Chicago Climate Exchange Organization

[dabrockster]

Thanks frank ryan, this needed to be said. At the time King was assassinated, he had moved on from civil rights, in the broadest sense, to pinpoint poverty as the greatest injustice in America. He was actively opposing the Vietnam war, before it was popular to do so, and he was advocating massive social programs (redistribution of wealth) that would make it easier for the poor to lift themselves out of their poverty.

Thank Robin. I wonder if he was correlating civil rights and the depressed areas (Poverty) being majority of African American areas and was looking to still address discrimination in a broader sense..

I think it can be said Beck is using just a minor part of MJK's vision for the promotion of his own ideas and could possibly using it to show support to a different demographic that he may not have reached before..



I guess, this topic has changed. It was not meant to be another "Beck Rant/Support" topic. I was more interested in the CCX and how this works...

PS: Katy, I have not gotten your email yet...

[woot]

Nice Comeback!

[RobinFinderson]

Thank Robin. I wonder if he was correlating civil rights and the depressed areas (Poverty) being majority of African American areas and was looking to still address discrimination in a broader sense..

I think it can be said Beck is using just a minor part of MJK's vision for the promotion of his own ideas and could possibly using it to show support to a different demographic that he may not have reached before..



I guess, this topic has changed. It was not meant to be another "Beck Rant/Support" topic. I was more interested in the CCX and how this works...

PS: Katy, I have not gotten your email yet...

Here are a couple of paragraphs taken from MLK's speech to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, August 16, 1967. Here he talks about a 'guaranteed annual income,' and the effect that would have in alleviating some of the worst problems associated with poverty.

Beyond these advantages, a host of positive psychological changes inevitably will result from widespread economic security. The dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life are in his own hands, when he has the means to seek self-improvement. Personal conflicts among husbands, wives and children will diminish when the unjust measurement of human worth on the scale of dollars is eliminated.

Now our country can do this. John Kenneth Galbraith said that a guaranteed annual income could be done for about twenty billion dollars a year. And I say to you today, that if our nation can spend thirty-five billion dollars a year to fight an unjust, evil war in Vietnam, and twenty billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of dollars to put God's children on their own two feet right here on earth.

[dabrockster]

Here are a couple of paragraphs taken from MLK's speech to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, August 16, 1967. Here he talks about a 'guaranteed annual income,' and the effect that would have in alleviating some of the worst problems associated with poverty.

Out of those two paragraphs I am curious to hear more so I will read his speech.

I do find some faults or I have a different opinion in that paragraph you shared. First Population back then is not what it is now, so supplying people with money to live would substantially grow overtime and it would not be as productive as I think he dreams it will be (But I get what he is saying against the war and how the money could be used elsewhere and I think that was his main point). Second, we currently have entitlement programs that provide income for people/families and I have yet to see a majority of those elevate themselves out of poverty, but has only increased. So I am not sure it would truly happen like he says it would. Third, I understand there being a level of a brick wall for some, but do we not all have the opportunity to improve ourselves now (Maybe back then that was not the case)?


I will read the whole speech though..

[creekster]

There are all kinds of 'elitists.' You obviously aren't talking about elite athletes, or elite chess players. The word 'elitist,' in this context, has become shorthand for 'people who think they know better than us.' As such, the word is used to encourage a dismissive attitude toward the arguments of the 'elitists.' The term doesn't address any particular argument, which is why it is used so broadly. Use of the word 'elitist' to encourage a dismissive attitude toward a person's positions, without actually arguing against those positions, is the epitome of an ad hominem attack.

First, sometimes ad hominem attacks are relevant and meanginful. They shoudl not be dismissed out of hand.

second, I said his attiude was elitist. IOW, I wasnt attcking him, but his position (even though now he apprently doesnt have one).

Third, I marvel at your clairvoyance as you know what I meant and you are able to pinpoint the 'context' in such a prescient way. The 'context' i used the owrd in was to describe the position that woot was taking as to Beck and his followers. If people select Beck becasue they believe the same, and if beck's 'manipultions' bother you so much, it is the equivalent of beleiving that the masses are asses and it is alarming to you if they are mobilized. I was trying to shorthand that by using a term that was descriptive, as opposed to trying to be 'dismissive.' Sorry to disappoint you, but your boldly declarative statements are simply wrong.

I think elitism is ridiculous. I find that people that are educated (or that consider themselves to be educated) are frequently convinced they know best and that people following a different path who are not educated are scary. Woot will and has denied this (and I am glad he has backed off), but if you read his earlier posts that seems to be exactly what he is talking about. At the very least it looks like that. THis is the classic operative definition of elitism.

