From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #146 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, April 24 2001 Volume 10 : Number 146 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE:peaceful & violent ["matt sewell" ] Re: Worst joke of the week [HAL ] RE:peaceful & violent ["matt sewell" ] Re: peaceful demonstrators & violent idiots [Capuchin ] RE: peaceful & violent [Viv Lyon ] RE: peaceful & violent [Capuchin ] RE: peaceful & violent ["Thomas, Ferris" ] RE: peaceful & violent [Capuchin ] RE: peaceful & violent ["Thomas, Ferris" ] RE: peaceful demonstrators & violent idiots ["pat welker" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:24:47 +0100 From: "matt sewell" Subject: RE:peaceful & violent Danger: long and winding post... erm... that leads to your...um... Windows... Ferris said:>I can't argue with the mathematics but the major problem: this country's too >large. Public transport won't work. Sorry. Not on a massive scale. Is that true, or is it just *existing* public transport that won't work? >I've been to countries with decent public transport (European, with the UK comes >to mind.) While the service sometimes (all right, a good amount of the >time) may seem like crap (delays, cancellations, etc) it's really not that >bad. It certainly seems crap from where I'm standing (ie. in the rain, waiting for the bus to take 45 minutes to go 15 miles in order to avoid using the very unreliable, expensive and possibly even unsafe train)! > >Brit Rail used to be entirely government run. When Branson bought a chunk >of it he inherited a broken-down and ill-maintained system. Only in the >past, what, year and a half or so have the Virgin lines gotten up to speed. Don't get me started! The trains were pretty awful under BR (the publicly owned rail company), but when they were privatised, rather than come up with a way of running the trains more efficiently, all the stock and track was sold off at a ridiculously knock-down price in order to mean profits from the outset. The private companies then set about maximising this profit by a) leaving the rolling stock, track and engines well alone, letting them slowly deteriorate and b) raising the price of tickets. This went on for years until the trains all but stopped working, then the government had to shell out to keep the companies afloat. I'd recommend France as a place where public transport is owned by the state, is dirt cheap, ruthlessly efficient and wonderfully integrated. Big place,too... >Is he [Branson] turning a profit? I have no idea. I sincerely hope not! He may have been the bloke to give Faust a recording contract and about a million quid, but that was a long time ago... >Should public transportion be something that's run on a for-profit basis? It's the only way to >get at least a chance at decent service. Absolutely... couldn't agree more. >Should the government absorb all the >costs to keep it cheap? In a small country it's a possibility. In one the >size of the US, no. Hmm... not sure about that - surely in the richest country in the world cheap, efficient transport should be subsidised because it benefits everyone in the long term? >I live in western CT. I work in central CT. Housing costs are too >expensive in the center of the state. Yes, there are areas where I could >afford a place but, frankly, they're crap. Is that snobbery? Perhaps. If >I can afford to live in a decent area with low/no crime and a good standard >of living why the Hell wouldn't I? I'm just not that altruistic. IMHO that's fair enough - I really believe change should come through legislation and provision of integrated public transport... I think appealing to peoples' sensibilities or driving the poor off the roads by making car use too expensive is not really the way to go. For everyone that leaves their car at home, there's someone who'll drive twice as far 'cos the roads are clear! >If I could work from home, believe me, I would. If I could afford a place >near work and save myself a seventy minute round trip commute every day, I >would. Fact is: I've got a decent job and a decent rent. Me too, me too, me too.> >Am I going to ditch a programming gig to bag groceries just to save a >commute? > >Think about it for a second. Or force the government to think about it for a second?Cheers Matt - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:28:50 -0600 From: HAL Subject: Re: Worst joke of the week Jason Wilson Brown and his University of Washington - Seattle, WA sig file: > im just saying if you are gonna continue slagging on old punks (which is > your perogative) than at least slag a real old punk to slag rather than > old 80's trash. Will my "Shane MacGowan's Vomit" post from a couple weeks ago do? And, you still have not yet defined what constitutes a "Real Old Punk". /hal PS - Slag a real old punk to slag? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:49:23 +0100 From: "matt sewell" Subject: RE:peaceful & violent I give up. That last post was totally unreadable. Many apologies... I guess hotmail just isn't the industry leader it once was... ;-) Matt - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:11:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: peaceful demonstrators & violent idiots On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Christopher Gross wrote: > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Capuchin wrote: > > but realize that public opposition, even public OUTRAGE doesn't > > make one lick of difference here. > > Not true, at least in theory. We're not talking about theory. In THEORY, our legislators and executives are elected democratically. The theory just doesn't hold true today. > If there was *enough* public outrage, in the next couple of election > cycles an anti-FTAA government would be elected that would pull the US > out of it. True, this is very unlikely, but