There was an outstanding opinion piece yesterday by the
always reliable Thomas Sowell, about leftists and their
"halo words" like "non-profit", "public interest" and
"consumer advocate". This attitude, of course, applies
to stupid "animal rights activists" across the board.
--------------------------------------------------------

THOSE who rail against profits and "greed' seldom stop
to think through what they are saying, much less go
check the facts. Most of the great American fortunes -
Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, etc. - came from finding
more efficient ways to produce a product or service at
a lower cost, so that it could be sold at a lower price
and attract more customers. If making a fortune
represents greed, then greed is what drives prices down.

None of this matters to people who have been
conditioned to respond to the word profit
automatically, as Pavlov's dog was conditioned to
respond to certain sounds.

"Never speak to me of profit,' India's legendary leader
Pandit Nehru once said to that country's leading
industrialist. "It's a dirty word.'

Policies based on that attitude cost millions of
Indians a better life for decades, by stifling India's
businesses.

Indian businesses flourished around the world except in
India. Only after India's severe restrictions on
business were lifted in the past dozen years has its
economic growth taken off, creating rising incomes,
employment and tax revenues. This poverty-stricken
country could have had all those things 40 years
earlier, except for a prejudice against a word.

Unthinking prejudices and suspicions about profits are
often matched by unthinking gullibility about
"nonprofit' organizations. No matter what money may be
called, both individuals and organizations must have it
in order to survive.

Businesses get their money from those who buy their
goods and services. Nonprofit organizations are
crucially dependent on money from other people either
voluntary donations, tax money from the government, or
money extracted from businesses through lawsuits.

Where there is a product or service of widely
recognized value, such as education or medical care,
schools and hospitals can attract donations on that
basis. But there are other nonprofit organizations that
can survive only by inspiring fears and anger that
bring in donations.

For these kinds of nonprofit organizations, the sky is
always falling or we are threatened with seeing the
last few patches of unspoiled land paved over for
shopping malls, virtually everything is "unsafe,' we
are running out of natural resources, and air and water
are becoming dangerously polluted.

Facts do not make a dent in these claims. No matter how
much data show air and water pollution to be far less
than in the past, that only a small fraction of the
land of this country is paved over, or that there are
far more known reserves of natural resources than there
were half a century ago, or that life expectancy is
increasing despite innumerable "dangers' proclaimed by
hysteria-mongers, the media continue to take these
people seriously because nonprofit is equated with
unbiased.

The media treat "consumer advocates,' for example, as
if they had some expertise, rather than propaganda
skills. But there are no qualifications whatever
required to become a "consumer advocate.'

Nor is there any test whatever for whether a "public
interest' law firm in fact serves the public interest,
rather than filling its own coffers with damage awards
or advancing its own ideological agenda.

Unlike profit-seeking businesses, which must keep down
costs in order to survive, many of the costs created by
nonprofit organizations fall entirely on others. Those
others include not only their donors but also those who
pay in many ways for the government-imposed
restrictions created at the urging of nonprofit crusaders.

These costs include sky-high housing prices in places
where nonprofit organizations can get state and local
governments to prevent, restrict or harass anyone
seeking to build homes or apartments. Frivolous
lawsuits by "public-interest' law firms drive up prices
with huge damage awards against businesses, doctors and
others.

The biggest costs may be paid by people needing medical
care in places where expensive malpractice insurance,
brought on by frivolous lawsuits, have driven doctors away.

These are very high prices to pay for a halo around
words like "nonprofit,' "public interest' or "consumer
advocate.'

http://tinyurl.com/2zso8

Jonathan Ball wrote:
> There was an outstanding opinion piece yesterday by the always reliable
> Thomas Sowell, about leftists and their "halo words" like "non-profit",
> "public interest" and "consumer advocate". This attitude, of course,
> applies to stupid "animal rights activists" across the board.
> --------------------------------------------------------


Of course, stupid rightwingnuts like Boob Adkins have
their own set of emotionally invested halo words, too.
"American armed forces" and "Republican party" come
to mind.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> There was an outstanding opinion piece yesterday by the
> always reliable Thomas Sowell,

snip

http://www.tsowell.com/

I wonder what he'd think of your racist outbursts?

