tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902719.post114140222296467309..comments2007-03-11T10:57:34.379-05:00mikevoteshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08010028700825655843noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902719.post-1141580650386133672006-03-05T11:44:00.000-06:002006-03-05T11:44:00.000-06:00There have been many cases where it has been in our government's best interest in its mission to protect business operations versus the mission to uphold the rights of an autonomous citizenry- to liken environemtnal activists to terrorists. Their selective use of power serves as yet another example of a trinity gone awry- business, government, and the lobbyists. <BR/><BR/>Terror presupposes the use of a threat to a population much larger than the population that can reasonably and statistically be impacted by the actions of the group. So people in ten shopping malls worry about the potential for an attack on ONE shopping mall and seem to disconnect the relationship to probability. The fear is based on the emotional disproportion, which I posted about when I wrote on heuristics and referred to Friedman's work on the costs of homeland security. He points out in his writings that we are more likely to die from a car accident or the flu versus terrorism. The expense is not justifiable.<BR/><BR/>My point is that the mechanations of activists are not the same and should not be treated as the same thing. They act by seeking to impose a financial penalty on corporations that engage in wrongdoing. Now some cross the line, sure, but this is not terror this is called breaking the law. Laws can be borken peacefully, and groups can also seek legal remedies which are expensive and difficult to apply to a critical imminent problem.<BR/><BR/>What can somebody trying to stop a clearcut do? Seek an injunction? The REMEDY is not the same for activists. A n activist group tends to resort to lawbreaking when the need to interced is more urgent than legal remedies permit.<BR/><BR/>They might look a that. But they won't. <BR/><BR/>On Corruptco, I do appreciate the support and participation. I was not asking to hijack the blogworld for my own agenda, I was just trying to think up a creative way to tie corporate actions to the politics many of us write about. They are inextricably linked, and the solutions require not a change of party but in my opinion, a change in the role of government. Corporate lapdog, or in service of the people? Thanks Mike and keep in touch.LILY BRANFORDhttp://considertheboot.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com