about some 'animal rights' issue. It is about the mistaken belief that the business in question has no private property rights and the apparent belief that the little airhead in question has rights of speech that superceded the rights of the business to protect a legal enterprise against a misguided attempt to adversely affect commerce on their own premises. Private property trumps public outrage in this case.

Janice Blue must have known that they serve Buffalo at Whole Foods. It is not a recent addition to their shelves. It has been sold for some time there. I also have to believe, given her dietary habits and political leanings, that she is an existing Whole Foods/Kirby shopper. All of which leads one to believe that she acted this way for dramatic effect.

So I guess she now has one of two options: shop at Whole Foods on Bellaire (presumably she has not been blacklisted) or go to Central Market.

The BS comment above is very well deconstructed by Soy Yo and surprisingly invalidated by Joe Oliver. I cannot recall agreeing fully with a post by Joe ever before, though I may have missed one. It seems he has a better grasp of the conflict's essence than the royal troll who seems always in such a rush to toss his antagonism out that he even fails to spell his name correctly.

Ms. Blue has a legal right to comment. The lord's argument fails his own test that she was trying to hurt Whole's business by expressing her un-postured comments which were ushered forth in response to being startled by the rather garish solicitation and sales offering with such a brazen and amoral commercial exploitative character. Whole's sidewalk, high visibility display seemed intentioned to create controversy and publicity...free advertising? This was an arrogant flaunting and seductive promotion to participate in a symbolic, “prima-facie” taboo which most appeals to those types of people who might secretly relish the sinful pleasure of devouring the last remaining animal of a nearly extinct species. Whole charges a pretty penny for the opportunity to engage in this kind of gluttony. Some may try to claim that the meat is very low fat as being a healthy choice for meat-eaters, but this is simply a weak attempt to justify this guilty pleasure. The promotion is really about identifying oneself with being the most dominant predator of all species and all civilizations on Earth. 'We are number 1,' is the constant refrain of those who have a personality complex of superiority. This common attitude serves as an attempt to mask feelings of uncertainty and insecurity for their tenuous place in the cosmos. As Soy Yo intones so well about the eternal political conflict that is so aggressively rampaging over our everyday sensibilities, this same sinister agenda could also be seen as underlying this type of exploitive and wanton consumerism. For thoughtful people, there are clear indications of inherent and unmistakable political overtones presented with such a seemingly sacrilegious and contentious disregard of the sentiments of a philosophical segment of progressives.

I say the things I do above because I have experienced many of the feelings first hand having been seduced into buying buffalo meat and then contemplating the reasons I did so as objectively as my ego would allow me. I consciously try to follow more positive paths for living with as little negativity as possible for my own long-term interests and those I share life with on Earth. All said, the advertising, commercial sales machines of the capitalist system do a real number on people by steering and corrupting their well-being and inner spirit.

PS. Central Mkt sells Fair Trade coffee...but I have not a clue as to their stance on any other political attitudes.

Thank you, Janice Blue and Feral for revealing the hypocrisy of anti-union, anti-fair trade (pro slavery), anti-animal rights actions at Whole Foods Market, otherwise known as "Food Whole" or "Whole Paycheck".

That place turns me off anyway. Too many yuppies. Too many gas guzzlers in the packed parking lot. This formerly thoughtful operation has definitely been co-opted by corporate goons. However, you won't find Locksley there. You are what you eat, and judging by what he writes, he is a 100% Altria man. Heck, Whole Foods, Altria, what is the difference?

Health nuts alert:
ODWALLA IS OWNED BY THE COCA COLA COMPANY (Minute Maid).
COCA COLA FUNDS MURDERERS IN COLOMBIA.
WHOLE FOODS CHEERFULLY SELLS ODWALLA PRODUCTS.
WHOLE FOODS AIDS AND ABETS MURDERERS IN COLOMBIA

An excellent alternative is SEEKERS HEALTHY FOOD AND VITAMIN STORE, 9336 Westview, near Blalock, in Spring Branch.

Thanks, LETZROLL.

I too must admit that, a few months ago, I ordered a buffalo burger at the Hobbit Cafe. I was under the false impression that buffalo were once scarce but no longer scarce after efforts to increase their population. I mistakenly assumed that if the Hobbit Cafe serves buffalo, then buffalo must no longer be endangered. Not the case.

I guess if you don't do the research, you're going to get burned. Better to question everything; even friendly old hippie establishments. In the case of the Hobbit Cafe, I will return to enjoy the otherwise excellent food and argue for the removal of the buff burgers. It was their mistake and mine. I am sure they will listen.

What urks me about Whole FooLs is that they have proven they will not listen. They are not only selling the wrong stuff; they are offensive about it as well. What arrogance. My hard earned money goes elsewhere.

I do not believe for 1 second that a mild mannered shopper who asks a question and makes a comment would be banned from the store. Give me a break! She either made a scene or has a history of it.

"our first amendment right of free speech" You don't have a first amendment right to go onto private property and create a scene.

Why can't all the hippies just get together and open their own little soy, hemp and berry store and have their union commune paradise?

BTW - Do any of you know the environmental impact caused by creating that computer you are using? Do you have any idea what chemicals are used for the etching of the chips and production of the plastics? But since you want it, I guess it's ok.

Ranchers that own buffallo actually have less erosion from the buffallo grazing than they do when they have cows because buffallo will graze far from their watering holes. Buffallo is also much leaner than beef.

Ran, you and the lord surely must consist of several employees. What syndicate do your group of trolls work for? Your commentary seems so uneven as to indicate different people are writing your posts throughout the day and night. Which shift worker wrote the above crap?

At least one of your cointelpro employees actually makes an occassional effort to use a little superficial level logic which begs some gentle analysis at times. Maybe that one took an intro to logic class at jr college before flunking out and being recruited by the payola mafia. Most of the crap though is just ranting and kneejerk raves designed to create a reaction and a promote a numbing feeling for readers. The efforts of your 'group' are very well described by Soy Yo above. Your fervor of hateful negative spewing on such a routine basis is as consistent as any laborer punching a time clock. Find another form of employment even if you have have to give up buying all those expensive brain food twinkies you must consume while pecking out your shift at the local disinfo shop. BTW, veggies aren't too expensive and are more healthy for you and might allow you to live a more satisying and meaningful existence should you choose to pick another career choice that focuses on positive life-affirming efforts.

Buffalo are not on the endangered species list.

Dear, can't speak without "shit" in sentence:
you drooled something about "private property"?

you don't know what your talikin about mr..........
Buffalo shit
by Lord Locisley • Tuesday September 02, 2003 at 11:15 AM
Cardy35@aol.com

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

One the "private property" is open to public access, then all
have access, unless POSTED otherwise and specifically.
I see NOTHING when I visit un_hole_y foods about no
comments please.. infact I found cards that encouraged
"comments & suggestions.

As long as SHE was NOT hindering the movement or free speech
of others, she had a RIGHT to COMMENT as well as finish her shoping spree.

Now go eat more exlax so you can spew more diareah of the mouth.

Joe Oliver
Houston, TX
Reparations for American Indians FIRST!

a trade practice is unlawful when it's offensive to public policy, immoral, unethical, or oppressive and violates the most fundamental public policy in this state and nation, freedom of speech.

Fuck the left: I post this for those who gave thier lives
so all might enjoy freedom of movement & travel, freedom of speech, among other rights. It's becuase of the many who sacrificed their lives all can enjoy or "drivel & snivvel"
speaking about it ( in many directions ) in this forum.

NEVER FORGET - NEVER FORGOTTEN
Meet some real hero's:
http://www.soft-vision.com/hanoi/
Col. Ted Guy, You are NOT Forgotten

Joe Oliver
Houston, TX

If some gangsters from the ELF showed up at a local Hummer dealership (ostensibly to 'shop') and tried to convince potential Hummer customers not to buy one because they think that Hummers are major gas guzzlers or that they are destroying the environment, the dealership would have every legal right to have the gangsters in question removed from the premises, their free speech rights notwithstanding. Little Miss Airhead is entitled to her opinion about buffalo ( a meat dish I have sampled on occasion) but not to express it on someone else's property if said speech is not in welcome by the owners of that property. Whole Foods is not City Hall or a public park. If you have a problem with the concept of private property, you are free to live someplace where such a thing is unknown and I'm sure you will be much happier .

"At the heart of first amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of free flow of the ideas. Freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individuals liberty but essential to the quest for truth and vitality of society as a whole. In the world of public debate about public affairs many things are done with motives that are less than admirable and nonetheless are protected by first amendment."

Flynt Vs. Falwell

This conclusion established that the California Supreme Court was free to act. In the nation''s first decision of its kind, the California Supreme Court held that the free-speech guarantees of the state constitution "protect speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the centers are privately owned."

The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the California Supreme Court on this point. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).

"Thanks to those who served and still serve, to those crippled or family have ben harmed ( i.e agent orange, GW Syndrome, Radiated Vets ) and those who paid the ultimate price so any one can express thier feelings, about any where." I may NOT agree with what is said, and may walk away or turn the channel, but I will back all who have died for the right to do so and put my life on the line to defend and protect those rights.

Joe Oliver
Houston, TX
Reparations for American Indians First
Visit: http://www.soft-vision.net/ao_vets/
Don't Forget Agent Orange Vets

Free speech that is denied to one is free speech denied to all.

Joe Oliver
Houston, TX

Public Access: Oregon Court Ruling

In a recent decision, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that a privately owned shopping center is a public forum, and a shopping center owner may not lawfully prohibit an individual from engaging in certain constitutionally protected activities on shopping center property.

In the case of Stranahan v. Fred Meyer Inc., a shopping center security guard arrested a political activist as the activist solicited mall patrons in front of the center to sign a proposed ballot initiative. The activist subsequently sued the shopping center owner for false arrest.

The Stranahan court held free speech provisions of the Oregon State Constitution guaranteed an individual's right to gather signatures at the shopping center and at certain other private places where the public is invited. The court upheld an award against the shopping center owner in excess of $2 million.

To the guy who likes the word shit ( hey I'm sick, perverted and twisted so it really doesn't bother me )
but....

you neeed to learn the difference between PRIVATE ownership of property vs commercial and how the law applies. I do not appreciate any one puting words in my mouth as you did bubba.. specially one who is not versed in the issues at hand.

let me let you in on a little seceret..

I have a 6 grade formal education with a GED.. and was a street kid growing up.. no silver spoons. But to most ( in reality ) workers are morons and only they ( educated ) can lead the way in a conversation.

Dahhhhhhhhhhh maybe they have a point?
or duhhhhhhhhhh may not!

Isn't America great.. despite where you were or are - you can go where you choose and be what you want to be..

God Blessed America and continues to do so.

Joe Oliver
Houston, TX
Reparations for American Indians FIRST
Make Sute it NEVER Happens again:
http://www.soft-vision.com/higgins/ ( Mirror )
kinda new site

Californians don't have the rights of free speech, assembly or petition under their state constitution at a privately owned, free-standing store, a state appeals court has ruled.

Progressive Campaigns, a company that gather signatures for initiative petitions, contended that under the California Constitution, citizens could assemble outside large stores and obtain signatures.

However, the Santa Rosa Trader Joe's, a large specialty retail store, objected to the presence of two Progressive signature-gatherers, whom the store claimed were harassing customers and blocking access to the store.

The store filed a complaint in state court, asking a judge to issue an injunction prohibiting employees or independent contractors of Progressive from trespassing on its private property. Progressive countered that it had the right to engage in expressive activity at the store.

In August 1998, a trial court judge issued an injunction prohibiting further solicitations of signatures at the store.

On July 8, the California appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling in Trader Joe's Company v. Progressive Campaigns.

Progressive had argued that it had the right to engage in free expression at the store under the California Supreme Court's 1979 decision in Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center. In that decision, the California high court ruled that individuals do have free-speech rights at a privately owned shopping mall. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the California high court's decision.

The California high court in Pruneyard reasoned that "to protect free speech and petitioning is a goal that surely matches the protecting of health and safety, the environment, aesthetics, property values and other societal goals that have been held to justify reasonable restrictions on private property rights."

The state high court noted that "shopping centers … provide an essential and invaluable forum for exercising' free-expression rights."

However, the California appeals court refused to extend the holding in Pruneyard to a free-standing store.

"Pruneyard instructs us to balance the competing interests of the property owner and of the society with respect to the particular property or type of property at issue to determine whether there is a state constitutional right to engage in the challenged activity," the appeals court wrote.

The appeals court determined that the balance should be struck in favor of Trader Joe's. The court distinguished the free-standing store from a shopping mall, writing that "Trader Joe's is not a public meeting place and the society has no special interest in using it as such." The court noted that Trader Joe's contained no plazas or central courtyards or any place conducive to petitioning.

The court concluded: "the Pruneyard balancing test leads us to conclude that the societal interest in using the Santa Rosa Trader Joe's as a forum for exercising free speech and petitioning activities does not outweigh Trader Joe's interest in exercising exclusive control over the use of its private property."

Douglas Dexter, attorney for Trader Joe's, told free!: "The court's decision is in line with numerous other courts which have refused to extend the Pruneyard holding beyond the shopping mall."

Dale Gronemeier, attorney for Progressive Campaigns, could not be reached for comment.

Iowa high court OKs ban on mall protests

By The Associated Press

04.04.02

Printer-friendly page

DES MOINES, Iowa — Operators of a suburban shopping mall were within their rights when they ordered demonstrators to leave and had them arrested when they refused, the Iowa Supreme Court said yesterday.

The high court declined an invitation to expand its definition of a public place where free-speech rights can be exercised, saying shopping malls are privately owned and operated.

A group of protesters had argued that behavioral habits governing where people gather in public had changed over time.

"(They) urge that because people no longer gather in large numbers on public streets and sidewalks, those locations are no longer suitable places for the distribution of political leaflets," the court noted. "To be where the crowd is(,) distributors of political leaflets must go to the malls."

The ruling came in a case involving a West Des Moines shopping mall. On Christmas Eve 1998, a group of protesters gathered in the mall outside a store to protest the sale of goods they argued were manufactured at sweatshops in Central America.

Mall security officers asked them to leave, but they refused. Police were then called, and the protesters were charged with trespassing.

They appealed those convictions, arguing that malls were essentially public places and they were exercising their free-speech rights when protesting there.

The court said that argument ignores the reality that shopping malls are private businesses and owners have a right to control behavior within their confines.

"Assuming the accuracy of the premise on which this argument is based, it does not convert privately owned and operated business locations into public places," the court said.

To make that connection, "the power, property and prestige" of the state must be placed behind the location in question, the court said.

In the first case the California Supreme Court ruled that there is a difference between a shopping center and an individual store and that Freedom of Speech did not carry over to an individual store. The Supreme Court has made no contridictary ruling to this.

The second case took place two decades after the Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins case. So it is indeed interesting that they did not follow the ruling of the Supreme Court So even the shopping center ruling may be reversed soon.

So, it's not as clean cut as some may think.

Hey Bubba,

Did you sheperdize that case and see where it went on appeal?

I cited precent SCt US Ruling and lower court rulings that fell inLine with the SCt. US.

If we be playing legal chess <g> you are in check till I see for fact the case wasn't over turned.