it's certainly > *possible*. More important (because more likely), enough public > opposition can put pressure on the member governments to modify the > agreement and put pressure on businesses to behave themselves. Sure, > this kind of pressure isn't as much power as you might like to have, > but it is still a real form of power and should not be scorned. What "pressure" is that? There are large, monied interests out there who back two candidates of "different" political parties and play them up with all their media holdings until we've marginalized and trivialized any opposition. Then we get to "vote" on which of the two we'd like to see in office. Both Bush and Gore support FTAA. Clinton and Bush, Sr. supported NAFTA. Clinton and Dole both supported WTO. Why? Because the folks that paid for their campaigns (and other little kickbacks and direct bribes) insisted on it. > Whenever I hear the phrase "by any means necessary," I reach for my > ... well, I don't reach for anything, but I groan a little. In this > case, violence could not possibly be considered a "necessary means" > because, while it could possibly stop the conference, that would not > achieve the ostensible larger goals of the demonstators. The goal in Quebec City was to stop the conference. Same as Seattle, Geneva, etc. Stop the conferences and you'll see that they're a sham. The policies will be enforced by the biggest and the strongest. > The ONLY thing that can stop or modify the FTAA is public pressure, as > expressed democratically at the ballot box, in boycotts of misbehaving > companies, etc. Violence alienates large segments of the public, > reducing this public pressure. Didn't you read what I wrote before (in the post to which you're replying)? Voting doesn't do it because no candidate is free of the monied influence. Boycotts don't do it because there aren't enough companies doing the "right thing". We can't boycott the ten or twelve most egregious violators because they control so much of the infrastructure. The "alternatives" just can't support a nation boycotting those companies. > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they adopted any treaty at > all, just a statement of intent. Their idea is to have the treaty > finished by 2005. Their idea is to have the treaty fully enforced by 2005. Some terms of the treaty were decided. Other items (like "protect working conditions") were left vague and probably won't come out in any kind of effective wording. > > At no point will it matter whether or not the people of the United States > > are "aware of the problems" because they don't have a viable alternative > > to the raping and pillaging done by the multinational corporations. > > So what you're saying is it's inevitable, there's nothing to be done, your > own opposition is hopeless, and we should all just sit down and weep and > do nothing. Interesting; I thought you actually advocated activity of > some sort. It's also interesting that you're willing to accept violence > even though the cause is hopeless. Chris, get out your head out of your ass. The situation is hopeless if you are stuck in the rut that leads you only to voting and boycotting. THAT is hopeless. THAT is why we need to move to different methods of combat. You cannot vote against them. You cannot boycot them meaningfully. If everyone was like you, the situation would be hopeless. Thankfully, that's not the case. There are people with vision and courage to see beyond the veil that's been pulled over American eyes. > VOTES are the true power anyone has over politicians. But we have a system where it is impossible for a third party to be elected to the highest offices and the two parties in controlled are bought and paid for by the same monied interests. The politicians that support these kinds of economic and social policies as long as there's a "lesser of two evils" argument among the two controlling parties. As long as we quibble over selfish shit like abortion, gay rights, and taxes, we're going to be manipulated completely on global issues. > Politicians follow the money because it buys votes. [snip] > Anything else that can sway people's votes is also a form of > power over politicians -- and that includes peaceful demonstrations, > canvassing, handing out leaflets in front of the supermarket, > spray-painting "Nader's Soy Bomb" on Eb and throwing him onstage with > Bob Dylan, etc. It might not be as much power as Exxon has, but it is > still real power and you should consider using it. You're still completely marginalized. People still say "if this Nader guy's so great, why don't I see him on CNN along with the two real candidates?" (actual quote overheard last year) And if it comes down to a three way race and no clear MAJORITY comes through the electoral college, then CONGRESS chooses the president. Yay! > > The violent protestors proved several things for us: Government is no > > longer of or for the pople, it is armed against them and fears them. > > How did it "prove" that? In my humble opinion, ANY democratic > government should be armed and afraid (or at least wary) of violent > people. People who advocate their political points by smashing and > burning and chucking rocks have no place in a democratic polity. You're saying that you can't have a democratic system that doesn't respect personal property? I think that's completely untennable. > What's all this about the talks not really taking place? Several > people have mentioned this. Any sources? The articles I read in The Oregonian and IndyMedia and a few others not springing immediately to mind have all said that pretty much all of the meetings were delays, most were cancelled, and whole delegations didn't show up. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:27:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: peaceful demonstrators & violent idiots Brian Huddell: > What about people who use violence (or vandalism, or whatever) to > advocate "bad" political positions, positions that Jeme disagrees > with? I absolutely resent this, Brian. How dare you suggest that I support political action only for those with whom I agree? While it is true that I don't believe the proponents of corporate economics should go smashing private property to "make their point", it is only because it is hypocritical for them to do so. Their basic belief depends on holding private property in the highest regard and to smash private property is to smash their own belief system. > What if the tactics employed in Quebec City were used to effectively > derail, say, an international conference on global warming, one that > Jeme personally believes has the potential to improve emissions > standards worldwide, a conference about which Jeme isn't the least bit > cynical? But a grassroots smashing and burning and rock throwing > campaign succeeds, and an opportunity to accomplish something > important is lost. Nothing "important" can be accomplished without the support of the people in the nation making an attempt to accomplish. A summit on global warming that ends in a treaty could just as well be protested by volunteer private citizens that oppose such a treaty. Surely. But it isn't going to happen because the people DO support treaties that work against global warming... by overwhelming majority. FTAA was a conference supposedly sponsored by the governments of the invited nations. But at no point were the people of those nations adequately polled as to their opinion on whether or not such a conference should be held (see my previous post regarding the lack of choice in this issue that was brought to voters). The protesters were there to let THEIR OWN REPRESENTATIVES know that the right thing to do, in their minds, was to end the conference. If this had been a meeting of non-government organizations, then the actions of those organizations after the summit would still have to comply with existing law. So we could worry less and public opinion might actually matter. > The behavior already has the endorsement of Jeme and a few others on this > list, so it would be disingenuous to criticize the behavior. "Yes, they > used the correct approach, and you gotta hand it to them, they sure know how > to bust up a conference. Too bad they're on the wrong side." But you'd > have to be pissed about something, and since it can't be the behavior I > suppose that just leaves the fact that all these people disagree with you. > Smashing and burning and rock throwing, then, are only cool if the people > who do it are *right*. Huh? You just (rightly) said that I would say "you gotta hand it to them, they sure know how to bust up a conference". Then why would you say I would oppose the means they took to do it? If they were working to preserve private property and did so at the expense of private property, that's hypocritical and I would condemn it and say it's "self-defeating" and all that other stuff. But if they were trying to stop their government from doing something that they think it shouldn't do, then, well, that's appropriate. > Problem with that is, I'm an idiot with a kid and a house, and because > I'm made up of failings and prejudices and doubts, I'm not always > right. I'm frightened of violence, even the kind where nobody is > supposed to get hurt. ...and that's why you'll get exactly what's shoved down your throat. And people have an amazing ability to rationalize, so you'll probably say it tastes good and you wanted it. > And since I'm just as likely to be on the "wrong" side of a bunch of > people who are willing to tear up shit to make a point, as I am to be > on the "right" side, I'm a bit uneasy with the notion that it's okay > for the "right" people to tear up shit. Is this moral relativism? Do you really not believe you are right? Then why do you bother saying you believe anything? > Fear aside, I'm fucking tired of living in a world whose destiny is > controlled by those most willing and/or equipped to apply force, and I > reject the idea that the violence of governments and corporations is > most effectively answered in kind. Does anyone think direct action of > the variety seen in Quebec City is going to make government any *less* > anxious to arm itself against the people? No, it's going to make the people more anxious to arm themselves. Make no mistake, violence is an act of desparation. I hate to admit that we live in desperate times, but I have the courage to do so. Anyone who thinks otherwise is way more idealistic than I am. I'd love to see what evidence feeds your convictions. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:27:13 -0400 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: RE: peaceful & violent - -----Original Message----- From: Viv Lyon [mailto:vivlyon@bitmine.net] Ever read Ecotopia? We should be constructing necklaces of cities connected by high-speed rail, leaving large swathes of the countryside alone entirely. - -----Original Message----- I've seen 'engineered communities.' They're hollow, foul things. Cities sprout where cities are needed. Cities die where they aren't. A nice little necklace (or web) of settlements is just a bad idea. "I'm from Ohio 3117." "Really? I'm from 3115!" Ech. - -----Original Message----- If the commute started to bother you enough, you would. - -----Original Message----- Believe me, the winter here in CT bothered me enough to make me seriously consider moving. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:44:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: RE: peaceful & violent On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Thomas, Ferris wrote: > I've seen 'engineered communities.' They're hollow, foul things. Cities > sprout where cities are needed. Cities die where they aren't. A nice > little necklace (or web) of settlements is just a bad idea. "I'm from Ohio > 3117." "Really? I'm from 3115!" Well, I can understand being against this kind of thing. However, that's not at all what I meant. Of course you don't just up and build a whole city (or several cities)- but there is such a thing as city planning, and socially-conscious city planning is what has made Portland Oregon one of the most "livable" communities in the US. The bus mall, the fountains, the MAX lightrail, the public art, the urban-growth boundary- these didn't just "sprout," they were planned and implemented. And they have improved the quality of life here immensely. Slowly, with great forethought and planning, by altering existing cities and encouraging redistribution of population densities, we could orchestrate a string of livable communities along the coast of the Northwest, from Seattle to San Fran, all connected by high-speed rail. It would be beautiful. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:44:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: peaceful & violent On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Thomas, Ferris wrote: > I can't argue with the mathematics but the major problem: this > country's too large. Public transport won't work. Sorry. Not on a > massive scale. Bullshit. The country's not too large, it's just been completely torn down and rebuilt around the idea of fast, cheap, unscheduled, personal transportation. Small towns that were far from the city where people lived who didn't like city work have become suburbs far from the city where people who don't like living in the city (but are fine working there) like to live. It's total bullshit. Vancouver, Washington is a fine example. There are places to work and places to live and places to buy supplies and places to find entertainment. But they're all spread far away from one another. And what takes up MOST of the space between these places? Parking lots and highways. It takes ages to go from my office to the place where I often get lunch and then over to the place where I sometimes look for new shirts on lunch breaks. I can't really take my time at each of these places. BUT THERE'S NOTHING BETWEEN THEM. I walk down a winding road that goes between parking lots to the far side, where I eat. Then I walk across another massive parking lot to the shop that sells shirts. Then I have to walk back across both to get to my office again. Total walking time is something like ten minutes... for buildings that could be a few yards from one another if it were just walkers and bicycles. Or maybe I'd bitch less if it were trees and flowers and green grass instead of an otherwise featureless yellow grid on black asphalt. > I've been to countries with decent public transport (European, with > the UK comes to mind.) While the service sometimes (all right, a good > amount of the time) may seem like crap (delays, cancellations, etc) > it's really not that bad. The fact that those countries are densly > populated (and roughly the size of New England) has almost everything > to do with it. How often do you really go outside of your work/groceries/entertainment/home circle? Cities are densely populated. Public transportion within cities makes sense. Towns are sparsely populated... but wait! Public transportation within TOWNS makes sense, too! It's only when you try to commute daily from city to town and back that you run into logistic problems. But everyday life doesn't require that... not at all. > Should public transportion be something that's run on a for-profit > basis? It's the only way to get at least a chance at decent service. HUH?!? I could understand that if there was competition... if public transit were so widely used and infrastructure so abundant that two or three companies would be competing for your transit dollar, then, yeah, probably they'd work pretty hard to provide better service than one another and total quality would improve. But as it is, a for-profit company is just going to try to charge the highest rate while providing the cheapest service... and as long as they're in the black, they're doing great. And anything that increases that margin is good... so cutting back on services and amenities or raising rates is just as desirable as raising ridership because it means more money on the bottom line. Why the fuck would you think that private ownership of public resources is the only way to get a chance at decent service? > Should the government absorb all the costs to keep it cheap? In a > small country it's a possibility. In one the size of the US, no. Municipalities should be paying for transit, not nations. There's no reason the government needs to subsidize weekly trips from Boston to Chicago. > I live in western CT. I work in central CT. Housing costs are too > expensive in the center of the state. And there are no jobs in western CT? And you MUST live in CT? Come on, there's a long chain of selfish decisions that lead up to your "need" to use your car every day. > I'm just not that altruistic. (*Definition: behavior by an animal that > is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits > others of its species*) Why limit yourself? There are all KINDS of species being harmed by your selfish decisions. > If I could work from home, believe me, I would. If I could afford a > place near work and save myself a seventy minute round trip commute > every day, I would. Fact is: I've got a decent job and a decent rent. And you're too lazy to improve the situation. That's where it all really comes down. > Am I going to ditch a programming gig to bag groceries just to save a > commute? The only employment within five miles of your home is grocery bagging? I don't think it's worth the rent... really? Think about it for a second. You can't be serious > Think about it for a second. > You can't be serious. Oh... I just said that. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:41:20 -0400 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: RE: peaceful & violent - -----Original Message----- ...there is such a thing as city planning, and socially-conscious city planning...Slowly, with great forethought and planning, by altering existing cities and encouraging redistribution of population densities, we could orchestrate a string of livable communities along the coast of the Northwest, from Seattle to San Fran, all connected by high-speed rail. It would be beautiful. - -----Original Message----- I agree 100%. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:52:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: peaceful & violent On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Thomas, Ferris wrote: > I've seen 'engineered communities.' They're hollow, foul things. > Cities sprout where cities are needed. Cities die where they aren't. > A nice little necklace (or web) of settlements is just a bad idea. > "I'm from Ohio 3117." "Really? I'm from 3115!" Oh, dear lord! Look at New Delhi, India or Canberra, Australia. These are designed cites from the bottom up. (and we don't call them Australia 3892 and India 90210) There's something called urban planning. And I'm only now beginning to understand how most cities don't use it nearly to the degree that Portland does. A well-designed city does not have to be an "engineered community" like some EPCOT nightmare. City planning is merely the effort to think long-term about your resources and design human life into what is essentially a commercial side-effect. People will build where it is least expensive to do so. Accessibility of public transit increases property value. Therefore, it is the tendency of commerce to move away from public transit. Urban planning makes that impossible either by keeping public transit close to commerce or restricting development outside the public transit area. > Believe me, the winter here in CT bothered me enough to make me > seriously consider moving. Oh, Jeebus. Try LA. They love your type there. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:00:00 -0400 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: RE: peaceful & violent - -----Original Message----- From: Capuchin There's something called urban planning...A well-designed city does not have to be an "engineered community" like some EPCOT nightmare...People will build where it is least expensive to do so. Accessibility of public transit increases property value.... - -----Original Message----- I haven't got a problem with sensible urban planning. Never said I did. Have I got a problem with the turn the government's use of eminent domain has taken recently? Yep. >Try LA. They love your type there. 'My type.' You know not of what you speak, boy. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:01:00 -0400 From: "pat welker" Subject: RE: peaceful demonstrators & violent idiots An appropriately named Motherfucking Asshole: >2. destruction of property is not violence. ESPECIALLY in the case of >plowshares-type actions. but, really, in more general cases such as trashing a mcdonald's (or what have you). it's the American military that allows the mcdonald's of the world to carry out their rapacious programmmes in the first place. so trashing a mcdonald's is really just an indirect form of a plowshares action. Actually, it is. It's the worst kind of violence. Violence doesn't need to be physical. It can also be verbal and emotional. Violence is attempting to manipulate someone's behavior by ANY means. >while i do consider myself a pacifist And I consider myself Mary Poppins. But only on Saturday night... It's pretty easy to believe anything when your ideas aren't challenged... Chris: > On the other hand, I am quite sure that all the rock-throwing >testosterone-soaked 21-year-old anarchists in their black bandannas had a great time, and they will no doubt cherish memories of the Battle of Quebec in twenty years when they're all stockbrokers and lawyers and college professors. When they're not busy beating up their wives or abusing their children. Again, they've crossed the line. They're capable of physical violence. The only thing they need to do is rationalize it, like they (wrongly) did here. I'm not against violence. Not at all. If it weren't for the stuff, we'd all be living under an Iron Fist or something. I simply got tired of the moral condescending wank going on here. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:16:54 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Worst commute of the week on 4/24/01 1:03 AM, HAL at hbrandt@milehigh.net wrote: > Next: Was Pearl Jam more "grunge" than Soundgarden? Pearl Jam is McDonald's Grunge. I'd pay big money to see Mark Arm and Kim Thayall beat the living shit out of Eddie Vedder, all the while yelling "This is for Kurt!!" on 4/24/01 6:28 AM, scary mary at mad@loona.net wrote: > Sounds like you're doing some intriguing work Tom. Can I come work for your > company? We'd love to have you, but could you escape the Cult of Quail that easily? Isn't lj's woman-love just too powerful a force? on 4/24/01 10:27 AM, Thomas, Ferris at Ferris_Thomas@mcgraw-hill.com wrote: > Believe me, the winter here in CT bothered me enough to make me seriously > consider moving. It bothered me so much that I did. Granted, I'm not helping all that much by driving 25 miles each way to work, but at least I avoid sitting in traffic jams by commuting off hours (~10AM-~7PM) and working from home frequently. Telecommuting in this day and age is not that unrealistic. The problem is that most employers don't have enough confidence in their employees to allow it. Eat the state machine! - -tc ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #146 ********************************