Fourth, Elitism is a descritpive political teerm that fits rather nicely here.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism"]Elitism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Portal.svg" class="image"><img alt="Portal.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Portal.svg/32px-Portal.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/c/c9/Portal.svg/32px-Portal.svg.png[/ame]

That you and/or woot find it to be so pejorative is surprising.

Bottom line, I dont think the masses need to be saved from themselves. I think that Beck is a silly little man, but is ultimately neither especially dangerous nor unduly influential. In fact, if anything, i think he is a good way for pissed off peopel to let off steam. I also have great faith in the mass of people in this cournty and belioeve they can recognize a trick or charlatan long before it causes them or you damage. Just becasue you disagree with a position doesnt mean the opposing position is dangerous.

[woot]

Creekster, this just seems like petulance. I don't have a position now? How many times must I restate it?

You have identified why I laugh at accusations of elitism, however:

"I find that people that are educated (or that consider themselves to be educated) are frequently convinced they know best..."

This reeks of "standing up to experts." Those who are more educated about a topic are more likely to make good decisions about that topic. I have never denied that and would never deny that, as you claim I have. It would be insane to deny that, as you seem to be doing here.

[creekster]

Creekster, this just seems like petulance. I don't have a position now? How many times must I restate it?

You have identified why I laugh at accusations of elitism, however:

"I find that people that are educated (or that consider themselves to be educated) are frequently convinced they know best..."

This reeks of "standing up to experts." Those who are more educated about a topic are more likely to make good decisions about that topic. I have never denied that and would never deny that, as you claim I have. It would be insane to deny that, as you seem to be doing here.

Petulance? is that an ad hominem?

We have clearly reached a point of impasse or of refusal to see the others POV. I am not accusing you of elitism. It is not a crime. Is democracy a crime? would I accuse you of being a monarchist? Short of relying on Robin's ability to pierce our minds and hearts, you will ahve to take my word for the fact that I was describing the principles that I see underylying your opinion.

I have no more to say (reserving all rights, of course). if you ahve other words, you can have the last one.

The amusing thing is that it seems you have listend to more of Beck than I have. I really cant take him at all.

[Indy Coug]

The amusing thing is that it seems you have listend to more of Beck than I have. I really cant take him at all.

I don't either. The only time I really listen to him or read something from him is in response to someone raising a fuss about something he did or said. After I familiarize myself with the issue at hand, invariably I find that the person griping about him is misrepresenting (deliberately or not) what he said or is grossly exaggerating the impact those statements or actions have.

The same observation applies to Sarah Palin.

[RobinFinderson]

I am speaking of the baroad policies here. In any given particualr, especially things like the Rockefeller center consiracy, etc., Beck's rantings ARE seen as entertainment by most or many, I eblieve. It is, as you specualte above, just more of the same.

I was an art major, studied art history in way more depth than 99.9% of the population. I remember specifically studying the fiasco behind the murals at the Rockefeller center, yet when this 'conspiracy' theory came to light, I had to google it and review the facts before I felt comfortable to talk about the issue. Now you are expressing your belief that most of Beck's audience watched that segment and accepted it as a mere 'entertainment?'

[creekster]

I was an art major, studied art history in way more depth than 99.9% of the population. I remember specifically studying the fiasco behind the murals at the Rockefeller center, yet when this 'conspiracy' theory came to light, I had to google it and review the facts before I felt comfortable to talk about the issue. Now you are expressing your belief that most of Beck's audience watched that segment and accepted it as a mere 'entertainment?'

Yes. Unless I missed the mobilization against NBC, I guess.

[RobinFinderson]

Out of those two paragraphs I am curious to hear more so I will read his speech.

I do find some faults or I have a different opinion in that paragraph you shared. First Population back then is not what it is now, so supplying people with money to live would substantially grow overtime and it would not be as productive as I think he dreams it will be (But I get what he is saying against the war and how the money could be used elsewhere and I think that was his main point). Second, we currently have entitlement programs that provide income for people/families and I have yet to see a majority of those elevate themselves out of poverty, but has only increased. So I am not sure it would truly happen like he says it would. Third, I understand there being a level of a brick wall for some, but do we not all have the opportunity to improve ourselves now (Maybe back then that was not the case)?


I will read the whole speech though..