In the case of Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins, the U.S. Supreme Court articulated the current standard for public access to shopping centers. The Supreme Court held the State of California could require a large shopping center to allow public access for political petitioning on the theory that a large shopping center is the functional equivalent of a municipality or downtown business district and, therefore, is a public forum. Denying the center's right to exclude did not rise to the level of a taking under the U.S. Constitution (which would have required compensation) since it did not unreasonably impair the value or use of the property as a shopping center.

Since Pruneyard, several states in addition to California have recognized a constitutional right for citizens to speak or assemble on private property such as shopping centers. These states include Colorado, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Washington. For example, the Supreme Court of Colorado held that certain private commercial and retail centers are required to allow political groups to distribute pamphlets and solicit signatures on the premises. More recently, in 1994 New Jersey's highest court held that regional shopping centers are constitutionally required to permit distribution of leaflets relating to political and social issues.

It appears your lower decision is at variance with other states which could lead to lit or complex lit (class action remedy ) before the SCt or a Circuit court to
bring the states inLine with the Constitution.

Ooops... forgot to mention this moron worked for some prety interesting law firms in his younger days and can party with the best when mentally prepared and morrally straight.

Best,

Joe Oliver, The Moron
Houston, TX
Reparations for American Indians First

You are correct and the rulings I pasted
concerned shoping Malls with restrictions that could be imposed.

The location "plaza" where a lot of people come and the offerings inside whole foods, specifically the areas that encourage people to gather and chat over one of their concoctions/meals might open the door to challenge.

Despite, if the woman was not hindering commerce,
just voicing her opinion and "surprise" given the history of whole foods roots to restrict access to her shoping needs ( we all have to buy food it is a necessity of life ) of prodicts that only whole foods may sell was in my humle "opinion" a violation of her constitutional rights to enjoy the same open invitation Whole Foods extends to the public to "buy" their products.

It's always better to get at least 2 hours sleep before one shoots off at the mouth .. of which I am guilty in the last post/exchange that added credence to my signature, MORON.

( shot my self in the fot don't cha know. )

Joe Oliver
Houston, TX

You may be right in regards to a 'plaza' concept with Whole Foods.

It seems as though this is a pretty murky area where wording can make a huge difference. Even the judges can't seem to be very consistent.

Plus, it can be a tough personal call as well when balancing freedom of speech with private property issues.

Theoretically, if this were to go to court, it might force the court to change their ruling or give a more narrow definition. But, I don't see it happening. lol.

It is a topic which makes interesting debate.

Terms such as public and private are laden with ambiguous associations and moral connotations that are difficult to avoid. For this arguments purposes, the public realm is the bond of an unrelated crowd as opposed to the private realm's bond between family and friends. Accordingly, public space is the forum in which public life is acted out. Some public spaces appear like traditional public spaces but are privately owned, like a Mall or Shoping Plaza and streets of private gated communities. In gated community's, the public is allowed in at the discretion of the land's owner(s). In the mall, the public is invited to experience the public space as potential consumers. The question is: Has the local Mall or Plaza become a substitute town center for most people? The Supreme Court upheld a decision in 1972 giving mall owners the right to limit access to their private property if someone or some activity was considered detrimental to consumption. That leads us to: Could protests ( right, center or left) in the semi-deserted streets of a town or vast plazas of city hall attract attention in a car-based culture? Limiting the impact of such protests neuters the voices of individuals (Patriots, Or Anti's) in society, (can you you see that all sides have a stake in the out come of each instance, where, probable valid rights concening the issue at hand are curtailed.) isolating people, making them more docile and easier to control. It not only interfears with speech but freedom of movement, a principle this country was founded on. More later.. have to run.. Joe Oliver Houston, TX Reparations for American Indians First

The First Amendment precludes government restraint of expression and it does not require individuals to turn over their homes, businesses or other property to those wishing to communicate about a particular topic.

MAY is not SHALL!

But it may be that in some instances private property is so functionally akin to public property that private owners may not forbid expression upon it.

In Marsh v. Alabama, 326 US 501 the Court held that the private owner of a company town could not forbid distribution of religious materials by a Jehovah's Witness on a street in the town's business district. The town, wholly owned by a private corporation, had all the attributes of any American municipality, aside from its ownership, and was functionally like any other town. In those circumstances, the Court reasoned, ''the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.''

This precedent lay unused for some twenty years until the Court first indicated a substantial expansion of it, and then withdrew to a narrow interpretation.

First, in Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza,
((Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U.S. 308 (1968).
))
the Court held constitutionally protected the picketing of a store located in a shopping center by a union objecting to the store's employment of nonunion labor.

Finding that the shopping center was the functional equivalent of the business district involved in Marsh (above) the Court announced there was

''no reason why access to a business district in a company town for the purpose of exercising First Amendment rights should be constitutionally required, while access for the same purpose to property functioning as a business district should be limited simply because the property surrounding the 'business district' is not under the same ownership.''

[T]he State,'' said Justice Marshall, ''may not delegate the power, through the use of its trespass laws, wholly to exclude those members of the public wishing to exercise their First Amendment rights on the premises in a manner and for a purpose generally consonant with the use to which the property is actually put.''

Wherefore at this point my question is:

Did Whole Foods by it's actions intimidate, or attempt to intimidate this woman person in question from freely exercising and enjoying any right or privilege granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States?

i.e.:
1. Freedom to express her concern over a product directly related to Whole Food's activity as a business open to the public?

2. Did they restrict her movement and access to a premise that is open to the public?

3. Did they deny her service based on her commented belief that it is wrong to butcher and eat buffalo?

Were there any witnesses to what occured? Poster of the original information, can you enlighten us here, or is your post based on heresay?

Joe Oliver
Houston, TX
Reparations for American Indians First

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION--SPEECH AND PRESS

Adoption and the Common Law Background

Madison's version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.''1 The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison's draft, to make it read: ''The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.''2 In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: ''That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''3 Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate.4 The final language was agreed upon in conference.

Debate in the House is unenlightening with regard to the meaning the Members ascribed to the speech and press clause and there is no record of debate in the Senate.5 In the course of debate, Madison warned against the dangers which would arise ''from discussing and proposing abstract propositions, of which the judgment may not be convinced. I venture to say, that if we confine ourselves to an enumeration of simple, acknowledged principles, the ratification will meet with but little difficulty.''6 That the ''simple, acknowledged principles'' embodied in the First Amendment have occasioned controversy without end both in the courts and out should alert one to the difficulties latent in such spare language. Insofar as there is likely to have been a consensus, it was no doubt the common law view as expressed by Blackstone. ''The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.''7

Whatever the general unanimity on this proposition at the time of the proposal of and ratification of the First Amendment,8 it appears that there emerged in the course of the Jeffersonian counterattack on the Sedition Act9 and the use by the Adams Administration of the Act to prosecute its political opponents,10 something of a libertarian theory of freedom of speech and press,11 which, however much the Jeffersonians may have departed from it upon assuming power,12 was to blossom into the theory undergirding Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence in modern times. Full acceptance of the theory that the Amendment operates not only to bar most prior restraints of expression but subsequent punishment of all but a narrow range of expression, in political discourse and indeed in all fields of expression, dates from a quite recent period, although the Court's movement toward that position began in its consideration of limitations on speech and press in the period following World War I.13 Thus, in 1907, Justice Holmes could observe that even if the Fourteenth Amendment embodied prohibitions similar to the First Amendment, ''still we should be far from the conclusion that the plaintiff in error would have us reach. In the first place, the main purpose of such constitutional provisions is 'to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments,' and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare . . . . The preliminary freedom extends as well to the false as to the true; the subsequent punishment may extend as well to the true as to the false. This was the law of criminal libel apart from statute in most cases, if not in all.''14 But as Justice Holmes also observed, ''[t]here is no constitutional right to have all general propositions of law once adopted remain unchanged.''15

But in Schenck v. United States,16 the first of the post-World War I cases to reach the Court, Justice Holmes, in the opinion of the Court, while upholding convictions for violating the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military service by circulation of leaflets, suggested First Amendment restraints on subsequent punishment as well as prior restraint. ''It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints although to prevent them may have been the main purpose . . . . We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.'' Justice Holmes along with Justice Brandeis soon went into dissent in their views that the majority of the Court was misapplying the legal standards thus expressed to uphold suppression of speech which offered no threat of danger to organized institutions.17 But it was with the Court's assumption that the Fourteenth Amendment restrained the power of the States to suppress speech and press that the doctrines developed.18 At first, Holmes and Brandeis remained in dissent, but in Fiske v. Kansas,19 the Court sustained a First Amendment type of claim in a state case, and in Stromberg v. California,20 a state law was voided on grounds of its interference with free speech.21 State common law was also voided, the Court in an opinion by Justice Black asserting that the First Amendment enlarged protections for speech, press, and religion beyond those enjoyed under English common law.22 Development over the years since has been uneven, but by 1964 the Court could say with unanimity: ''we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.''23 And in 1969, it was said that the cases ''have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.''24 This development and its myriad applications are elaborated in the following sections. The First Amendment by its terms applies only to laws enacted by Congress, and not to the actions of private persons. Supp.15 This leads to a ''state action'' (or ''governmental action'') limitation similar to that applicable to the Fourteenth Amendment. Supp.16 The limitation has seldom been litigated in the First Amendment context, but there is no obvious reason why analysis should differ markedly from Fourteenth Amendment state action analysis. Both contexts require ''cautious analysis of the quality and degree of Government relationship to the particular acts in question.'' Supp.17 In holding that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a governmental entity for purposes of the First Amendment, the Court declared that ''[t]he Constitution constrains governmental action 'by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken.'. . . [a]nd under whatever congressional label.''Supp.18 The relationship of the government to broadcast licensees affords other opportunities to explore the breadth of ''governmental action.''Supp.19

Footnotes

[Footnote 1] 1 Annals of Congress 434 (1789). Madison had also proposed language limiting the power of the States in a number of respects, including a guarantee of freedom of the press, Id. at 435. Although passed by the House, the amendment was defeated by the Senate, supra, p.957.

[Footnote 2] Id. at 731 (August 15, 1789).

[Footnote 3] The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 1148-49 (B. Schwartz ed. 1971).

[Footnote 4] Id. at 1153.

[Footnote 5] The House debate insofar as it touched upon this amendment was concerned almost exclusively with a motion to strike the right to assemble and an amendment to add a right of the people to instruct their Representatives. 1 Annals of Congress 731-49 (August 15, 1789). There are no records of debates in the States on ratification.

[Footnote 6] Id. at 738.

[Footnote 7] 4 W. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England 151-52 (T. Cooley 2d rev. ed. 1872). See 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 1874-86 (Boston: 1833). The most comprehensive effort to assess theory and practice in the period prior to and immediately following adoption of the Amendment is L. Levy, Legacy of Suppression: Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History (1960), which generally concluded that the Blackstonian view was the prevailing one at the time and probably the understanding of those who drafted, voted for, and ratified the Amendment.

[Footnote 8] It would appear that Madison advanced libertarian views earlier than his Jeffersonian compatriots, as witness his leadership of a move to refuse officially to concur in Washington's condemnation of ''[c]ertain self-created societies,'' by which the President meant political clubs supporting the French Revolution, and his success in deflecting the Federalist intention to censure such societies. I. Brant, James Madison--Father of the Constitution 1787-1800, 416-20 (1950). ''If we advert to the nature of republican government,'' Madison told the House, ''we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people.'' 4 Annals of Congress 934 (1794). On the other hand, the early Madison, while a member of his county's committee on public safety, had enthusiastically promoted prosecution of Loyalist speakers and the burning of their pamphlets during the Revolutionary period. 1 Papers of James Madison 147, 161-62, 190-92 (W. Hutchinson & W. Rachal eds. 1962). There seems little doubt that Jefferson held to the Blackstonian view. Writing to Madison in 1788, he said: ''A declaration that the federal government will never restrain the presses from printing anything they please, will not take away the liability of the printers for false facts printed.'' 13 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 442 (J. Boyd ed. 1955). Commenting a year later to Madison on his proposed amendment, Jefferson suggested that the free speech-free press clause might read something like: ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write or otherwise to publish anything but false facts affecting injuriously the life, liberty, property, or reputation of others or affecting the peace of the confederacy with foreign nations.'' 15 Papers, supra, at 367.

[Footnote 9] The Act, Ch. 74, 1 Stat. 596 (1798), punished anyone who would ''write, print, utter or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute.'' See J. Smith, Freedom's Fetters--The Alien and Sedition Laws and American Civil Liberties (1956).

[Footnote 10] Id. at 159 et seq.

[Footnote 11] L. Levy, Legacy of Suppression: Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History, ch. 6 (Cambridge, 1960); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 273-76 (1964). But compare L. Levy, Emergence of a Free Press (1985), a revised and enlarged edition of Legacy of Suppression, in which Professor Levy modifies his earlier views, arguing that while the intention of the Framers to outlaw the crime of seditious libel, in pursuit of a free speech principle, cannot be established and may not have been the goal, there was a tradition of robust and rowdy expression during the period of the framing that contradicts his prior view that a modern theory of free expression did not begin to emerge until the debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts>

[Footnote 12] L. Levy, Jefferson and Civil Liberties--The Darker Side (Cambridge, 1963). Thus President Jefferson wrote to Governor McKean of Pennsylvania in 1803: ''The federalists having failed in destroying freedom of the press by their gag-law, seem to have attacked it in an opposite direction; that is, by pushing its licentiousness and its lying to such a degree of prostitution as to deprive it of all credit. . . . This is a dangerous state of things, and the press ought to be restored to its credibility if possible. The restraints provided by the laws of the States are sufficient for this if applied. And I have, therefore, long thought that a few prosecutions of the most prominent offenders would have a wholesome effect in restoring the integrity of the presses. Not a general prosecution, for that would look like persecution; but a selected one.'' 9 Works of Thomas Jefferson 449 (P. Ford, ed. 1905).

[Footnote 13] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), provides the principal doctrinal justification for the development, although the results had long since been fully applied by the Court. In Sullivan, Justice Brennan discerned in the controversies over the Sedition Act a crystallization of ''a national awareness of the central meaning of the First Amendment,'' id. at 273, which is that the ''right of free public discussion of the stewardship of public officials . . . [is] a fundamental principle of the American form of government.'' Id. at 275. This ''central meaning'' proscribes either civil or criminal punishment for any but the most maliciously, knowingly false criticism of government. ''Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history. . . . [The historical record] reflect[s] a broad consensus that the Act, because of the restraint it imposed upon criticism of government and public officials, was inconsistent with the First Amendment.'' Id. at 276. Madison's Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and his Report in support of them brought together and expressed the theories being developed by the Jeffersonians and represent a solid doctrinal foundation for the point of view that the First Amendment superseded the common law on speech and press, that a free, popular government cannot be libeled, and that the First Amendment absolutely protects speech and press. 6 Writings of James Madison, 341-406 (G. Hunt. ed. 1908).

[Footnote 14] Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907) (emphasis original). Justice Frankfurter had similar views in 1951: ''The historic antecedents of the First Amendment preclude the notion that its purpose was to give unqualified immunity to every expression that touched on matters within the range of political interest. . . . 'The law is perfectly well settled,' this Court said over fifty years ago, 'that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had from time immemorial been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed.' That this represents the authentic view of the Bill of Rights and the spirit in which it must be construed has been recognized again and again in cases that have come here within the last fifty years.'' Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 521-522, 524 (1951) (concurring opinion). The internal quotation is from Robertson v. Baldwin,> 165 U.S. 275, 281 (1897).