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > There was an outstanding opinion piece yesterday by the always reliable
> > Thomas Sowell, about leftists and their "halo words" like "non-profit",
> > "public interest" and "consumer advocate". This attitude, of course,
> > applies to stupid "animal rights activists" across the board.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Of course, stupid rightwingnuts like Boob Adkins have
> their own set of emotionally invested halo words, too.
> "American armed forces" and "Republican party" come
> to mind.

When somebody posts on Christmas day, the word "Sad" comes to mind.
>

"Zakhar" > wrote in message ws.com>...
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > There was an outstanding opinion piece yesterday by the
> > always reliable Thomas Sowell,
>
> snip
>
> http://www.tsowell.com/
>
> I wonder what he'd think of your racist outbursts?


Ball is no rascist.

He's prejudiced against everyone. Including himself.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:35:52 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" > wrote:

>
>When somebody posts on Christmas day, the word "Sad" comes to mind.

"Actually I think he is presently engaged in some secret work for the US
Government. George W. is growing a new form of virus in JBs underpants. Top
Secret - don't tell anyone."
Camcompany Date: 2002-12-25 08:55:03

"Some may be critical of Christmas Day postings, but animal abuse and
exploitation is a 365 day operation and I see little reason for a break in
the fight of evil.
Ray."
Camcompany Date: 2002-12-25 08:36:

"Not a pleasant message for Christmas Day, but how many innocent children
have starved to death during a time when a majority of The Western World
have been stuffing themselves with food?

Best wishes
Ray"
Camcompany Date: 2002-12-25 06:04:06

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:35:52 +0000 (UTC), "Ray"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >When somebody posts on Christmas day, the word "Sad" comes to mind.
>
> "Actually I think he is presently engaged in some secret work for the US
> Government. George W. is growing a new form of virus in JBs underpants.
Top
> Secret - don't tell anyone."
> Camcompany Date: 2002-12-25 08:55:03
>
> "Some may be critical of Christmas Day postings, but animal abuse and
> exploitation is a 365 day operation and I see little reason for a break in
> the fight of evil.
> Ray."
> Camcompany Date: 2002-12-25 08:36:
>
> "Not a pleasant message for Christmas Day, but how many innocent children
> have starved to death during a time when a majority of The Western World
> have been stuffing themselves with food?
>
> Best wishes
> Ray"
> Camcompany Date: 2002-12-25 06:04:06

Nice one Derek,

Can't get out of that one can I?
In fact I won't even try because you are right, 'Google' proves your case.

Now, about those tablets you take, all tested on animals.
Will you be equally truthfull and admit that you are a hypocrite?

No use doing a 'Google' on that one.
You have never made a 'plausible' excuse in the past and I doubt you will in
the future.



>

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:35:46 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" > wrote:
>
>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:35:52 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >When somebody posts on Christmas day, the word "Sad" comes to mind.
>>
>> "Actually I think he is presently engaged in some secret work for the US
>> Government. George W. is growing a new form of virus in JBs underpants.
>Top
>> Secret - don't tell anyone."
>> Camcompany Date: 2002-12-25 08:55:03
>>
>> "Some may be critical of Christmas Day postings, but animal abuse and
>> exploitation is a 365 day operation and I see little reason for a break in
>> the fight of evil.
>> Ray."
>> Camcompany Date: 2002-12-25 08:36:
>>
>> "Not a pleasant message for Christmas Day, but how many innocent children
>> have starved to death during a time when a majority of The Western World
>> have been stuffing themselves with food?
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Ray"
>> Camcompany Date: 2002-12-25 06:04:06
>
>Nice one Derek,
>
>Can't get out of that one can I?
> In fact I won't even try because you are right, 'Google' proves your case.
>
It always does. Google shows a good deal about you
and proves you are the dirty man of Usenet. You lie,
blackmail and goof around these animal related NG's
as if they were nothing more than teen chatrooms.

> Now, about those tablets you take, all tested on animals.
>Will you be equally truthfull and admit that you are a hypocrite?
>
I'm not a hypocrite for taking meds, because I don't
make the empty claim that I'm responsible for the
suffering caused by drug producers and testers. You
seem to think you are, yet you continue to cause these
harms anyway, so you're the hypocrite rather than I.