You are stretching a bit here, because like most Americans, you were raised to LIKE MLK, and to see him as a symbol of what is best about America. By the end of MLK's life, his popularity was at a fairly low point. Even civil rights leaders were looking at his pivot to poverty as a distraction from the civil rights movement, but MLK recognized that black people would ALWAYS find themselves trailing behind the rest of America if they were not able to become less disproportionately poor. Poverty cut across racial lines, but it affected minorities the most broadly.

MLK's idea of a minimum income has never been tried (in the world, as far as I know). He was talking about a work program, not just welfare. He was talking about a massive redistribution of wealth. If we are ever going to solve the problems of poverty, it will require a massive redistribution of wealth. People who are serious about 'clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, and sheltering the homeless' realize this. The problems are bigger than what disparate private enterprise can solve.

[Guest]

People who are serious about 'clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, and sheltering the homeless' realize this.

I'm surprise you feel this way. From what I've read, it seems fewer and fewer experts feel this way, i.e. about Africa for example. Money will not solve their problems, in the long term.

Edit:

Examples of new thinking, not trapped in the models of the 60s.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...363663,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021201150.html

http://www.ideas4development.org/pos...-problems.html

http://www.otfgroup.com/bio_mfairbanks.html

[RobinFinderson]

I'm surprise you feel this way. From what I've read, it seems fewer and fewer experts feel this way, i.e. about Africa for example. Money will not solve their problems, in the long term.

Edit:

Examples of new thinking, not trapped in the models of the 60s.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...363663,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021201150.html

http://www.ideas4development.org/pos...-problems.html

http://www.otfgroup.com/bio_mfairbanks.html

Solving the problems of poverty is going to require government-sized allocations of resources. I have no problem with correcting aid policy, if it proves to be ineffective. None of the aid provided to the poorest nations of Africa shows up in the form of an MLK-like minimum annual income (which I think would be a worthwhile experiment, starting in the US). to the extent that your sources are arguing for more effective forms of aid, I am in agreement. To the extent that they are suggesting we end aid to poverty, but continue to let multinational corporations loot the wealth of poor nations, with little of that capital benefiting the people of those nations, I strongly oppose that.

[dabrockster]

You are stretching a bit here, because like most Americans, you were raised to LIKE MLK, and to see him as a symbol of what is best about America. By the end of MLK's life, his popularity was at a fairly low point. Even civil rights leaders were looking at his pivot to poverty as a distraction from the civil rights movement, but MLK recognized that black people would ALWAYS find themselves trailing behind the rest of America if they were not able to become less disproportionately poor. Poverty cut across racial lines, but it affected minorities the most broadly.

MLK's idea of a minimum income has never been tried (in the world, as far as I know). He was talking about a work program, not just welfare. He was talking about a massive redistribution of wealth. If we are ever going to solve the problems of poverty, it will require a massive redistribution of wealth. People who are serious about 'clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, and sheltering the homeless' realize this. The problems are bigger than what disparate private enterprise can solve.

Actually, I grew up in a home that considered MLK to be an instigator of riots and mob-like behavior (FYI: My father served in Vietnam, so that may be where his hatred for him stems from). I really have not researched his life nor who he was. So, I should look more into that. So my feelings are mixed nor have I truly molded an opinion on him. I did not take any civil rights classes at tOSU which were offered. I took Political Science instead..


I work directly with the homeless. Employment is important but it has never been the top priority to resolve homelessness. In addition, most of the homeless tend to be single adults with mental illnesses that are debilitating. The are not able to hold any long standing jobs due to this. Most of their priorities is services through medicaid etc.

I am curious by your minimum income suggestion. Are you talking about something like the church's welfare system? I am still not sure if it would work. And to be honest, I am not one who is for redistribution of wealth either...

[RobinFinderson]

Actually, I grew up in a home that considered MLK to be an instigator of riots and mob-like behavior (FYI: My father served in Vietnam, so that may be where his hatred for him stems from). I really have not researched his life nor who he was. So, I should look more into that. So my feelings are mixed nor have I truly molded an opinion on him. I did not take any civil rights classes at tOSU which were offered. I took Political Science instead..


I work directly with the homeless. Employment is important but it has never been the top priority to resolve homelessness. In addition, most of the homeless tend to be single adults with mental illnesses that are debilitating. The are not able to hold any long standing jobs due to this. Most of their priorities is services through medicaid etc.

I am curious by your minimum income suggestion. Are you talking about something like the church's welfare system? I am still not sure if it would work. And to be honest, I am not one who is for redistribution of wealth either...

See Wikipedia on Guaranteed Minimum Income.

Guaranteed Minimum Income