[Footnote 15] Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 461 (1907).

[Footnote 16] 249 U.S. 47, 51-52 (1919) (citations omitted)>

[Footnote 17] Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919); Schaefer v. United States, 251 U.S. 466 (1920); Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239 (1920); United States ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921). A state statute similar to the federal one was upheld in Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U.S. 325 (1920).

[Footnote 18] Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). The Brandeis and Holmes dissents in both cases were important formulations of speech and press principles.

[Footnote 19] 274 U.S. 380 (1927).

[Footnote 20] 283 U.S. 359 (1931). By contrast, it was not until 1965 that a federal statute was held unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967).

[Footnote 21] And see Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697 (1931); Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 (1937); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938).

[Footnote 22] Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263-68 (1941) (overturning contempt convictions of newspaper editor and others for publishing commentary on pending cases)>

[Footnote 23] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).

[Footnote 24] Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).

[Footnote 15 (1996 Supplement)] Through interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the prohibition extends to the States as well. See discussion on incorporation, main text, pp. 957-64.

[Footnote 16 (1996 Supplement)] See discussion on state action, main text, pp.1786-1802.

[Footnote 17 (1996 Supplement)] CBS v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94, 115 (1973) (opinion of Chief Justice Burger).

[Footnote 18 (1996 Supplement)] Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 115 S. Ct. 961, 971 (1995) (quoting Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346-47 (1880)). The Court refused to be bound by the statement in Amtrak's authorizing statute that the corporation is ''not . . . an agency or establishment of the United States Government.'' This assertion can be effective ''only for purposes of matters that are within Congress' control,'' the Court explained. ''It is not for Congress to make the final determination of Amtrak's status as a governmental entity for purposes of determining the constitutional rights of citizens affected by its actions.'' 115 S. Ct. at 971.

[Footnote 19 (1996 Supplement)] In CBS v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973), the Court held that a broadcast licensee could refuse to carry a paid editorial advertisement. Chief Justice Burger, joined only by Justices Stewart and Rehnquist in that portion of his opinion, reasoned that a licensee's refusal to accept such an ad did not constitute ''governmental action'' for purposes of the First Amendment. ''The First Amendment does not reach acts of private parties in every instance where the Congress or the [Federal Communications] Commission has merely permitted or failed to prohibit such acts.'' Id. at 119.

Freedom of Expression: The Philosophical Basis

Probably no other provision of the Constitution has given rise to so many different views with respect to its underlying philosophical foundations, and hence proper interpretive framework, as has the guarantee of freedom of expression--the free speech and free press clauses. 25 The argument has been fought out among the commentators. ''The outstanding fact about the First Amendment today is that the Supreme Court has never developed any comprehensive theory of what that constitutional guarantee means and how it should be applied in concrete cases.'' 26 Some of the commentators argue in behalf of a complex of values, none of which by itself is sufficient to support a broad-based protection of freedom of expression. 27 Others would limit the basis of the First Amendment to one only among a constellation of possible values and would therefore limit coverage or degree of protection of the speech and press clauses. For example, one school of thought believes that, because of the constitutional commitment to free self-government, only political speech is within the core protected area, 28 although some commentators tend to define more broadly the concept of ''political'' than one might suppose from the word alone. Others recur to the writings of Milton and Mill and argue that protecting speech, even speech in error, is necessary to the eventual ascertainment of the truth, through conflict of ideas in the marketplace, a view skeptical of our ability to ever know the truth. 29 A broader-grounded view is variously expounded by scholars who argue that freedom of expression is necessary to promote individual self-fulfillment, such as the concept that when speech is freely chosen by the speaker to persuade others it defines and expresses the ''self,'' promotes his liberty, 30 or the concept of ''self- realization,'' the belief that free speech enables the individual to develop his powers and abilities and to make and influence decisions regarding his destiny. 31 The literature is enormous and no doubt the Justices as well as the larger society are influenced by it, and yet the decisions, probably in large part because they are the collective determination of nine individuals, seldom clearly reflect a principled and consistent acceptance of any philosophy.

Footnotes

[Footnote 25] While ''expression'' is not found in the text of the First Amendment, it is used herein, first, as a shorthand term for the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, petition, association, and the like, which are comprehended by the Amendment, and, second, as a recognition of the fact that judicial interpretation of the clauses of the First Amendment has greatly enlarged the definition commonly associated with ''speech,'' as the following discussion will reveal. The term seems well settled, see, e.g., T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression (1970), although it has been criticized. F. Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Inquiry, 50-52 (1982). The term also, as used here, conflates the speech and press clauses, explicitly assuming they are governed by the same standards of interpretation and that, in fact, the press clause itself adds nothing significant to the speech clause as interpreted, an assumption briefly defended infra, pp.1026-29.

[Footnote 26] T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 15 (1970). The practice in the Court is largely to itemize all the possible values the First Amendment has been said to protect. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. PSC, 447 U.S. 530, 534 -35 (1980); First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, > 435 U.S. 765, 776 -77 (1978).>

[Footnote 27] T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 6-7 (1970). For Emerson, the four values are (1) assuring individuals self- fulfillment, (2) promoting discovery of truth, (3) providing for participation in decisionmaking by all members of society, and (4) promoting social stability through discussion and compromise of differences. For a persuasive argument in favor of an ''eclectic'' approach, see Shriffrin, The First Amendment and Economic Regulation: Away From a General Theory of the First Amendment, 78 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1212 (1983). A compressive discussion of all the theories may be found in F. Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Inquiry (1982).

[Footnote 28] E.g., A. Meiklejohn, Political Freedom (1960); Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 Ind. L.J. 1 (1971); BeVier, The First Amendment and Political Speech: An Inquiry Into the Substance and Limits of Principle, 30 Stan. L. Rev. 299 (1978). This contention does not reflect the Supreme Court's view. ''It is no doubt true that a central purpose of the First Amendment 'was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.' . . . But our cases have never suggested that expression about philosophical, social, artistic, economic, literary, or ethical matters--to take a nonexclusive list of labels--is not entitled to full First Amendment protection.'' Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209, 231 (1977).

[Footnote 29] The ''marketplace of ideas'' metaphor is attributable to Justice Holmes' opinion in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919). See Scanlon, Freedom of Expression and Categories of Expression, 40 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 519 (1979). The theory has been the dominant one in scholarly and judicial writings. Baker, Scope of the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, 25 UCLA L. Rev. 964, 967-74 (1978).

[Footnote 30] E.g., Baker ''Process of Change and the Liberty Theory of the First Amendment, 55 S. Cal. L. Rev. 293 (1982); Baker, Realizing Self-Realization: Corporate Political Expenditures and Redish's The Value of Free Speech, 130 U. Pa. L. Rev. 646 (1982).

[Footnote 31] Redish, The Value of Free Speech, 130 U. Pa. L. Rev. 591 (1982).

Whole Foods carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition(s) of such restraint(s).

DISCLAIMER: I have posted several arguments here,
including my conclussion above based on research.
BUT, the ABA has a lock on what you can utter concerning law and there is a fine line between practicing law without a license vs. discussion.

Therefore, any thing posted specifically by me here in this forum of open ( and closed it seems) thought is for that purpose only. Discussing the Constitution in an attempt to better understand how our system works.
(( I may be steping on Inns Of Court feet here as well))
It is NOT intended as legal advice, as, only a competent attorney ( who may not even be able to boot his own computer) in your city, county or state of venue, can properly protect and defend your personal or property rights.

This is the final expression of my intentions within this or any other issue here I personally may comment on.

Joe Oliver
Houston, TX
Reparations for American Indians First

Get a fricken life Janice Blue!!

you said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.
by Common Sense • Tuesday September 09, 2003 at 07:58 PM

Get a fricken life Janice Blue!!

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

What ya do miss your morning potty training?

It's not about the "person" it's about the issue/right
involved that was stolen by a store that has roots in the commie causie world

Is that Mao See Tongue

grow all your own food-4th option,go to the bank,borrow five million dollars,build and run your own store untill you go broke

Learn some manners and when you go shopping, check your cutesy little political opinions at the door

you two guys talk about manners??? how about respecting everyone's human constitutional rights to have and express an opinion as when suddenly being offended by such crass, wanton and gluttonous marketing assaults on the public? she surely didn't scream out moronic insults like you guys hurl here. why don't you take your own advice and check your moronic opinion at the gate here or stay out. you guys are hate-mongers and nothing more...

Yea, just like every other crybaby leftie- everyone who disagrees with you is a 'fascist' , right? There is nothing 'hateful' or 'fascist' about good manners and learning where political activism is appropriate and where it isn't. If Janice was so offended by this 'assault' and by the horror of selling buffalo meat, she had the option of simply turning around and walking out the door. No business in it's right mind would allow someone to bad mouth it on it's own premises. Although I'm sure that if you were selling roast beet sandwiches and I came into your shop and started telling customers that you were really selling rat meat, you would permit me to do so and drive out your customers wouldn't you? I mean my 1st amendment rights on YOUR property trump your right to make a profit at other people's expense doesn't it? And the fact that I might be lying about your product is irrelevant. According to your warped little paradigm I have a Constutional right to put you out of business by saying anything I please on your premises if I choose to do so.

You obviously never took the time to read the considerable discussion/debate above about what the law has to say on this. so that you don't bring crash and burn the internet, you should conserve the electrons you waste each time you spew your uniformed and tiresomely predictable bursts of keyboard nauseum.

I have taken the time to read every posting concerning the law on this matter and while it is still an open question in some jurisdictions, the developing legal consensus that seems to be that such speech may be permissible in a 'common area' but not so in a dedicated private business with no such shared space. And just so you yourself are clear on this matter, if you EVER come on to any commercial premises that are controlled by ME, and you act as Janice Blue did and refuse to leave the premises, you will leave in handcuffs and charged with trespass and you will most likely need medical attention in the bargain. Either you are going to learn to respect private property rights the easy way , or you will be taught the hard way. Either way,hotshot, you are going to learn that your free speech rights do NOT include broadcasting your whiny little ideology on property controlled by ME Now if you arent bright enough to understand that, then I suggest you pick a good attorney out of the Yellow Pages and get him to explain what 'criminal trespass' entails

so what business of yours should I visit to pay you your deserving respects, you pompous ass? hey, free advertising you got nuthin' to lose and sounds like it would be entertaining to boot! what a disingenuous challenge...typical of you.

Alas tho I must tell you I refrain from supporting adult news magazine stores and other yahoo establishments like flag-waving pawn shops and macho, chest-thumping, patriotic used military-police paraphernalia junk stores.........or do you have a real business? didn't think so.

For the last 10 yrs I have been owner and sole proprietor of Royal Arms LTD. As America's foremost authority on heraldry, I research,compose, and reproduce family and individual coats of arms. And anyone who has known me in Houston for the last 10 years or so is aware of that. But of course given the fact that you are obviously the product of an attenuated bloodline, I'm sure the entire concept is utterly meaningless to you- or worse the idea strikes you as 'elitist' or 'fascist' or 'hate filled' or some other puling little adjective that you and your ilk choose to hurl at those you disagree with. Personally I have no need to hang out at military surplus shops pretending that doing so will somehow make me feel more macho. I had my share of that during my 6 years in the USAF. (1st Lt.)

Ifn this isn't hate:

you said:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
fascist authoritarians
by LETZROLL • Sunday September 14, 2003 at 09:51 AM

you two guys talk about manners??? how about respecting everyone's human constitutional rights to have and express an opinion as when suddenly being offended by such crass, wanton and gluttonous marketing assaults on the public? she surely didn't scream out moronic insults like you guys hurl here. why don't you take your own advice and check your moronic opinion at the gate here or stay out. you guys are hate-mongers and nothing more...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1st: I have the (c) right on the use of the word MORON..
so back off it.

2nd: If you stuck to the issue rather than the persoanlity you may have made a point.

3rd: What is the issue? It's not some carpet named JB, it's a right fought for and died for. Every time any one allows any right guarenteed by the Constitution
to be trampelled, the person in question is not the only person harmed, but each member of the nation. I see it as "spiting on The Wall" or other monuments to those who gave their lives so all could remain moronic or intelectual.. and say what they got to say when they got to say it.

I will not rehash the law.. but if Ms. Blue filed an action the burden would be on Whole Foods to show cause why a complaint shouldn't issue in law or equity.

I'm right/your wrong doesn't cut the mustard when there is a buffer, The Constitution, statutes based on it and case law in support thereof.

Again, it's the issue.. as this 6th grade grad with GED will state once again.. GROW UP..else your parents wasted a lot of bucks on your college/career.. that includes you LT. .. ad despite the fact we may agree on issues presented here, I am not a personality contest monger, and will present the facts based on fact not of some magical mystery tour cooked up in ones fried brain.

Now go find a girl, grab a bear and procreate!
Make NUKEY not Nukes

Joe Oliver
Houston, TX
Reparations for American Indians FIRST

I will boycott but is there any other vegan stores in Houston?

Don't know if there are other veggie stores in the area.. but do know, you'd probably be the only one boycotting. Sides issues like this need case law to affirm rights and affirm responsibilites owed the public once a store like Whole Foods is opened to the general populace. They can NOT restrict shoping based on comment, nor when they encourage comment via thier cards ( for instance ) discourage freedom to state ones mind based on conviction.

It's up to Ms. Janice to state a claim, if she doesn't take the steps necessary to correct.. than forgetaboutit.

Unfortunately though the assault on Freedon of Speech and her freedom to move about and shop in an advertized "public" area was directed at her and could harm all, only the person actually harmed has the right to seek redress.

I see you work in Arcitecture... hows business within the latest crunch economy?

Joe Oliver

First of all, I have no reason to believe this story about Janice Blue is even true. It's sounds a little suspect. If I were the grocery store manager, and she made a comment like that, I would have politely taken her to the side, simply told her that we stock the product, and if she wished to comment on it here's the address of our corporate office. Why make an issue of some nut who wants to impose their own personal agenda on everyone else.

Ya know 'lsdjgk" just because you are lazy or perhaps just can't read...(or write), doesn't mean you can get away repeating the same type of discredited and oblivious comments posted at the beginning of the debate. You seek to bring start the same cycle of ignorance from square one again and try to erase the logic that has progressed forward. Your intention to cover up all the debate before and the reasonings of considerate merit are as similar a tactic as the brute force methods of certain political elements that think can repeat the same lies a hundred times and people will have to accept them due not having enough exposure to the depth of reasoning. You totally ignored the issue discussed above about the rights of speech and try to create some other new imaginary scenario while simply rejecting out of hand the stated description of the event. You inflame yourself and others by a false claim that JB was 'imposing' on people by making here comments.

.....and JOE, by pointing out the evidence that someone is hate mongering does not mean that one is hateful....btw, what is the factually and commonly accepted IQ level of a moron?

You're about as sharp as a spoon.

>doesn't mean you can get away repeating the same type of discredited and oblivious comments posted at the beginning of the debate. You seek to bring start the same cycle of ignorance from square one again and try to erase the logic that has progressed forward.

It may surprise you to hear this, but some people don't read every comment made on a particular thread before they make their own comment. Get this, it's not a requirement before posting. Sometimes, we just read the main article and comment on it. WOW! What a revelation!

Here's another thing. Sometimes, people comment without joining in a debate. Isn't that amazing! See the bottom of the page:

"Opinions are those of the contributors ...."