History shows that I have always rejected moral responsibility
for the farmer's collateral deaths and for the suffering meted
out to animals by the vivisectionist. While some here believe
my reasons are selfish in that I don't want to be thought of as
a part of the problem for these animals, especially being that
I advocate rights for them, the very real reason for rejecting
responsibility for another's actions is that I believe accepting it
makes one an enabler. In an essay on rejecting responsibility,
Russell Madden describes an enabler as, [In the social sciences,
an "enabler" is a person who inappropriately accepts responsibility
for another's life and creates the conditions allowing that other to
continue in self-destructive actions without facing the full negative
consequences of such behavior.]

The essence of that corresponds with something I wrote here
as "firstoftwins" over two years ago;
"My refusal to accept the blame for cd invigorates me to
challenge the problem even more. If we all acted like you and
just accepted the blame without even thinking, nothing would
ever get done, would it? While you all walk around in self pity
proclaiming, "we're all to blame, nothing can be done about it",
some of us are looking at it in a more realistic way and arguing
that the farmer must do more to minimise it."
firstoftwins 2001-08-08

Madden's essay, showing why we should reject responsibility
for the wrong actions of others, else we become an enabler,
demonstrates that I was on the right track even then. For
those interested in Madden's essay and why I believe it goes
some way in explaining my own concepts on responsibility,
I've included parts of it here. It's a very well written and worth
spending a few minutes over.

[Morally, we all should act responsibly. Also, morally, we all
are responsible for our own existences, whether we behave
responsibly or not. Politically, however, the State should
concern itself only with the latter. When the government steps
beyond the boundary of acknowledging the self-responsibility
of each individual and instead seeks to force its citizens to act
responsibly, it is itself behaving, well, irresponsibly.

As Nathaniel Branden once observed, no one plays the
helplessness game on a desert island. Alone, a person must
either acknowledge and accept the reality of his
self-responsibility or he must die. Only in a social situation
can a person pretend that his beliefs, his actions, his destiny
can be directed or caused by someone else. In the context
of the present discussion, however, the essential point to
remember is that such evasion can succeed only to the extent
that others accept and take on that ignored responsibility.

As important as the recognition and acceptance of self-
responsibility are morally, politically, the failure to reject
responsibility which is not theirs is the stone upon which
all current "reformers" must stumble. Only when people
appropriately delimit what rightly belongs to their spheres
of personal responsibility -- and what does not -- will the
"helpless" face the full consequences of trying to avoid the
requirements of reality. Only when the national political
debate takes into account the problems arising from well-
intentioned meddling will actual reform occur. Only when
each of us realizes precisely what personal responsibility
entails -- and where it ends -- will true freedom be
established in this country.

Adults must be able to act in ways that are objectively
foolish, silly, or harmful as long as they respect the rights
of others. As much as a person may cringe to witness the
self-destructive behavior of others, he must respect the
moral autonomy of those people and not impose his own
standards upon them. What is permissible or even
desirable between parents and their children must be
rejected when dealing with those who are not family
members. Contrary to the wishes and words of so many
in this country today, we are not all "part of one big family,
" we are not our "brothers' keepers," we are not "children"
subject to the dictates and punishing hand of a governmental
"parent" who must ascertain and obtain what is in our best
interest. Those and similar communitarian metaphors are
fundamentally flawed.

In the social sciences, an "enabler" is a person who
inappropriately accepts responsibility for another's life
and creates the conditions allowing that other to continue
in self-destructive actions without facing the full negative
consequences of such behavior. On every level, the State
is the biggest enabler of all time. Government "over-functions"
when it makes it easier for people to abrogate their
obligations, to slide along while others pay the price for their
mistakes. If it is important within a family to allow children to
fail at times and to suffer the results of their mistakes, it
becomes crucial in a civilized and free society.

