From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Date: 3 Jan 93 08:10:42 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <C08nKs.IK3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>>>A clear definition works very well in more stable societies,
>>>but doesn't seem to work as well in more quickly changing
>>>societies. 

>Hell, yes!!! (Of course, remember I'm 43 years old.) I don't think

What have been the major changes in your definition of "good"?

>>>I actually see the problem (or some great component of it) as
>>>television...

>>Would you mind to elaborate?

>Television tends to inordinately increase the role that appearance
>plays in voting choices. 

That's what Bush thought when he picked a vice president...

>For example, I doubt if Lincoln, Churchill or
>Roosevelt could have been elected today.

I doubt if Hitler could have been elected today...

>>(BTW was it the television fault that the dead people kept
>>voting for mayor Daley of Chicago...?)

>Well, they chose better than many living people today!

>Seriously, the old-style political bosses may have not been that
>bad, as leaders... 

The system where people could do what they liked without too much
accountability was bad.  It could work with a good political
boss for the same reason that a dictatorship works pretty well
with a good dictator, but the risks just don't worth the benefits.

>>>Hillel, can you give an example of any government which has
>>>stayed "clean handed"? 

>>\begin{sarcasm}
>>Feminists keep telling us about the "good" female-dominated societies
>>that were around 4,000-5,000 years ago; do you think that those 
>>societies had not "clean handed" governments?!
>>\end{sarcasm}

>Please do not attribute to me opinions I don't hold. 

I did a little reality check to a feminist myth.

>>>and I also note that sometimes the
>>>government acts as a check and balance to the quasi-governmental
>>>power of big, bureaucratic corporations.

>>For that the government should be stronger than the big, bureaucratic 
>>corporations, but not much stronger.  The current situation where 
>>pushing the "right" tax laws, and getting government contracts, are 
>>the best ways for big companies to increase their profit actually 
>>helps those "big, bureaucratic corporations" at the expense of 
>>the smaller and younger ones.

>I don't think most people who have direct experience with big
>corporations are rosy about their current abilities to enhance
>scientific creativity. 

Sure.

If you want to get the job done then better find a small start-up
with a couple of people who understand the subject.  They would
be able to solve the problem much faster.

>And, of the institutions I've had direct
>experience with, both the most successful and the least were nonprofit
>in their essential purpose; the profit-making organizations tend to fall
>in the middle.

My impression is that the young companies are where the job is really done.
The old companies have too many "yes-men" that can't understand a
changing world.  The government is of course one of the oldest
companies around...

>Lenore Levine

Hillel                                                gazit@cs.duke.edu

"I don't need the Canadian government's approval, any more than I
need an NEA grant to fund my posting."  --  STella@xanadu.com	
Newsgroups: alt.feminism