So this comments section can be used for not only "opinions" but also "debate". You seemingly didn't know that.

>Your intention to cover up all the debate before and the reasonings of considerate merit are as similar a tactic as the brute force methods of certain political elements that think can repeat the same lies a hundred times and people will have to accept them due not having enough exposure to the depth of reasoning. You totally ignored the issue discussed above about the rights of speech and try to create some other new imaginary scenario while simply rejecting out of hand the stated description of the event.

Exactly how can my briefly worded comment, which took up all of 4 lines, "cover up" all the dabate that came before? Do people not know how to use the mouse to scroll up?

What lies? I didn't repeat anything anyone else said. I have my doubts it even happened, but if you believe it hook, line and sinker, I don't care.

And we're back to what I've already stated again, that being that just because someone before me said something doesn't mean I am required to address it. I read the description of the event. I just stated my opinion of what I would have done had I been the manager. Why does that upset you so?

>You inflame yourself and others by a false claim that JB was 'imposing' on people by making here comments.

You're loopey as hell! I never said JB was imposing on anyone. Fuckin' read! I said I would have taken her politely to the side, explained that we carried the product and here's the address to my corporate office if she wished to voice her concerns about the store carrying the product (obviously implying that the orders to carry the product comes from corporate). Then, I would have sent her on her way back to shopping. If what was reported did in fact happen, I certainly wouldn't have booted her out. That's "IF" what was reported was true.

Now, what's so hard to grasp about that?

>repetitive comments by trolls looking for the last word

I don't have to have the last word. That's a problem the left seems to have. Makes 'em feel like they won, I guess. But, I'm gonna answer you if you misrepresent what I said. That's for damn sure.

>Why make an issue of some nut who wants to impose their own personal agenda on everyone else.

jeez...could i be mistakened?

>You're loopey as hell! I never said JB was imposing on anyone. Fuckin' read!

>jeez...could i be mistakened?

Yes, you are.

There's a difference between "impose" as in "forcing your beliefs without right or invitation", and "impose" such as "taking advantage of a situation or circumstance." Using the full context in which the word was used will determine the meaning.

You implied that I was saying she forced herself upon others. I didn't. I was saying that she was taking advantage of the situation.

Did her comments force other people not to buy the product? No. How could it?

Were her comments an attempt to take advantage of the situation? Yes. She saw the buffalo product and decided to use it to her advantage.

Here, let me re-write it in such a way that someone as simple-minded as you can even comprehend it:

"Why make an issue of some nut who wants to take advantage of a situation regarding her own personal agenda and, by doing so, inconvenience everyone else."

Are you able to grasp that?

The proper thing for Janice to have done would have been to seek out a manager and voice her opposition the the store selling buffalo. She needs to realize the the person handing out the product is simply a member of the working class doing her job, and that person has no control over what the store sells or doesn't sell.

I worked retail for too long. Managers just don't boot someone out for making a comment about the product they sell. That's not good business. So, there's more behind this story than is being presented. My own personal experiences tell me that.

I was a customer at Whole Foods the day Janice Blue did this. She made a scene at the booth and she was pulling aside Whole Foods custumers who were sampling the buffalo and telling them not to eat it or buy it. She was imposing her viewpoints on customers and making them feel very guilty for eating buffalo. Whole Foods mgt. asked her to leave the premises and promised to arrest her if she stepped on the Kirby property again. The meat in question was hot dogs. The hot dogs are made with part buffalo and part beef and its uncured with no preservatives. What retailer in the U.S. would not have chased Janice Blue off their premises from trying to discourage commerce. If she went to an ExxonMobil gas station and said your buying Middle East oil and part of that money supports terrorism the ExxonMobil would ask her to leave or have her arrested for trespassing. If Janice Blue had a brain with properly functioning synapses she should write a letter to the CEO or Consumer Relations of Whole Foods Corporate Office to make her opinion heard.

we reserve to right to refuse service

you are rebuilding the guns that were used to kill your ancestors?

just cuz exxon might get away with imprisoning a protester or striker doesn't give them the right to use their unjustifiable might and control of society's deadly forces.

Nor does any public corporation have the right to shut down freespeech unless it's proven to be slanderous/libelous which would require a due process of justice.

Of course rule of law rather than being a tenet of democracy is a convenient and arbitrary tool used capriciously by wealthy capitalist elites for whenever they feel it's advantageous to pull it out of their legalistic arsenal which is bolstered by the strenghth and support of the politicos they've invested/bribed their dirty profits right into the formal seats of power.

Lee said:
--------------------------------------------------------
right
by lee • Tuesday September 23, 2003 at 04:34 AM
we reserve to right to refuse service
---------------------------------------------------------

Lee, then they need to post it conspic(what ever)ly
and let all their "left wing & liberal" patrons know
their position on protests, be they verbal or other.

Their roots (Whole Foods) lies in the left and the old
60/70's co-ops..

then you said:
------------------------------------------------------------------
indian
by lee • Tuesday September 23, 2003 at 04:51 AM

you are rebuilding the guns that were used to kill your ancestors?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess it all depends on how you view our constitution.

If we can start to enforce it "selectively" based on our
persoanl liks/dislikes what good would the Constitution be? Just another "treaty? promise?"...

Our Constitution is unique and it belongs to all citizens
( and those who are not citizens appear to even enjoy
rights and priv's contained there within.)

Those who have defended her, and gave their lives for her did so under an oath.. and less their lives were taken for naught, my personal feeling is, if I agree or
do not agree with ( what ever the circumstances )..
----- it doesn't matter, the Constitutuion should be the
final interp. of the debate. If it states a right we need
to enforce that right, else you, and I and all will gradually look and wonder, where the F*** did our freedoms go... the buffer between the peons and the
government thet helped maintain a check and balance.

it's one of the few things that seperates us from many country's. We live in one of the most unique nations on the planet, and if folks could get their heads out of there asses from both sides of the coin.. and stop the
bullshit baiting I just read that should appear above this.. maybe we'd beable to maintain a course our forefathers sought. Given my experience with just the
Vet issues... we are headed on a really bad course.

When we can give billions to other nations while our troops, even if they be just an "Ira Hayes" ( just a to some folks I should say ) die in the streets. When chemco's are allowed to falsify data ( see kate jenkins reports at the aoVets site ) and are exposed, but the exposer is crucified... when adjudication of claims is a
farce... when A president states while running, A promise Made is a Promis Kept" and then attacks by
appealing a suit ( why'd they have to sue?)
that was won by MOH Bud Day... then says... hey
we will give you (Retired) what you want but at the expense of other disabled vets... when the kids of
aovets die in their parents arms.. with no benefits or recourse... when GulfWar vets are fighting to survive..
and their kids suffer.. and the list goes on............
and on............ and on................... it could be because no one said.. hey put the b ows and arrows down..
these dif's are just smoke screens.. and while we are
kicking each others ass, in the end we are loosing
our heritage... be you a natural like me or a citizen
imigrant... we are giving it away...
as when you allow any one, agreeing with them about
their politics or not, to suffer the loss of a guarentee, you have allowed all to suffer a loss, and spit on all monuments built to those who died to "defend & Protect" our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I CRINGE when I see it applied in ways I disagree with at times, but have a peace in knowing, despite what I feel, those who gave the ultimate, in a war, on the beat as a cop, any where a pledge to defend & protect is given and taken.. those men are being honored and their sacrifice was not in vein.

God Blessed America
God Bless America
God Bless our Troops ( and you'll that are armchair jocks need to get off your dairyaires and get out and
make sure it ain't gonna happen to the troops again,
with claims, care, broken promises or PoW/MIA -
our national disgrace )
God Bless all American Indians and Warriors from all
cultures who will stand up to defend and protect.

Joe Oliver
Houston, TX

PS:

I am not DEFENDING J(what ever) ... I am defending
the constitutional guarentee's we all too soon may miss.

My predictions of possibilities:

Osama & Saddam are trump cards.. who can create
enough chaos ( if elections do not look promising for W)
in our nation where we might see a "suspention" of our Constitution.

I do not believe for a minute ( nor do some former
spook types I chat with) that Osama & Saddam just waltzed into no_where_land and can't be found.

White House Is Ambushed By Criticism from America's Military Community

George Bush probably owes his presidency to the absentee military voters
who nudged his tally in Florida decisively past Al Gore's. But now, with
Iraq in chaos and the reasons for going to war there mired in controversy,
an increasingly disgruntled military poses perhaps the gravest immediate
threat to his political future, just one year before the presidential
elections.

From Vietnam veterans to fresh young recruits, from seasoned officers to
anxious mothers worried about their sons' safety on the streets of Baghdad
and Fallujah, the military community is growing ever more vocal in its
opposition to the White House.

"I once believed that I served for a cause: 'To uphold and defend the
Constitution of the United States'. Now I no longer believe that," Tim
Predmore, a member of the 101st Airborne Division serving near Mosul, wrote
in a blistering opinion piece this week for his home newspaper, the Peoria
Journal Star in Illinois. "I can no longer justify my service for what I
believe to be half-truths and bold lies."

The dissenters - many of whom have risked deep disapproval from the
military establishment to voice their opinions - have set up websites with
names such as Bring Them Home Now. They have cried foul at administration
plans to cut veterans' benefits and scale back combat pay for troops still
in Iraq. They were furious at President Bush for reacting to military deaths
in Iraq with the phrase "bring 'em on".

And they have given politically embarrassing prominence to such issues
as the inefficiency of civilian contractors hired to provide shelter, water
and food - many of them contributors to the Bush campaign coffers - and a
mystery outbreak of respiratory illnesses that many soldiers, despite
official denials, believe is related to the use of depleted uranium
munitions.

"It is time to speak out because our troops are still dying and our
government is still lying," Candace Robison, a 27-year-old mother of two
from Krum, Texas, and a politically active serviceman's wife, told a recent
protest outside President Bush's Texas ranch. "Morale is at an all-time low
and our heroes feel like they've been forgotten."

How deep the anti-Bush sentiment runs is not yet clear, but there is no
doubt about its breadth. Charlie Richardson, co-founder of a group called
Military Families Speak Out, said: "Our supporters range from pacifists to
people from long military traditions who have supported every war this
country has ever fought - until this one.

"Many people supported this war at the beginning because they believed
the threat from weapons of mass destruction and accepted the link between
Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida ... Now they realise their beliefs were built
on quicksand. They are very angry with the administration and feel they've
been duped."

Most of the disgruntlement expressed in the field has of necessity been
anonymous, so Tim Predmore's counterblast in the Peoria Journal Star felt
particularly powerful. Having been in the army for five years, he is just
finishing his tour of duty in Iraq. He wrote that he now believes the Iraq
war was about oil, not freedom, "an act not of justice but of hypocrisy.

"We have all faced death in Iraq without reason or justification," he
added. "How many more must die? How many more tears must be shed before
Americans awake and demand the return of the men and women whose job it is
to protect them rather than their leader's interest?"

Less visible, but no less passionate, has been the ongoing voicing of
grievances over the internet. A prominent military affairs specialist, David
Hackworth, keeps a website filled with angry reflections on conditions in
Iraq for both the military and the local civilian population, and the
government that put the troops there. "Imagine this bastard getting away
with such crap if we had a draftee army," runs one typically scabrous
anti-Bush line from Mr Hackworth.

More considered analysis is also available online, such as this
reflection from a 23-year-old serving in the US Air Force, who wonders what
the Iraq mess is going to do to the future of the US military: "The powers
that be are destroying our military from the inside, especially our Army.

"How many of these people that are 'stranded' (for lack of a better
term) in Iraq are going to re-enlist? How many that haven't deployed are
going to re-enlist ... how many families are going to be destroyed?" he
asked.

One big rallying point for the critics is the Pentagon's budget plan,
which proposes cutting $1.8 billion (£1.1bn) from veterans' health benefits
and reducing combat pay from the current $225 a month to $150, which is
where it stood until the Iraq war began in the spring. The budget will not
be finalised until later this month, and the White House - embarrassed by
editorials in the Army Times and by news stories in the mainstream press
throughout America - says it won't insist on the combat pay cutback.

Another rallying point is the lack of official explanation for more than
100 cases of respiratory illness in the Middle East. According to the
Pentagon, 19 soldiers have required mechanical ventilation and two have
died. Military personnel believe the use of depleted uranium may have played
a part in this mystery illness.

-------------------
repost by Joe Oliver ( aka ) drunken indian/chief shitting bull

Reference article below:

I support the war in Iraq, and feel we must finish it.. see it thru... but I
also believe we should have a waited a little longer before we started. We
should have had more troops in Afghan and finished what we started and done
what we said we were going to do there first.

The planning for Iraq was poor and done too quickly... and we tried to do
it on the cheap. Hardheaded Rumsfeld should be fired for his part in it.
No one can defend Sadam Hussein... he needed to go a long time ago. What a
mad man, butcher of women & children. Shame on the other countries for not
helping more now, and for not doing him in years ago.
now was not the time for us to do it.. it would have waited a little longer.

But we are there now.. so fix it.. get more assets there, and take better
care of our magnificent soldiers there, and for God's sake, a lot better
care of the wounded coming home. Quit throwing them out of the service so
quick on medical discharge, and putting them at the mercy of the VA.
So far the Bush administration has been no friend of veterans and military
retirees.. too much talk, not enough follow thru action.
(s)

ColonelDan

"U.S. forces have confiscated large caches of weapons in raids of Iraqi homes, but they are barred from raiding
religious sites. Guerrilla fighters continue to attack troops with mortars, grenades, homemade explosives and small
arms fire on a daily basis. They are tapping into a huge arsenal left behind by the former regime, one that some
military officials in Iraq fear could supply fighters for several years. "
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34734

NICE GUYS FINISH LAST!

Roy S. Alba II, USAF, Retired
San Antonio, Texas (Northern Mexico)
MilitaryBetrayed.com

The Balkan Theater of Operations

Summary

There are three dimensions to the U.S. war against the Islamist
world: within the United States, within Islamic countries and
along the periphery of the Islamic world. The Balkans has been
one of the neglected theaters of conflict along this periphery.
The recent visit of U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen.
Richard Myers focuses our attention on this area.

Analysis

The U.S.-Islamist war has three dimensions. There is the covert
duel within the United States, between U.S. security forces and
what are assumed to be al Qaeda operatives present in the
country. There is a second dimension within Muslim countries,
where Islamist forces struggle against the current governments.
This includes theaters where U.S. forces are overtly and covertly
involved, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In the third dimension,
conflict exists along the frontiers of the Islamic world, where
Muslims and non-Muslims engage in active combat.

These frontier conflicts divide into a number of separate
theaters of operation. There is, of course, the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, in which Jews confront Muslims. There is
the conflict in Kashmir between Hindu India and Islamists. There
is Chechnya, where Muslims confront Orthodox Christian Russians,
and the Philippines, where Catholics confront Muslims. There is a
range of smaller theaters in Africa. However it is divided, it is
useful to think of three dimensions to the war, which is
occurring in various theaters.

One theater of operations to which our attention has been drawn
is the Balkans. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard
Myers visited the region last week, reminding us not only that
U.S. troops are still deployed there, but also that the Balkans
is one of the points where the Islamic world interfaces with the
rest of the globe. It also reminds us of a critical antecedent of
the current war and of an important fact that has been forgotten:
The first major conflict between the Islamic world and its
surroundings took place in the Balkans, and the United States
intervened in that war on the side of the Muslims.