Any number of reasons may explain the desire of some
individuals to direct others' lives. For some, "pragmatic"
considerations of maintaining power, position, or prestige
demand that a substantial number of citizens not accept
personal responsibility. If no such group of "helpless" or
"misguided" souls existed, no justification could be offered
for most bureaucrats' jobs. Not only their perks but their
livelihoods would disappear. Others who champion the
State may require a pool of people to "help" in order to
feel superior or to feel good about themselves.

Yet even more dangerous than the "pragmatists" are those
who seek to manage the lives of the unfortunate or
incompetent or lazy because of "moral" considerations. The
pragmatists might be convinced to abandon their positions
if they could be shown other avenues offering better
prospects. The moralists, however, will stick to their course
no matter how much destruction their activities create.
Though both groups depend on suffering and the prolonging
of pain for their raison d'etre, those who hold selfless service
to others as their moral imperative have more to fear from a
society in which the guiding political principle is rejection of
inappropriate responsibility. The altruist descendants of Comte
or Kant would find moral behavior impossible in a culture in
which every person refused to violate the moral autonomy of
any other individual. When a purported moral system leads to
such a self-contradiction, it must be in error.

Acceptance of this very error, however, still permeates the
political landscape of the world. Refusal to reject responsibility
for the mistakes and misfortunes of other people sends our
troops to hopeless hotspots around the globe. It creates and
perpetuates the modern welfare state. It subverts our system
of justice and gives rise to a criminal class unprecedented in
this century. It demeans the dignity of not only those who
evade the mantle of their personal responsibility but also the
dignity of those who stoop to pick it up.

In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt's credo echoed across the pages:
"I swear -- by my life and my love for it -- that I will never live
for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
" Here Ayn Rand encapsulated the idea that not only must each
person accept ultimate responsibility for himself but must refuse
to accept responsibility for the life of any other individual in the
deepest metaphysical sense of the term.

Knowing when to reject responsibility is a skill most people
have yet to learn. Until that lesson is well mastered, the painful
consequences flowing from the actions of the well-intentioned
do-gooders of the world will continue to lead us down that
rocky road to hell.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/...nsibility.html