The Balkans historically had been unstable, because the region
was where three worlds -- the Muslim, the Catholic and the
Orthodox Christian -- interfaced. This was far from the only
fault line: Ethnicity, dynastic lines and clan conflict created a
constantly shifting constellation of relationships. Geography
also played a part, since the rugged hills of the Balkans allowed
various groups to retain their identities in the face of
occupations by Romans, Turks and Germans.

As in Afghanistan and other areas of rugged terrain and long
history, it was possible to suppress but not erase the
distinctions that existed. The distinctions always led to
conflict, but -- again, as with most mountainous regions --
resources were scarce and war was a means toward building wealth.
Relative peace occurred only when there was an external force so
threatening to everyone in the region that solidarity was the
only thing that made sense -- or when the region was occupied by
a power so overwhelming or ruthless that it made sense to bide
one's time. Thus, during the Cold War, there was a consensus that
becoming a Soviet satellite was unacceptable, and therefore Tito
was able to impose a stasis on the region. Alternatively,
effective occupation by the Turks in the 18th century did not
erase conflict, but suppressed it somewhat.

When the Cold War ended, the Soviet threat disappeared, as did
the legitimacy of Marxism. When the pressure released, the
artificial unity of the South Slavs, or Yugoslavia, evaporated.
It was very much as if a spring, tightly coiled, exploded. The
result was not a civil war, but a series of national wars between
nations whose autonomy had been suppressed by a multinational
state. Added to this was a state that had never been part of
Yugoslavia, but which nevertheless was intimately involved and
affected by its policies: Albania. This was not only because it
was a small, vulnerable country surrounded by a much larger and
stronger state, but also because history had left many Albanians
on the wrong side of the border.

A three-way war broke out that roughly, though not perfectly,
paralleled religious distinctions. Catholic Croatia, Orthodox
Christian Serbia, and Muslim Bosnia -- and later Albania --
engaged in a complex war from which Macedonia and Slovenia
managed to hold themselves aloof. The slaughter and inhumanity on
all sides was striking. As would be expected, the most powerful
entity, Serbia, was by definition able to inflict the greatest
atrocities, but only weakness made the other parties more
virtuous. The war was seen by all sides as an opportunity to
rectify centuries of legitimate grievances, so complex and arcane
that no outsider could truly understand the issues and certainly
could never grasp the passions.

The United States and the West viewed this conflict through the
prism of the post-Cold War world. In their views, there were no
fundamental issues separating the world's serious powers. They
all wanted the same thing -- economic growth and political
stability. During Desert Storm, the world had united to stop a
rogue state, Iraq, that had threatened both objectives. Other
peacekeeping operations followed the same line -- a united world
administering a simple world, dealing with occasional rogue
nations.

Yugoslavia -- or more precisely, the Serbian remnant of that
entity -- was ranked with Iraq, North Korea, Libya and other
isolated states that threatened regional stability and had to be
stopped before they became regional hegemons that could disrupt
economic development. The further assumption was that the
citizens of these nations, Serbia included, would welcome the
fall of the repressive regimes.

Therefore, the American analysis of the Balkans ran thus: There
was no systemic problem in the Balkans, but rather, a problem
rooted in a regime that would not follow international norms of
behavior. That nation was in the process of committing genocide
and had to be stopped. The most desired means of changing Serbian
behavior was negotiation, backed by the threat of force and
followed by peacekeeping troops. That was the model followed in
Bosnia with the Dayton Accords, albeit after the bloodbaths had
already taken place. In the Kosovo model, direct force was
applied to Serbia in the form of an air campaign that targeted
the entire country, followed by a political settlement, followed
by peacekeeping troops.

There have been many conspiracy theories about why the United
States did what it did, but the truth is simpler and in some ways
more amazing. The United States did not see the Balkans question
as directly affecting any immediate American geopolitical
interest. Rather, the situation there was of concern because if
the disruption was not suppressed, other regions might
destabilize. The United States had an interest in global
stability as the foundation for global economic growth: A tear in
the fabric anywhere was seen as potentially unraveling things
elsewhere. Moreover, if the West could not suppress chaos in
Europe itself, its ability to control chaos elsewhere would be
compromised.

Nothing that went on in the Balkans was seen as having a direct
effect on the United States. The United States had no systemic
enemies; its task was to police outbreaks of hooliganism so that
the peace Washington now saw as permanent and desirable would not
be compromised. Nothing in the Balkan situation itself was of
direct significance to the United States.

The United States did not see itself as intervening on behalf of
anyone. It saw itself and its coalition partners as neutral,
indifferent to the local issues, acting as umpires to make
certain that the contestants remained within the bounds of
humanity and decency. To the extent to which U.S. forces were
intervening on anyone's side, it was the side of the victim.
Since the victim was, by definition, the weaker party, Washington
was intervening against the stronger power -- Serbia -- and in
favor of the weaker powers, Bosnia and Albania.

One of the conceits of peacekeepers is the belief in their
neutrality. Whatever their intentions, it is impossible to
intrude into a complex political and military situation without
affecting the outcome. In affecting the outcome, of course,
someone wins and someone loses. Therefore, on the ground, the
intervention is always seen as benefiting someone and hurting
someone else. This is the disconnect between the peacekeeper and
the actors on the ground. The peacekeeper might well intend to be
neutral, but he is always experienced as highly partisan. In that
unintended partisanship lies the complexity of peacekeeping.

In this case, the intervention was seen as being on behalf of
Muslims. The United States could argue that it was on behalf of
peace and justice, but none of the combatants doubted for a
moment that the guns were pointing at the Serbs, not the Muslims.
What the region could not understand was why the United States
was intervening on behalf of the Muslims. Interesting theories
circulated -- that the United States was intervening on behalf of
the Muslims because the Saudis had offered to reduce the price of
oil; that the intervention was designed to buy the Israelis room
for maneuver against the Palestinians; that the intervention was
designed to support Chechen Muslims against the Russians.

The lack of an immediate geopolitical interest generated
fascinating theories, but the truly important reason was missed:
Washington failed to understand the world it was facing. Then-
President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and
National Security Adviser Sandy Berger made a profoundly simple
miscalculation. They assumed that there were no longer any major
threats to the United States, and that the primary issue was
dealing with rogue states. If that was the case, it didn't matter
who the United States helped or hurt so long as it contained the
rogues. They did not anticipate either Sept. 11 or the complex
confrontation that was looming between the Islamists and the
United States. Many others missed this event, so they were hardly
alone, but the fact was that they shaped their intervention
without much reference to the three dimensions we began by
discussing.

Which meant that the United States intervened on behalf of the
Islamic forces. In retrospect, it might have been assumed that
the intervention would have bought the United States some
credibility in the Islamic world. It has not, essentially because
it in no way addressed the real interests of al Qaeda, and
because the Clinton administration never effectively linked the
intervention to a strategic demarche in the Islamic world. The
administration's mindset -- the idea that the United States was
intervening, not on behalf of Islamic forces, but on behalf of
stability -- made it impossible for the government to exploit the
intervention effectively. They would have had to admit the
obvious -- that it was an intervention on behalf of Islam -- and
that was something the Clinton administration couldn't do.

The problem now is threefold. First, Islamist elements present in
both Albania and Bosnia are in a position both to use the region
as a transit point and to hit U.S. troops in both areas. Second,
the peacekeeping forces deployed in both countries are not
actively involved in the war on al Qaeda, but are incidental to
whatever operations are taking place in the Balkans. Finally, the
region is open to exploitation by al Qaeda at a time and place of
its choosing -- and there are insufficient U.S. forces in country
to be effective, but too many to be safe.

The Balkan theater of operations has not been quiet. Incidents
are constant but not widely reported. Moreover, there are ample
indications that Islamist forces are present and able to carry
out operations. U.S. covert forces have operated in the region as
well, searching for al Qaeda. Nevertheless, the region could
explode in Washington's face at any time. Neither the Bosnian nor
Albanian governments want this to happen, but al Qaeda would not
necessarily consult them.

The paradox is this. Should the Islamist forces in Bosnia, Kosovo
or other parts of the region move aggressively, the United States
does not have sufficient forces in either place, and the
willingness of European governments to act decisively is, at
least in our minds, questionable. Their definition of "decisive
action" may differ from that of the United States. The only power
that has an interest in controlling Islamic actions in the region
is, interestingly, Serbia. Different time, different regime, but
same national interests. What could happen is that, in the end,
the United States must rely on the Serbs to deal with the current
war.

All in all, a cautionary tale about the complexity of
geopolitics.
...................................................................

anyone who would mistake ms. blue for "mild mannered" clearly has never met her. while not there that day, i have witnessed many similar scenes by her, that were outright verbally abusive (this was not her first outburst at whole foods) and become physically confrontational. whole foods was not only wholly within their rights to ask her to leave but smart, since one day she will not stop at just pulling people's arms and they could be held liable.

I was standing in line at Whole Foods with some chicken tenders and she walked up
Janice: "what the hell you eating?"
me: "my kids like them"
J: "you let your kids eat factory chickens!?"
me: "well, they get them at school too"
at this point she grabbed my neck, and I'm no wimp, but I couldn't break her grip. Soon the cashier and two sackers were trying to pull her off but she was like a vice, tighter and tighter and I couldn't breathe. Several yuppies were literally smashing her on the head with plates and stabbing her with forks, but she was like a woman possessed. The only reason I am alive today is that she became distracted when she saw someone in the next line had something wrapped up from the meat department, and all I can say, is that customer wasn't as lucky as me. But the whole experience had the effect of making me become a vegetarian, not because of whatever bullshit animal cruelty issues she is always babbling about, but because I want to be strong like her!

you should write fiction... lmao_wet my pants..

-----------------------------------
yeah that's true, Janice blue once kicked my ass
by Burly Bob • Monday October 06, 2003 at 11:59 PM

I was standing in line at Whole Foods with some chicken tenders and she walked up
Janice: "what the hell you eating?"
me: "my kids like them"
J: "you let your kids eat factory chickens!?"
me: "well, they get them at school too"
at this point she grabbed my neck, and I'm no wimp, but I couldn't break her grip. Soon the cashier and two sackers were trying to pull her off but she was like a vice, tighter and tighter and I couldn't breathe. Several yuppies were literally smashing her on the head with plates and stabbing her with forks, but she was like a woman possessed. The only reason I am alive today is that she became distracted when she saw someone in the next line had something wrapped up from the meat department, and all I can say, is that customer wasn't as lucky as me. But the whole experience had the effect of making me become a vegetarian, not because of whatever bullshit animal cruelty issues she is always babbling about,

-----------------------------------------------------------
but because I want to be strong like her!
-----------------------------------------------------------

=========================================

come join our dojang on beechnut...

I like that street name as it harbors part of my personality... nut.. you seem to be on par ...
you'll fit right in.

Joe

I do write fiction. I may be a nut, but I doubt I am like you. I am a vegan and opposed to all use of violence by government.

you pealled the carrot and said:
-------------------------------------------------
Nuts
by Burly Bob • Friday October 10, 2003 at 12:36 PM

I do write fiction. I may be a nut, but I doubt I am like you. I am a vegan and opposed to all use of violence by government.
-------------------------------------------------

well enjoy the freedom to be what ever you wanttobe
brought and paid for by those who walked a walk and
paid a price, upto including the ultimate.

not by socialism, communism... or scooting out of
dodge..to canada... I hope you write letters of protest to
your favorite communist, other nation(s) asking theyr
end their proliferation of nukes & violence aimed at the
red white & blue.. or do you find them "justified?

Joe Oliver
Reparations for American Indians First

>well enjoy the freedom to be what ever you wanttobe brought and paid for by those who walked a walk and paid a price, upto including the ultimate.

much respect to our exploited soldiers, none to those leaders who sent them to fight for profit

>not by socialism, communism... or scooting out of dodge..to canada...

I've seen plenty of freedom of speech in socialist countries too. In some ways more than we have. I ain't no socialist though. I believe any political party - socialist, communist, etc. eventually tends towards totalitarianism, they just can't help themselves.

>I hope you write letters of protest to your favorite communist, other nation(s) asking theyr end their proliferation of nukes & violence aimed at the red white & blue.. or do you find them "justified?

I never found nukes justified, I demand that the world disarm. But meanwhile, I watch the US being the single force BLOCKING nuclear, chemical and biological disarmament. I have written my share of amnesty letters to other oppressive regimes in the past, but I'm focusing on the oppression bought for with my tax dollars first nowadays.

"I'm focusing on the oppression bought for with my tax dollars first nowadays."

Yes, I want to reduce the amount of money we pay, or should I say extorded, in taxes.

The primary function of the federal government is to protect our borders not forcing us to fund all their beauracratic programs. I'm with you Bob!

I said I was against the oppression paid for with my tax dollars. I caertainly don't have any problem with helping out my brothers and sisters or collectively paying for health, arts, culture, etc. I don't know which beauracracies you are referring to exactly, but you are probably being hasty in claiming to be with me.

Alright Bob, I'm not exactly with you then. I understand that you also meant that you didn't want your tax dollars going to the military. I'll have to disagree with you there.

But, "I caertainly don't have any problem with helping out my brothers and sisters or collectively paying for health, arts, culture, etc." I'll definitely agree with you that it should be up to the individuals to volunteer to help pay for a lot of the social programs instead of being forced through taxes.

It's been shown by many studies that when people get together as a collective and use their resources to help out others (ie. churches), so much more is accomplished and so much more of the actual resources go to the target of the action than what happens through a government beauracracy. The government is only efficient at being inefficient.

When they cut taxes, it opens up income for people to donate to worthy causes. If people bring home more of THEIR money, they don't have to work as much and can have the extra time to pursue the arts or volunteer to help the needy.

So, I guess I just disagree with you on the military aspect Bob.

Oh Yeah, I'm sure all she was doing was quietly expressing her views. She wasn't causing any trouble at all!! Yeah, Right!
Well, miss vegan can express her views and Whole Foods can choose what and what not to sell.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT!!!!
However, I'm going to make a special trip to whole foods and spend much money to reward Whole Foods for kicking out the vegan as she offends me!

Countries that have government suupport for health, the arts and education have a richer culture than ours in many ways, from public art projects to involvement of their children. Bush's death-blow to the already illin' state of affairs in public schoool arts and music programs (yeah I know the rich suburban kids still have them) is creating a generation of children who don't know how to do anything but watch tv and play video games. They will grow up to fill up our prisons and I'd rather see them helping to create. The pathetic fraction of Homeland Security / defense spending that ever went to the arts of education was raided by Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, and now Bush and Cheney are taking many times these amounts and giving tax breaks to the rich and huge contracts old buddies. Propagandized suckers such as yourself are still hung up on the idea that tthe rich shouldn't have to pay for anything to help the poor, only for bombs to drop. The sickness your stinginess creates will come back and infect you too. These left behind and forgotten, these disenfrachised brothers and sisters of ours that could have, so cheaply been involved and empowered end up being your enemies, your servants, your prisoners, your shameful creations with guns in their hands instead of paintbrushes and drumsticks. Our country is wallowing in cultural poverty and whatever yardstck the rich are using to measure our richness is meaningless, it is just numbers. We can afford to take care of our people, we can't afford to go to war with whoever we don't like. We're stealing our kids money for the ability to bomb poor people around the world.

And whatever is it a reference to?

Well, how about some facts:

Let's start with the high cost of goverment programs. Let's target some waste and abuse.

From the Bureau of the Census, Characteristics of Households and Persons Receiving Selected Noncash Benefits, 1983 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1985), Series P-60, No. 148, pp. 1-5 and p. 103.

* Only 41 percent of all poverty families receive food stamps; yet 28 percent of food-stamp families have incomes above the poverty level.

* Only 23 percent of all poverty families live in public housing or receive housing subsidies; yet almost half of the families receiving housing benefits are not poor.

* Only 40 percent of all poverty families are covered by Medicaid; yet 40 percent of all Medicaid beneficiaries are not poor.

* Amazingly, 41 percent of all poverty families receive no means-tested benefit of any kind from government; yet more than half of all families who do receive at least one means-tested benefit are not poor.

From Goodman and Stroup, "Privatizing the Welfare State."

* "Private sector charity makes far more efficient use of resources than do public welfare programs."

From Andrea M. Haines, V. Ruth McKinnon and Patricia W. Samors, "Social Service Programs in the Public and Private Sectors," in Meeting Human Needs.

* "Private sector agencies are much more adept at avoiding unnecessary spending that does not benefit the truly needy and at keeping program costs down by utilizing volunteer labor and donated goods."

From "The Grass Is Greener in Public Housing: From Tenant to Resident to Homeowner," a report submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development by the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise

* Public housing placed in the hands of tenants costs less and is of higher quality than that owned and maintained by government. "

So in the rare events where the administrative costs MAY even be low, but once you add in the waste and abuse the amount of dollars mis-spend goes into the billions.

Oh, but how much money is actually given in charity you may ask.

From 1992 Annual Report, AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy, Inc., 1993, p. 10.

* In 1992, total charitable contributions reached $124 billion, with contributions by individuals accounting for 82 percent ($101.83 billion) of that total.

* More than 85 percent of adult Americans make some charitable contribution each year.

* About half the adult population did volunteer work in 1991, contributing more than 20 billion hours of labor.

* The dollar value of these contributions of time is at least $176 billion.

* If the value of volunteer labor is included, private sector contributions to charitable causes are approximately the same as the poverty budgets of federal, state and local governments combined.

And as far as the wealthy not giving back, let's look at what some of the rich gave in 2000:

* WILLIAM H. (BILL) GATES III and MELINDA GATES—$5 billion

* ELI and EDYTHE BROAD—$137.5 million

* JON M. HUNTSMAN—$125 million

* ELMER RASMUSON—$113.4 million

* DORA DONNER IDE—$111 million

* JAMES L. and SALLY BARKSDALE—$100 million

* KENNETH E. BEHRING—a total of $89.5 million

* JEAN JESSOP HERVEY—$80 million

* CHARLES T. (TED) BAUER—a total gift of $65 million

* FRANK H. and WYNETTE LEVINSON—$65 million

* FRANK BATTEN SR.—$60 million

* JOHN W. KLUGE—$60 million

* MARGUERITE BROOKS and H.F. (GERRY) LENFEST—$60 million

* ROBERT EDWARD (TED) TURNER—$50.6 million

From "Giving Back", Forbes Feb. 2001:

* "In 2000, there were chartible contributions of over $10 million given by 103 of America's financial elite. Also in 2000, the number of American corporations making donations totaling over $10 million was 613."

And what are those evil churches doing?

From "A Strategy for Helping America's Homeless" (Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation, 1985), p. 10.

* Ninety-four percent of all shelters for the homeless in the U.S. are operated by churches, synagogues, secular groups and other voluntary organizations.

Would people give more if taxes were decreased?

From a 1999 Salvation Army report "The Giving Trend"

* Despite large variations in federal tax rates over the past two decades, donations as a percentage of personal income have remained constant. Although the top marginal income tax rate has ranged from 28 to 91 percent over the past two decades, the amount that individuals donate to nonprofit organizations has remained relatively constant: around 1.83 percent of personal income.

* The flat tax would increase personal income, leading in turn to increased donations. Because the percentage of income donated to charities historically has been so constant, the surest way to increase charitable donations is to increase personal income. Put another way, even if the number of slices of the income pie donated to charity remains the same, a larger pie means larger slices.

Oh, and let's address medicare.

You say that the Medicare administrative cost is only 3%. Where exactly did you get this?

A 2000 report by the Dept. of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General stated that a study of 232 Medicare HMOs, found major disparities in the percentage of Medicare dollars spent on administrative costs from 1996 to 1999. Plans spent anywhere from 3 cents to 32 cents of every Medicare premium dollar on administrative expenses, the report shows.

So there may be some areas where admin costs are 3%, but the admin costs went up to 32%. Ooops, forgot to mention that one did you?

Another report, based on a study of nine plans, identified about $4.7 million in administrative costs that did not comply with federal guidelines that other Medicare program participants must follow. Of that amount, nearly $1.6 million was used for entertainment. Examples include $249,283 for meeting costs that included food, gifts and alcohol at one plan; $157,688 for a party celebrating the 150th anniversary of one plan's parent company; and $106,490 for sporting events and theater tickets at four plans.

Now, how is this different from private HMO's who are run to create a profit?

So how about this, why don't you WAKE THE _____ UP!!!!

Nice rhetoric, but facts don't back up huggy feely propaganda.

You don't go into McDonald's to buy a televison and you don't go to a car dealership for a massage.

This country was set up as a capitalist society where people make their own decisions, control their own fate, own their own property and control their own money.

If you want to live in a socialist or communist country, just move to one. Seriously. I'm not meaning this in a negative way, or a "I don't want you here" way. Let capitalists immigrate here and socialists and communists to countries that have those respective societies.

Read the 5th Admendment "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Notice how it is not life, libetty and happiness, but it is life, liberty and property?

Trust me, the vast majortiy of Americans love capitalism, and once they realize how its being so threatened, they'll get over being PC and listening to feel good rhetoric.

So if you want to live in France, move to France. If you want to live in China, move to China. If you want to live in Canada, move to Canada. Etc, etc, etc.

Rancid,

you be wasing a lot of good air on those who seek to
undermine our way of life...

they have NO_Nuts and NO_Guts.. to move to a/under political system they spew hot air about. Some do it for the ego stuff.. they need to be somebody..

know what I mean.. I feel bad for the kids who are transformed into morons and waltz off a cliff while their trusty leaders pull out parachutes..

Even our homeless have it better than many...
though there should be none homeless ... we need to
take care of our own first.

Joe Oliver
Reparations for American Indians First
PS:
Come do the LOOP DE LOOP with Joe..
I love to play...

"A new German study found B12 levels low enough to cause attention, mood, and thinking problems in a whopping 68% of vegetarians."--Prevention magazine, November issue

Would it be too far fetched to suggest that maybe the aforementioned 'activist' who was banned from Whole Foods might be suffering from a B12 deficiency and behaving in such a manner due to dietary shortcomings? hmmmmmmm Could be .

you said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are what you eat
by Lord Locksley • Friday October 17, 2003 at 02:50 PM
armigerous@earthlink.net

"A new German study found B12 levels low enough to cause attention, mood, and thinking problems in a whopping 68% of vegetarians."--Prevention magazine, November issue

Would it be too far fetched to suggest that maybe the aforementioned 'activist' who was banned from Whole Foods might be suffering from a B12 deficiency and behaving in such a manner due to dietary shortcomings? hmmmmmmm Could be .
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now.... STOP it... stop picking on JB.. I saw her pic here
and think she's kinda cute. You need to make allowances for circumstances such as "this". Arguendo, you were showeing concern for her health and well being..

adeum que lay tificat
ubeen tutin hempum

Joe Oliver
Reparations for American Indians First

War as year-end bonus. Privatizing our national defense may actually stimulate permanent war, because it provides financial incentives for chaos. A new book, Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry, reviewed in the Christian Science Monitor spells it out:

"[Author P.W.] Singer worries that the current rush to privatize runs the risk of cutting crucial corners. For-profit firms, he warns, may be cost-effective, but they are largely unaccountable, with plenty of incentives to pad their payrolls and hide their failures. Government can be notoriously inefficient, to be sure. Even so, its constitutional duty is to provide for the common defense. Those responsible for this fundamental public service, Singer says, should be fully accountable to the public. He's exactly right."

Under the guise of efficiency, which rampant acctng corruption mentioned above subverts, our quality of life is unfailingly raped everytime. Not since the most numbing devastation of the last masisve corp corruption debaucle during the savings/loan rampage under the watch of the last privateer in office.....have we faced the looming prospects of being so massively ripped off of our tax coffers booty while getting nothing but horrors in return.

There is a place for capitalist competition and it definitely needs to be subservient to the will of governments and accountable to the general welfare of all citizens, not the corp hooligans!

The 20 year old early Reagan era trickle-down theory and half-ass facts you offered above conveniently disregard all the human price that is paid in the name of efficiency....benefiting whom? Some politicians tax and spend, while the irresponsible borrow and spend. Try getting a little more current at least. I know I really don't want to live my life in a highly efficient lifestyle like some worker bee inhabiting the mechanized hive of your extremely deluded liberatarian utopian fantasies. Please wake up to reality. The world is not a wildcat oil well venture for 'everyman mavericks' to get lucky and strike it rich, but is rather a buffet for massive corp exploitation by those who would have you believe the hallucinations they permeate american-style capitalism in the constant selling of the greed-induced american dream con. Don't kill the capitalist, reign them in and make them compete to do our bidding!! Don't give the keys to our treasury or our natural resources to simply drain dry and leave us with nothing but the withered dried husk and shell of our cultures, work and earth.

oh and since this posting is still about the unfair oppression of JB and her defense ...I hear Rudy Tomjanovich likes 'Go Vegan Texas'! so I'd say Janice has won the popularity contest here over you bigoted, ego-insecure, culturally ignorant and economically unconscious trolls.

aren't they still open,still selling buffalo and other meats? Capitalism wins again!!!

Alas Lee shows his true colors as an idiot.

Capitalism is about buffalo meat sales?

Capitalism has failed everyone so far.

You're so far in debt you can't ever own anything and you parade it around.

Oh and before you say you aren't in debt and show how stupid you are...tell me which bill you won't have to pay this month?

You are always in debt when the ideal is to gain 'capital'.

Silly Lee tricks are for Rabbits

The same old thing. Those who can't succeed either blame "the system" or say they don't want to have anything to do with it. I remember as a little kid a neighbor who was no good at baseball. But instead of working to get better at it, he simply said, "This game is stupid" as he threw down the bat and went home.

It's amazing, you can look around and see hundreds of thousands of examples of people who worked hard to start their own businesses, yet you still have all these whiners talking about how there is no American dream.

If you put as much effort into making something of yourselves as you do criticizing everything, you'd surely be a lot happier.

Rancid,
I agree with you about this. As an independent contractor, it's up to me to make my dollars. I can't fault the systems endlessly for areas I just am blind or ignorant to.

However, there are many areas of the 'systems' that inhibit us from attaining what some people call, "The American Dream".

For example, Tax systems are just one, but it's the most important one. It relates to others as a locus. Regulations don't work, deregulations don't work, but I don't see these issues addressed in the mainstream media or in the people who can influence these ideas.

I doubt it's an accident that it is that way.

I believe the 'left' whatever fails to acknowledge valid points found in the 'right' and it seems the reverse is certainly true as well.

I've been thinking about how the "Blood For Oil" signs and Oil Dripping all over Cheney looks to people who support the Current Administration. It seems to look silly sometimes. I makes me wonder if those people are really focused on changing the world condition or just having a day outside.

Someone wrote on IMC that considering the numbers of people who protest were small it wasn't what the American people believed in. That doesn't mean that the masses are right. I generally trust that the people in our country are kind and have a greater tendency to be considerate. I don't believe they are always this way though and the results of the times where they are not like this is notable.

What do you think?

I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

I am in favor of Gay marriage (but churches have the option of not having ceremonies for homosexuals if they choose). I believe that with limits, it's a women's right to choose. I am in favor of more gun control. I love diversity, but not forced diversity because it only causes tension and hatred.

I feel that the majority of people are good, but there are those that are bad, and a few that are evil.

I believe that the government is only efficient at being inefficient. I feel that the American people are overtaxed. If you decrease the tax burden, charitable donations will increase.

You can't make all of the people happy all of the time. You can't prevent offending everyone, because there are plenty of people looking to be offended. Just as I don't care if some white-trash redneck KKK member is offended by an MLK statue, I also don't care of an aetheist is offended by a cross. I'm offended when I see people mugging down in public or a vegen billboard of a slaughter house, but I don't have to stare at it.

The Patriot Act scares the crap out of me, and I've already sent emails to my congressional representatives as to how much I'm opposed to it. (I know that in effect, it doesn't really change much, but personal freedom is too important to start sliding down that slope).

Anythig else you want to know?

Oops, forgot about the environment.

I feel there is a balancing act between industry and the environment.

Everyone on this board feels the same. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible for them to contribute here. The environment damage caused in order to produce a computer is substantial. Not only do you have to process petroleum and metals (and we should all know the pollution that causes), but the chemicals used in the production of the processors (etching the silicon wafers) are HORRIBLE for the environment.

I never litter. Two months ago, I switched to Green Mountain electricity (even though it costs more), and I just bought and electric lawn mower. On the other hand, I drive and SUV and have a ski boat. Like I said, its a balance.

What is it that is gives you the rancor you spin on here? I'm curious about your criticisms of the people who write here. As I wrote about the 'left' many areas don't jive with me. I also find many areas that the 'right' believe to be not only valid but needed.

So,...what drives you?

oh my. you both seem to be all about 'balance'. Rancid is a cultural boy scout who grew up in a dream sold to him about 'god and country' along with some other antagonists here. He is scared to let go of this. He takes personal offense if he anyone tries to awaken us from it. It is the stupor of a relentless abstract mktng campaign which is promulgated and stakes us to an exclusive and arrogant right to proselytize the same hazy delusionals onto others partly to validate them for ourselves. This competitiveness of culture is the locus of the 'american dream' with the bait of untold riches awaiting us if we just work at it hard enough. It is the drug that cynical corps push so well onto to individuals via effective psychological manipulations of their insecurities, personal hopes and in addition a few divine allusions toward a supernatural connectiveness to the ultimate winning team! In this race to 'succeed' during this short time we have on this earth, we are sold into the rather desperate ideology of competition rather than cooperation....strife/struggle rather than collaboration/harmony.

OBSERVER buys/sells the same conservative ideology. Your knock on Taxation belies your real concern while trying to confuse any move toward working solutions in a complex society.
---quoted:
“However, there are many areas of the 'systems' that inhibit us from attaining what some people call, "The American Dream".
For example, Tax systems are just one, but it's the most important one. It relates to others as a locus. Regulations don't work, deregulations don't work, “... [how BS!]
---
You are not a casual observer. You seek to cuddle up to your money and cut your taxes by perpetuating narrow micro-policy...the heck with the rest of the world. Rancid wants no one to pop his bubble about his abstractions of freedom and to him that means nearly about the same thing.

Hey, another person who pops on and spews rhetoric trying to look like an intellectual superior. Imagine that. lol.

What drives me is trying to counter this new hip fad of dogging the U.S.