You, like everyone else who inappropriately accepts responsibility
for vivisectionists and farmers, enable them to continue. You're
an enabler.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:35:46 +0000 (UTC), "Ray"
> wrote:
> >
> >"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:35:52 +0000 (UTC), "Ray"
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >When somebody posts on Christmas day, the word "Sad" comes to mind.
> >>
> >> "Actually I think he is presently engaged in some secret work for the
US
> >> Government. George W. is growing a new form of virus in JBs underpants.
> >Top
> >> Secret - don't tell anyone."
> >> Camcompany Date: 2002-12-25 08:55:03
> >>
> >> "Some may be critical of Christmas Day postings, but animal abuse and
> >> exploitation is a 365 day operation and I see little reason for a break
in
> >> the fight of evil.
> >> Ray."
> >> Camcompany Date: 2002-12-25 08:36:
> >>
> >> "Not a pleasant message for Christmas Day, but how many innocent
children
> >> have starved to death during a time when a majority of The Western
World
> >> have been stuffing themselves with food?
> >>
> >> Best wishes
> >> Ray"
> >> Camcompany Date: 2002-12-25 06:04:06
> >
> >Nice one Derek,
> >
> >Can't get out of that one can I?
> > In fact I won't even try because you are right, 'Google' proves your
case.
> >
> It always does. Google shows a good deal about you
> and proves you are the dirty man of Usenet. You lie,
> blackmail and goof around these animal related NG's
> as if they were nothing more than teen chatrooms.
>
> > Now, about those tablets you take, all tested on animals.
> >Will you be equally truthfull and admit that you are a hypocrite?
> >
> I'm not a hypocrite for taking meds, because I don't
> make the empty claim that I'm responsible for the
> suffering caused by drug producers and testers. You
> seem to think you are, yet you continue to cause these
> harms anyway, so you're the hypocrite rather than I.
>
> History shows that I have always rejected moral responsibility
> for the farmer's collateral deaths and for the suffering meted
> out to animals by the vivisectionist. While some here believe
> my reasons are selfish in that I don't want to be thought of as
> a part of the problem for these animals, especially being that
> I advocate rights for them, the very real reason for rejecting
> responsibility for another's actions is that I believe accepting it
> makes one an enabler. In an essay on rejecting responsibility,
> Russell Madden describes an enabler as, [In the social sciences,
> an "enabler" is a person who inappropriately accepts responsibility
> for another's life and creates the conditions allowing that other to
> continue in self-destructive actions without facing the full negative
> consequences of such behavior.]
>
> The essence of that corresponds with something I wrote here
> as "firstoftwins" over two years ago;
> "My refusal to accept the blame for cd invigorates me to
> challenge the problem even more. If we all acted like you and
> just accepted the blame without even thinking, nothing would
> ever get done, would it? While you all walk around in self pity
> proclaiming, "we're all to blame, nothing can be done about it",
> some of us are looking at it in a more realistic way and arguing
> that the farmer must do more to minimise it."
> firstoftwins 2001-08-08
>
> Madden's essay, showing why we should reject responsibility
> for the wrong actions of others, else we become an enabler,
> demonstrates that I was on the right track even then. For
> those interested in Madden's essay and why I believe it goes
> some way in explaining my own concepts on responsibility,
> I've included parts of it here. It's a very well written and worth
> spending a few minutes over.
>
> [Morally, we all should act responsibly. Also, morally, we all
> are responsible for our own existences, whether we behave
> responsibly or not. Politically, however, the State should
> concern itself only with the latter. When the government steps
> beyond the boundary of acknowledging the self-responsibility
> of each individual and instead seeks to force its citizens to act
> responsibly, it is itself behaving, well, irresponsibly.
>
> As Nathaniel Branden once observed, no one plays the
> helplessness game on a desert island. Alone, a person must
> either acknowledge and accept the reality of his
> self-responsibility or he must die. Only in a social situation
> can a person pretend that his beliefs, his actions, his destiny
> can be directed or caused by someone else. In the context
> of the present discussion, however, the essential point to
> remember is that such evasion can succeed only to the extent
> that others accept and take on that ignored responsibility.
>
> As important as the recognition and acceptance of self-
> responsibility are morally, politically, the failure to reject
> responsibility which is not theirs is the stone upon which
> all current "reformers" must stumble. Only when people
> appropriately delimit what rightly belongs to their spheres
> of personal responsibility -- and what does not -- will the
> "helpless" face the full consequences of trying to avoid the
> requirements of reality. Only when the national political
> debate takes into account the problems arising from well-
> intentioned meddling will actual reform occur. Only when
> each of us realizes precisely what personal responsibility
> entails -- and where it ends -- will true freedom be
> established in this country.
>
> Adults must be able to act in ways that are objectively
> foolish, silly, or harmful as long as they respect the rights
> of others. As much as a person may cringe to witness the
> self-destructive behavior of others, he must respect the
> moral autonomy of those people and not impose his own
> standards upon them. What is permissible or even
> desirable between parents and their children must be
> rejected when dealing with those who are not family
> members. Contrary to the wishes and words of so many
> in this country today, we are not all "part of one big family,
> " we are not our "brothers' keepers," we are not "children"
> subject to the dictates and punishing hand of a governmental
> "parent" who must ascertain and obtain what is in our best
> interest. Those and similar communitarian metaphors are
> fundamentally flawed.
>
> In the social sciences, an "enabler" is a person who
> inappropriately accepts responsibility for another's life
> and creates the conditions allowing that other to continue
> in self-destructive actions without facing the full negative
> consequences of such behavior. On every level, the State
> is the biggest enabler of all time. Government "over-functions"
> when it makes it easier for people to abrogate their
> obligations, to slide along while others pay the price for their
> mistakes. If it is important within a family to allow children to
> fail at times and to suffer the results of their mistakes, it
> becomes crucial in a civilized and free society.
>
> Any number of reasons may explain the desire of some
> individuals to direct others' lives. For some, "pragmatic"
> considerations of maintaining power, position, or prestige
> demand that a substantial number of citizens not accept
> personal responsibility. If no such group of "helpless" or
> "misguided" souls existed, no justification could be offered
> for most bureaucrats' jobs. Not only their perks but their
> livelihoods would disappear. Others who champion the
> State may require a pool of people to "help" in order to
> feel superior or to feel good about themselves.
>
> Yet even more dangerous than the "pragmatists" are those
> who seek to manage the lives of the unfortunate or
> incompetent or lazy because of "moral" considerations. The
> pragmatists might be convinced to abandon their positions
> if they could be shown other avenues offering better
> prospects. The moralists, however, will stick to their course
> no matter how much destruction their activities create.
> Though both groups depend on suffering and the prolonging
> of pain for their raison d'etre, those who hold selfless service
> to others as their moral imperative have more to fear from a
> society in which the guiding political principle is rejection of
> inappropriate responsibility. The altruist descendants of Comte
> or Kant would find moral behavior impossible in a culture in
> which every person refused to violate the moral autonomy of
> any other individual. When a purported moral system leads to
> such a self-contradiction, it must be in error.
>
> Acceptance of this very error, however, still permeates the
> political landscape of the world. Refusal to reject responsibility
> for the mistakes and misfortunes of other people sends our
> troops to hopeless hotspots around the globe. It creates and
> perpetuates the modern welfare state. It subverts our system
> of justice and gives rise to a criminal class unprecedented in
> this century. It demeans the dignity of not only those who
> evade the mantle of their personal responsibility but also the
> dignity of those who stoop to pick it up.
>
> In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt's credo echoed across the pages:
> "I swear -- by my life and my love for it -- that I will never live
> for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
> " Here Ayn Rand encapsulated the idea that not only must each
> person accept ultimate responsibility for himself but must refuse
> to accept responsibility for the life of any other individual in the
> deepest metaphysical sense of the term.
>
> Knowing when to reject responsibility is a skill most people
> have yet to learn. Until that lesson is well mastered, the painful
> consequences flowing from the actions of the well-intentioned
> do-gooders of the world will continue to lead us down that
> rocky road to hell.
> http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/...nsibility.html
>
> You, like everyone else who inappropriately accepts responsibility
> for vivisectionists and farmers, enable them to continue. You're
> an enabler.