I encourage critcism, but despise blind hatred.

If, for example, Gore had been elected President and taken the exact same course of action against Iraq, a lot of the people who are attacking what Bush is doing who be praising Gore for doing the exact same thing. You would also have a lot of the people who are praising Bush attacking Gore. And this is not only making us look like idiots to the rest of the world, but also endangering our troops. Proof of this is when Clinton bombed Iraq. There was no outcry from the supposed 'peace activists' and many on the right were claiming it was just an attempt by Clinton to distract the country from his indiscretions.

It frustrates me, as does the 'I'm so superior' rhetoric as demonstrated in the above post.

You really think Houston's activists were big Gore supporters? You think they voted for him? If he had butchered innocent civilians and violated international law, I would have been just as horrified and vocal about it. I have no loyalty to political parties, I just try to vote the best I can, to avoid greed, war and executive crimes, just like most Americans.

Alfred,
Good try, but you've misjudge my personal stance completely. Don't worry, I've answers for this, if you wish to read.

*************
"OBSERVER buys/sells the same conservative ideology. Your knock on Taxation belies your real concern while trying to confuse any move toward working solutions in a complex society.
---quoted:
“However, there are many areas of the 'systems' that inhibit us from attaining what some people call, "The American Dream".
For example, Tax systems are just one, but it's the most important one.

****************
Alfred,
My mistake in that quote was being too tired to separate my thoughts and it may have given you the impression I was talking about regulating or deregulating taxes. Thats a logical conclusion to say the least.

However I was refering to the complexity of the tax code and how citizens and small business relate in those codes as being destructive to growth for those who are trying to live the "American Dream". I don't have to guess at this, I know how it's affected many small business people around Houston.

Forgive that I didn't elaborate, that was clearly something I should have clarified.

I believe we should invest in our society. I believe it best to leave how we invest to local communities first, then to state, national and international needs.

I don't see any of my fiscal views as conservative other than not wasting money, to save money, and to be wise about the best ways to focus that money. Don't see many of those models in our tax system or the administration of it afterwards.

As for regulations and deregulations I should have split that from the other. I was simply adding this duo to the list of spoilers for people who are trying to start their own business. There are many loopholes that will knock many people out of trying for success in their "dream"

So, reconsider if you wish to make snippy comments based on what you're read here, then get back with some high brow condescension for me to chew on.

Reminder, you know little of my money and what I think of it, only what I write here. So stick to what you read in your response and less about what you think of how I got there in word.

---
You are not a casual observer. You seek to cuddle up to your money and cut your taxes by perpetuating narrow micro-policy...the heck with the rest of the world. Rancid wants no one to pop his bubble about his abstractions of freedom and to him that means nearly about the same thing. "

****************

more projection on your part, but that's fine.
I disagree about whether Rancid says, "Heck with the rest of the world" and financially speaking I easily disagree with you there.
next?....

"butchered innocent civilians and violated international law" I assume you're talking about Saddam?

Hey voter, where were the Houston activists when Clinton was bombing Iraq? I didn't see the protests or the signs. I didn't see the 'Oil for Blood' logos on top of the Clinton photos posted here or anywhere else.

Alfred,

At least observer has the courage to stick around and argue his (or her) beliefs. He (or she) doesn't just spew some rhetoric and run away. I'll always respect someone who at least will try to have a dialog over issues. You just attacked someone who probably shares a lot of the same view points as yourself. What positive result can possibly come from that?

I've seen you post to this board before. You appear, spew once or twice, and disappear. Never and facts, information or dialog.

You need to take a few lessons from people like observer.

I can think of three times on this board where I admitted I was wrong because someone showed me credible information which changed my mind. Your tactics will never do that; therefore, you're just wasting time and space.

>"butchered innocent civilians and violated international law" I assume you're talking about Saddam?

I was referring to Bush, but I agree with you that Saddam also violated international law, of course. I feel more responsibility to deal with the crimes of my leaders than those of other countries.

>Hey voter, where were the Houston activists when Clinton was bombing Iraq? I didn't see the protests or the signs. I didn't see the 'Oil for Blood' logos on top of the Clinton photos posted here or anywhere else.

Well, it's time for you to catch up on your reading!! Go get some back issues of Houston Peace News and the Iraq Notebook, which covered Houston's anti-bombing news and protest under Clinton.

also...
http://www.houstonprogressive.org/hpn/in-index.html
http://www.decadeofnonviolence-houston.org/

Aug. 7, 2000, 8:02AM

Iraq sanctions, Hiroshima bombing recalled in ceremonies in Houston, around world
By ED ASHER
Copyright 2000 Houston Chronicle

On the 10th anniversary of economic sanctions against Iraq and the 55th
anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, Americans and Japanese marked
the
events in separate ceremonies.

In Houston, about 50 people gathered in Hermann Park on Sunday to
protest
what they called the U.S. government's complicity in the deaths of
hundreds
of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq.

The tolling of a lone bell and then the voices of singing children in
Hiroshima, Japan, marked the day 55 years ago that the United States
unleashed "hell on earth" on the people of Hiroshima.

In Washington, D.C., an estimated 3,000 people braved driving rain to
vent
their frustration with the United States, Britain and other Western
powers,
which led international efforts 10 years ago to impose sweeping U.N.
sanctions against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait.

The Houston group marked the events with a presentation of origami
peace
cranes Houston children had made.

"We can't live comfortably with the knowledge we have," said Herbert
Rothschild Jr., coordinator of the Houston chapter of Peace Action. "No
amount of material glitter or temptation can put us at ease when we
know
this nation is inflicting unnecessary horror on other people and
threatening
anybody who stands in our way with the same.

"We are determined to impose our will on the whole world so the wealth
of
the world flows into our coffers on our terms, no matter how much
people who
own those resources suffer," he said.

Continued sanctions against Iraq give the United States an excuse to
maintain a "massive" military presence in the region to ensure the flow
of
oil to this country, Rothschild said.

Because of the sanctions, Iraq has been unable to rebuild its water and
sewage systems, which has led to widespread disease, he said.

The group that gathered at the park claims the sanctions are
responsible for
the deaths of 5,000 to 8,000 Iraqi civilians per month.

The suicide rate among men also has increased, said Selina Ahmed, a
professor at Texas Southern University.

"The suicide rate is very high in Iraq," Ahmed said. "When men cannot
take
care of their family, they feel they are not fulfilling their religious
and
moral obligations to their family. There are no jobs available to care
for
the family. As a result, more men are dying or committing suicide.

"I want to raise awareness in our community that we are going in the
wrong
direction. I hope in a small way to inspire people to see what is the
right
thing to do for Iraq."

Similar protests were held across the country.

The ceremony in Hiroshima included 60 seconds of silent prayer
commencing at
8:15 a.m. -- the moment that a U.S. B-29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb
on
the city Aug. 6, 1945.

"It has been precisely 55 years since one single atomic bomb created a
hell
on earth," Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba said in the city's annual peace
declaration. "Unfortunately, our most fervent hope, to see nuclear
weapons
abolished by the end of this century, has not been realized."

Fifteen hundred doves were released into the sky at the ceremony, which
is
televised nationally every year. Three hundred children sang a song of
peace.

The bomb killed about 140,000 people. Three days later, the United
States
dropped a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, killing 70,000 people.
Japan surrendered Aug. 15, 1945, ending World War II.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

A pretty crappy lesson. lol

I didn't find anything in the two links you posted, and the article you posted addressed U.N. sanctions.

Where are the pictures of the "Clinton lies, people die" posters?

I gave you the ink to Iraq Notebook, now get off your ass and go get back issues of that and Peace News

In which of these sections will I find it:

On "Biological" Warfare and D.U.
No biological warhead found
Voices in the Wilderness
Biological attack hits Iraq
What is Depleted Uranium
U.S. on Depleted Uranium
More on Depleted Uranium
Ramsey Clark on D.U. ban
On Children and Conditions in Iraq
Civil Disobedience
Gulf War's Black Souvenir
Children of Iraq
Sanctions and Disease
Iraq in 1980 and Today
Voices in the Wilderness
U.N. on Iraq Conditions
All Our Children
On International Law and Outreach
Houston Sends Relief
Sanctions and Int'l Law
Albright Not Welcome
Dallas Medicine Drive

In which of these sections will I find it?

Why don't you just copy and paste a direct link for me?

Come on, get off your lazy arse.

the old iraq notebooks are not online, nor are the peace news, there are no links to send you, that is why I have been telling you to "Go get some back issues of Houston Peace News and the Iraq Notebook, which covered Houston's anti-bombing news and protest under Clinton."

Observer, what you write here is precisely what I'm analyzing. I totally disagree that the tax system is the 'most important' inhibitor of the 'american dream'. Besides revenue for government services, a graduated, mulit-tiered progressive tax code prevents aggressive inequalities from becoming insurmountable for the common dreamer to overcome and get a slice of the american pie. The nature of the american economic system's natural evolution is consolidation and market dominance resulting in a tendancy toward unfairness. The most important inhibitor for american dreamers is rampant and uncontrolled corporate power that stifles competition and usurps the sovergnity of a nation's population to govern it's own quality of living. The political system is broken according to its intention with regard to equal representation of individuals, rather than allowing for the system to be dominated by powerful structures of economic concentrations.

You said: >"So stick to what you read in your response and less about what you think of how I got there in word. "

My interest is in what underlies your words so as to understand your explicit viewpoint which is only the tip of the iceberg. If what lies beneath remains unconcious you can not address change. I only seek to get to the truth by knowing where you are really coming from. Fundamental attitudes must be challenged for validation. If you only look at surface logic, it is often ontological and self-perpetuating. Cultural, relgious and assorted attitudes are only symptomatic of the underlying values and beliefs. They must be brought out into the daylight to see if they can withstand scrutiny. They are difficult to change, even when is obviously healthy and adaptive to do so.

Rancid, you have never seen me post on this site before. Where do you get off? I will respect Observer by dialoging with him. You have chosen not to dialog with me but only to try to hitch a ride with him in order to simply antagonise and slam me. You label my statements as rhetoric but you totally ignore them altogether and what they say about your position and it's logic. Do not attempt to say I spew anything. You appear to spew all day, apparently everyday here. I will not waste my time further with you until you seek truth rather than only to battle. I read one of the posts you claim to change your mind. It was weak and unconvincing with condescenion. I do not intend to be offensive but only address and propose unhealthy misconceptions I feel needed some attention. I retract my statement regarding my impressions I concluded you both had about '...the heck with the rest of the world.' That may still be the end result of your positions/narrow viewpoints though I hope it is not intentional by anyone who posts here. Of course would really know besides them?

Alfred,
"If you only look at surface logic, it is often ontological and self-perpetuating."

My point being earlier, don't assume that just because I don't want to write an elaborate 200 page treatise on what ails small business that I haven't considered this for the many years that I've been doing this. I disagree with you about the 'tax system' but not because we might not agree but because what we've introduced so far.

I don't really have time to write endlessly on here. I'm just telling you that dispite what others my show in statistics, all of the small businesses that I've had open talks with about improvements and limitations have pointed to the various ways our services are taxed, not just income taxes or sales taxes, but the countless ways we have to pay 'middlemen' to get a job done that we can do directly.

take care

observer, you repeated yourself and did not address the issue and propositions. That's not dialog. If you wish to stand on an anecdote for your view of current conditions then you risk suffering from a primary fallacy of logic...generalizing the whole using a specifics within a narrow experience range...anecdotal evidence. You appear to post here quite frequently. It would be good to discuss the issues rather than excuses.

Alfred,
instead of wasting a post with an apparent chastising comment, please restate where you wish to clear way with my view or I will not know what information you wish to know. If your intention is to show that I don't know macroeconomics or some such topic, then allow me to save you time and say I don't.

my point resides that relates to the area of my immediate community.

take care

Yo, observer, wake up. That fucker is pulling your chain. Alfred Alder died long ago. This jackass is just trying to bait you into a fight.

Alfred Alder was a psychotherapist...the worst people in the world if there were no politicians!

They love to dig around in other people's heads and the only offspring worse than their patients are Christian Evangelicals!

Wake up and observe dummy

I believe that our arguments start from different places but appear to address the whole economy's macro problems. Your focus is at a micro level while addressing a macro problem affecting multiples of socio-economic interests...which is like comparing apples to orangoutangs. There is really a diiferent approach needed.

You state: "I disagree with you about the 'tax system' but not because we might not agree but because what we've introduced so far. "

Your focus is that the problem primarily lies within the govt taxes and regs that you believe are the main inhibitors for individuals to breach the threshold for entering into their dream of prosperity, growth, enterprise creation...whathaveyou. I proposed that it is that primary inhibitors are those entities that dominate the economic landscape stifling true innovation, creating huge barriers to entry into the markets and wielding overwhelming influence on our lawmaking/oversight abilities to reign them in and make them accountable to a government of the people where they do business. It is the disportionate and massive ability these megoliths employ in warping the playing field to the disadvantage of individual participants. A prime global example of this is Wal-mart's predatory competition practices that mostly go unhindered and displaces local businesses by the dozens. There are many things that could be done to prevent the end results of this market destructiveness. But the political process is not enpowered for these human participants. Small businesses and propritors are at the mercy not of big govt, but of big enterprise which overwhelms the govt/econ systems. What to do about it is another story altogether.....

nice chatting with you sincerely. I feel your frustratiions and I search for how to approach the whole scene. I think you are earnest in your efforts to find solutions, it is time though for identifying the biggest problems and attacking them with clarity. Perspective is widely abused by ruthless opponents to distract, confuse and paralyze their prey into disorientation. Governments of 'sovergn people' have a mission to serve the most people the best they can, whereas economically-oriented enterprises seek to serve a few people in the best way they can. It is an inherant conflict that requires continual monitoring and accountability requirements. No system is perfect but ours is in jeaporady of disenfranchising the most people in the worst way.

More crystal power shit. Fix your own problems, bond with your family and leave yourself out of others.

dm, you can be the ideal of what the problem is all about. living without connections, even virtually is impossible.....maybe that's why you are on here so often looking for some, even if it is only negative attention. Your disconnectedness shines through here. Accept help and turn off the hate. Like yourself and you will be able to enjoy a group hug of others or at least like someone outside your walls. self-centeredness or uninhibited aggression is exactly the problem which needs to be addressed in the world today and in our own lives. Or would you rather just let it all implode?

you whispered:
-------------------------------------------------
apparently you can't fix your own problem
by Alfred Adler •
dm, you can be the ideal of what the problem is all about. living without connections, even virtually is impossible.....maybe that's why you are on here so often looking for some, even if it is only negative attention. Your disconnectedness shines through here. Accept help and turn off the hate. Like yourself and you will be able to enjoy a group hug of others or at least like someone outside your walls. self-centeredness or uninhibited aggression is exactly the problem which needs to be addressed in the world today and in our own lives. Or would you rather just let it all implode?

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

1. If thats your real name it's ok to see some one with guts post here once and a bit.

2. Don't pick on Doug.. if he needs a hug (ehem) a
manly kinda hug.. I be here..

now be a nice little rainbow as it rains on your party.

Joe Oliver
Reparations for American Indians First

ps: doug.. send me an email to the addy I listed.
joe

"apparently you can't fix your own problem
by Alfred Adler "

I wonder if Freud would have spent time trying to decide the mental state of someone without ever visiting with them; only reading a few correspondence notes as signs of their tormented inner child, boo who?

you have no idea what problems I've fixed for both my self and my family. if you had a brain instead of a little dick you'd see the possibility that there is more to people than is dreamt of in your selfish philosophies.

there is not just one path, nor is there one view.

"dm, you can be the ideal of what the problem is all about. living without connections, even virtually is impossible.....maybe that's why you are on here so often looking for some, even if it is only negative attention. "

This whole pablum is a perfect example of projected subconscious fears and realizations on YOUR part.

You assume that because I chose to come here last week and comment on the posting of someone's private information and then after watching the predictable childish behavior chose to take the time to repeatedly point to their hypocritical commentary that I feel disconnected?

That's a reflection of how Disconnected you feel, friend. Grow up. We are all connected and sometimes those connections don't fuse so easily and sometimes there are things happening that are not what they seem. Sometimes there are people who know a bit more about these little things than the children that want to play radical. And to each teacher there is a different method. Perhaps Sheila Harris is our teacher this week. What do you think?

Or do you actually think?

"Your disconnectedness shines through here. Accept help and turn off the hate. "

Fuck off! You are small, infinitely small. Want to know how small you are? Scan to bottom of the message and enjoy, small person.

"Like yourself and you will be able to enjoy a group hug of others or at least like someone outside your walls. self-centeredness or uninhibited aggression is exactly the problem which needs to be addressed in the world today and in our own lives. "

This is another example of your projected self speak. You don't fully like yourself so you presume that others must not like themselves either. I don't bother with such thoughts. If I do good work today and put food on the table for my family throughout the day, then I feel good about that, but not with heavy feeling of sentiments and pride. Tomorrow brings a new set of tests I may not pass so well, so it's good to keep the head on strong and rest early and rise early.

"Or would you rather just let it all implode?"

Implode Explode are pointless metaphors describing YOUR inner workings. Deal with them, they'll be around for a long time.

Your friend,
Doug

(answer: because you would assume immediately that I picture myself as BIG. Don't lie either, it's only for your time, not mine.)

good god, if doug goes off this bad because of a few emails I'd hate to be his wife and kids. tick tick tick

"I proposed that it is that primary inhibitors are those entities that dominate the economic landscape stifling true innovation, creating huge barriers to entry into the markets and wielding overwhelming influence on our lawmaking/oversight abilities to reign them in and make them accountable to a government of the people where they do business. It is the disportionate and massive ability these megoliths employ in warping the playing field to the disadvantage of individual participants. A prime global example of this is Wal-mart's predatory competition practices that mostly go unhindered and displaces local businesses by the dozens."

First, let's look at your example of Walmart. Why is Walmart so successful? Low prices and advertising. How many years had Woolworth's (same basic idea) been around before Walmart? They used to be the mega five and dime chain, but they fell because they didn't keep up with the times.

Now, let's look at a few more examples of where your statement is wrong. Let's go with Microsoft first. How long has Microsoft been around? You had a small group of people with the vision and drive to make billions of dollars by taking adavantage of the circumstances. What about Steve Jobs and Apple? Heck, let's take a look locally at Mattress Mac. Were there not giant furniture stores in Houston before he showed up? Why did he succeed? Why didn't the giant furniture companies squash him?

I could show thousands of examples of where the little guy succeeded.

The old "big business has everyone in there pockets so there is no way for the little guy to succeed" excuse is just that, an excuse.

Of course, blaming others for your situation is not only a way to keep from taking responsiblity for your own failures, but it is also a great motivational and recruiting tool. The KKK used it very well and so did the Nazi's.

Rancid,
I agree with what you are saying here.

There are no big business that I compete against for work. We are in an area of business that is almost exclusively little guys.

The number one areas we have to watch are income tax, payrule tax, social, etc. When we decided to get a new workspace, the various loops that Houston requires us to go through, the state requires us to go through, and ultimately, I'm sure there's going to be a federal loop to go through, all these kept us from expanding into a centralized space to work together.

So, we work independently and share our goods when we're done. We'd be doing much better if we didn't have to pay a fee every time we make changes.

Now, what about the idea of the "big business" people affecting us, well, they are trying. They are expanding to control the market on our tools, but they can't dominate our skills because we work per client on areas that could never be dealt with on a big scale.

I'm not a jeweler, but it's like jewelers who do custom work. The big companies who sell diamonds and the like can sell these items, but not fix them, reset them, etc without shipping out the work to the small guy.

anyway, Alfred, I'm sorry I'm not as business smart as you are, but what you are writing about doesn't solve our problems because it doesn't address the real ones we deal with. They are good points of knowledge though.

take care

Rancid, how naive you are my fellow human. You have no idea whatsoever about end stage capitalism or predatory market control or globalized cheap resource domination or corporate political corruption of trade. You have no sense of the scale I'm speaking of. Wal-mart and Microsoft did not get to where they are by Low prices and advertising! You need to do some reading and pull open your eyes to see a little further if you are going to suggest how the national economy can be improved.

Your oversimplifications seem to be disengenious. If you are sincere you are seriously blinded to the larger scale problem unfortunately. Seek less abstractions and see more distinctly instead of ideally. Do not cling so hard to such broad absolutes for reasoning. Defend your beliefs with less rancor and use rigorous very widely considered reasoning. If you can be open to and not offended by different perspectives it will help ward off challenges and degradation of your quality of life. Change your view as needed if wish to succeed at more than one level.

Some of the barriers Observer confronts are tied into restraints of trade for upstarts which actually benefit favoring large corporations with disportionate shares of restrictions. When they do exert influence to change the rules, they market and tie them to grandiose abstractions to appeal to small business aspirations while primarily increasing their own market dominance and anti-competitive positions. If you continue to buy their crap ideology that you share common interests, you ultimately cut your own throat in the market place. We can lower regs on small business but it does not mean we should have to give the same to conglomerates does it? But they seem to co-opt the individual businesses into buying in to thinking they are casting their lots all together. Or they simply use brute force and huge money resources to buy their own benefits while the little guys have no grease.

I find this one of the hardest concepts small enterprisers have in distinguishing. Regional small business people cannot compare with interstate and international business slicing right through multiple regional markets with huge advantages which dwarf local players ability to compete. Big business deserves a different set of rules and recognition by local entrepreneurs of the major underlying conflicts which exist.

Tell me oh wise one, what mega corporation helped Mattress Mac grow his empire? Or maybe it was the illuminati?

Rancid wrote:
---------------------------------
Tell me oh wise one
by Rancid
--------------------------------

still waiting for an answer to Rancid's question re:
Mattres Mac..

Interesting guy Mac is. Do you know the intentionally low-key ethical history of the guy? Tell me what you find out about his dark past since I already have some clues.

As regards his business: You would be incorrect in thinking that his business is a regional affair as suppliers come from far and wide cutting through regional markets just like the big exploitive corporations do on the global scene. His deal making and political influence are interesting to say the least. As for his competition though here in town in the furniture business - there are no market crushing giants in the Houston furniture market......yet, but there is an increasing dominance by him and two others in the standard home quality niche, which is the most lucrative. His employees work very long hours on the lot and on the streets late into the night. He has one of the most personally negative attitudes to others of anyone I've ever known. He is like a machine that can't turn itself off in his quest for mo' money.

When are you guys going to stop idolizing the examples of greed and sheer glutony and realize that the quality of lives for all of us is not served by these ambitions but in fact lead to conflict, strife and degradation of your own community, nation and the entire planet? Your values are killing you and the rest of us!

Who is idolizing? He's just an example of a person with a dream that made it happen through dedication and hard work.

You don't get the fact that in this country, even the little guy can become the big guy. Mattress Mac, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Marc Cuban, Jeffery Skoll, Richard Scrushy, etc. etc. etc.

Now they may become low lifes after they make it big, but that is either here nor there, because the point is that they did it.

The American Dream is possible and made real thousands and thousands of times a year.

If your contempt of big business wasn't blinding you, you could easily see it yourself.

Watch the movie "Startup.com" and you'll see how even the big boys (banks, venture capitalists, etc) will line up to help the little guy with the big idea. Yes, the business did fail, but it illustrates how the big businesses didn't try to steal the idea but they tried to finance the idea.

You just need to get over the fact that this country is a place where people have the opprotunity to succeed.

There'll never be a 'revolution' while people are happy with the system, and those who are dying for a 'revolution' will spread their propaganda in hopes of building discontent through whatever means are necessary.

You want a revolution? Move to France. They'll be really ripe for one in about another 20 years when the population realizes that socialism sucks.

As I've illustrated before:

If you're in Star Pizza and you want a Big Mac, you're not getting a Big Mac, you need to go to McDonalds.

This is America. Home of capitalism, freedom of speech and the American Dream. Socailism isn't on the menu here. Instead of trying to change us, why don't you go somewhere that has what you want. It'll just make you happier, that is until you realize how great the good ole' U.S. really is.

It's no skin off my teeth to prove over and over using example after example as to how this country is the land of opprotunity. And I really don't mind pointing it out over and over, because I'm quite proud of my country. Oh, we screw up from time to time, but hey, who doesn't.

But one day, if a brick were to land on my head and knock out some marbles, and I decide "Hey wouldn't socialism be great", I really hope that the brick didn't cause enough damage that I wouldn't just pack my bags and follow my dream.

I don't hate or even dislike you because your a little confused an naive, and I really hope that one day you can find your dream.

I wish you good luck and good health my friend.

Hi Rancid,
Where in the Constitution of the US does it state that Capitalism is the system we have? Or...where does it forbid socialism?

thanks,
steve

the title says it all

If you look throughout history it is doubtless that it is the capitalist class who has stolen private property from the workers, i.e. the few powerfull families in el salvador, slavery in the U.S. Israelis taking land from the palestiniansetc.etc.all socailism is about is restoring private property to its rightfull owners. When you go to work for a company they are unfairly explioting the labor you do for the capiltalistic gains , that property rightfully belongs to you! They sit up in glittering mansions with drug addicted brat kids, while you work your ass off,when the constitution was written the country was making a transition into early capitalism from an agrarian society, private property at that time could be interpereted to mean slaves! you have to remember that while there are important clauses in there to protect the working class, the document was basicaly written by rich white slave owning males over 21 for the same.

Once again, where did I say that capitalism is in the Constitution? Please remind me as to where I said this.

However, you do see in the Constitution that the founding fathers felt that the rights to pursue and hold property were very important. You don't, on the otherhand, see anything referring to the government having any responisibility toward welfare or healthcare.

"stolen private property from the workers, i.e. the few powerfull families in el salvador, slavery in the U.S." Not only do you see that in other countries with different systems of government, but they are MUCH more prevelant there. In communist Russia or China, do the works have private property? Are there elite powerful families? Is there slavery? Yes to all three, and at a much greater level.

"When you go to work for a company they are unfairly explioting the labor you do for the capiltalistic gains , that property rightfully belongs to you!" LOL. I remember seeing a cartoon depicting this goofy ass notion. So when you the worker produces a product on a machine at a company, it should be his? LOL. Then why would a company purchase the raw material, the machinery, the building, and pay for all the logistics? If the company didn't pay for those things, the worker would be chasing rats around to make stew, not out purchasing the latest cell phone.

The purpose of starting a company is not to hire and pay people. That is not the goal. Who in their right mind would ever invest millions of dollars, not only invest but RISK, just to provide jobs? You start a company to make money!! Because without that money, your family doesn't eat, your kids don't go to college, you don't have clothes to wear, and you don't have money to help others.

Name me a single country that doesn't have private industry and the poor are better off than the poor here in the U.S.

could you compile the list of the countries which don't have private industry?

rancid can not thimk outside his circular logic. i feel pity for us all to have to wade through his cloudy reasonings.

It is good to know private enterprise is alive and well in all systems throughout the world.
So......capitalism and socialism (that codeword for absolute evil rancid believes) actually merge in the world of reality. The conflict is between unregulated capitalism/globalization and the less likely possibility of communist totalitarianism (unlike socialism totally).

Whole Foods pledges to be more humane

Whole Foods Market on Tuesday will announce plans to become the first major grocery chain to adopt humane animal treatment standards.

By Bruce Horovitz
October 21, 2003 Copyright 2003 USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com

The move follows nearly two years of intense pressure from two animal rights groups that have previously persuaded the fast-food giants - from McDonald's to Burger King - to improve standards.

It also comes at a time when consumer interest in animal rights issues has ramped up nationally. An overwhelming 96% of Americans say animals deserve "some" protection from harm and exploitation, according to a recent Gallup poll. The natural foods retailer, known for its organic offerings, will allow an independent third party to be named to audit its changes.

The plan gives activists added leverage to continue pushing Safeway and Kroger on animal welfare standards - and it relieves Whole Foods of potential image problems that might have miffed its mostly upscale audience.

But John Mackey, CEO of the grocery chain, insists the move wasn't motivated by a desire to be politically correct - nor was it the result of outside pressure.

"Whole Foods does not respond to coercion," he says of the 147-store chain with sales of $3.2 billion last year. "We re-examined (activists') claims and decided they were basically right."

It may cause meat prices to increase slightly, he says, but Whole Foods will clearly communicate to customers why.

Mackey himself recently shifted from being a conventional vegetarian to a vegan who abstains from all foods with animal byproducts. "I came across an argument I could not refuse: Eating animals causes pain and suffering to the animals."

Officials at the two animal rights groups, Vegetarians International Voice for Animals and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, were ecstatic.

"It's a big deal for the animals," says Lauren Ornelas, campaign director at VivaUSA, the domestic branch of the British-based animal rights group. "Whole Foods customers don't like the idea of ducks whose bills are cut off."

Under the new guidelines - which Mackey says should be in place before the end of 2004 - ducks will be treated more humanely before slaughter.

All of this is a long way from the reaction PETA got from Mackey and other executives at the company's annual meeting in March. They left the podium while a PETA member read an animal rights statement.

Now, Mackey is leading the charge. "It's pretty horrible what's going on with animals in America," he says. "Hopefully, this will put pressure on others to change their ways."

At least one consultant thinks Mackey is onto something here. "Animal welfare has gotten on everyone's radar screen," says John Lister, a brand consultant. "Whole Foods will now be seen as doing the right thing."

Who will stand for the silent vegetables? Lettuce unite!

I don't carrot all for that sort of thinking...

Interesting
http://elegant-choice.com/t.php?q=truck'>

It was fine for the woman to express her beliefs, but I'm sure the people working at Whole Foods that day (at miminum wage I'm sure) did not feel like trying to negotiate with her. Not only were they at work, and most likely not enjoying their day, but also they have no control over what Whole Foods sells or does not sell, at least not at the immediate level. I'm pretty sure she did "make a scene" as that tends to be the activist way. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for activism, but it should be intelligent and proactive. You cannot just start ranting at whoever is in your path. She should have tried contacting high executives for the company, not blown up at the sample lady.

> tried contacting high executives for the company

huh? that's a dumb kinda activism too

what you got to do is get a buffalo costume and lurk around the houses of the executives while singing and vomiting

Hello everyone, I'm a newbie to website design and being a this site. I'm stopping by a few sites to pick up tips and get answers from people who know a lot more about this that I do! Supplements from Foods A Canadian company, Naturally Nova Scotia, makes supplements from foods instead of synthetics. The have vitamin C from fruit, herbal tinctures, green drinks, vitamin D3, and others.