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

And you are a hypocrite.

You can write yards of hyperbolic crap, quote from 'Google' offer links, but
at the end of the day Derek, you are a plain liar and a hypocrite of the
lowest order.

Is there one poster on these Newsgroups who believes *you* are a genuine AR
supporter? I rest my case and wait for a response.

"ipse dixit" > wrote
> "Ray" > wrote:
[..]
> > Now, about those tablets you take, all tested on animals.
> >Will you be equally truthfull and admit that you are a hypocrite?
> >
> I'm not a hypocrite for taking meds, because I don't
> make the empty claim that I'm responsible for the
> suffering caused by drug producers and testers.

You're responsible for the consequenses of your decision to accept the
fruits of their labour.

> You
> seem to think you are, yet you continue to cause these
> harms anyway, so you're the hypocrite rather than I.

If he is in fact *not* responsible, then he can't be a hypocrite.

> History shows that I have always rejected moral responsibility
> for the farmer's collateral deaths and for the suffering meted
> out to animals by the vivisectionist.

Falsely.

> While some here believe
> my reasons are selfish in that I don't want to be thought of as
> a part of the problem for these animals,

We don't just think that, we know it.

especially being that
> I advocate rights for them, the very real reason for rejecting
> responsibility for another's actions is that I believe accepting it
> makes one an enabler.

That's illogical, how can the way you think about it enable a person working
in some lab or farm hundreds of miles away?

[..]
> You, like everyone else who inappropriately accepts responsibility
> for vivisectionists and farmers, enable them to continue. You're
> an enabler.

False, that does nothing. There's only one thing that enables them to
continue, your ongoing support of them with your purchases.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> There was an outstanding opinion piece yesterday by the
> always reliable Thomas Sowell, about leftists and their
> "halo words" like "non-profit", "public interest" and
> "consumer advocate". This attitude, of course, applies
> to stupid "animal rights activists" across the board.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> THOSE who rail against profits and "greed' seldom stop
> to think through what they are saying, much less go
> check the facts. Most of the great American fortunes -
> Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, etc. - came from finding
> more efficient ways to produce a product or service at
> a lower cost, so that it could be sold at a lower price
> and attract more customers. If making a fortune
> represents greed, then greed is what drives prices down.
>
> None of this matters to people who have been
> conditioned to respond to the word profit
> automatically, as Pavlov's dog was conditioned to
> respond to certain sounds.
>
> "Never speak to me of profit,' India's legendary leader
> Pandit Nehru once said to that country's leading
> industrialist. "It's a dirty word.'
>
> Policies based on that attitude cost millions of
> Indians a better life for decades, by stifling India's
> businesses.
>
> Indian businesses flourished around the world except in
> India. Only after India's severe restrictions on
> business were lifted in the past dozen years has its
> economic growth taken off, creating rising incomes,
> employment and tax revenues. This poverty-stricken
> country could have had all those things 40 years
> earlier, except for a prejudice against a word.
>
> Unthinking prejudices and suspicions about profits are
> often matched by unthinking gullibility about
> "nonprofit' organizations. No matter what money may be
> called, both individuals and organizations must have it
> in order to survive.
>
> Businesses get their money from those who buy their
> goods and services. Nonprofit organizations are
> crucially dependent on money from other people either
> voluntary donations, tax money from the government, or
> money extracted from businesses through lawsuits.
>
> Where there is a product or service of widely
> recognized value, such as education or medical care,
> schools and hospitals can attract donations on that
> basis. But there are other nonprofit organizations that
> can survive only by inspiring fears and anger that
> bring in donations.
>
> For these kinds of nonprofit organizations, the sky is
> always falling or we are threatened with seeing the
> last few patches of unspoiled land paved over for
> shopping malls, virtually everything is "unsafe,' we
> are running out of natural resources, and air and water
> are becoming dangerously polluted.
>
> Facts do not make a dent in these claims. No matter how
> much data show air and water pollution to be far less
> than in the past, that only a small fraction of the
> land of this country is paved over, or that there are
> far more known reserves of natural resources than there
> were half a century ago, or that life expectancy is
> increasing despite innumerable "dangers' proclaimed by
> hysteria-mongers, the media continue to take these
> people seriously because nonprofit is equated with
> unbiased.
>
> The media treat "consumer advocates,' for example, as
> if they had some expertise, rather than propaganda
> skills. But there are no qualifications whatever
> required to become a "consumer advocate.'
>
> Nor is there any test whatever for whether a "public
> interest' law firm in fact serves the public interest,
> rather than filling its own coffers with damage awards
> or advancing its own ideological agenda.
>
> Unlike profit-seeking businesses, which must keep down
> costs in order to survive, many of the costs created by
> nonprofit organizations fall entirely on others. Those
> others include not only their donors but also those who
> pay in many ways for the government-imposed
> restrictions created at the urging of nonprofit crusaders.
>
> These costs include sky-high housing prices in places
> where nonprofit organizations can get state and local
> governments to prevent, restrict or harass anyone
> seeking to build homes or apartments. Frivolous
> lawsuits by "public-interest' law firms drive up prices
> with huge damage awards against businesses, doctors and
> others.
>
> The biggest costs may be paid by people needing medical
> care in places where expensive malpractice insurance,
> brought on by frivolous lawsuits, have driven doctors away.
>
> These are very high prices to pay for a halo around
> words like "nonprofit,' "public interest' or "consumer
> advocate.'
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2zso8
>

That really is a great article. Thanks.

"Benfez" > wrote
>
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote

> > http://tinyurl.com/2zso8
> >
>
> That really is a great article. Thanks.

I suspect you're Derek Nash. I'll be watching.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...

> I suspect you're Derek Nash. I'll be watching.
>
And so will I. Check the headers to this one
and compare them to yours, Ditch.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> > I suspect you're Derek Nash. I'll be watching.
> >
> And so will I.

Good, it won't take long.

Whoever you are, why are you faking my pseudonym on a post?

> Check the headers to this one and compare them to yours, Ditch.

There they are, whoever you are, you have taken out a free trial of
supernews, so what? I don't look at headers when I suspect someone is
nym-shifting, I look for style tells, unmistakable signs of a person's
identity. In the case of Derek Nash, he can't disguise his brain-dead
arguments and belligerence for long.