From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #150 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 150 Today's Subjects: ----------------- you'll probably want to skip this [Viv Lyon ] Re: Violence? [Stephen Mahoney ] Re: Violence? ["Kenneth Johnson" ] black bloc [Viv Lyon ] RE: Violence? ["Thomas, Ferris" ] Re: you'll probably want to skip this [Stephen Mahoney ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:39:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: you'll probably want to skip this On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, The Great Quail wrote: > And I already think that Eddie is as politically crazy as he thinks I > am a pawn of Coca-Cola, but not once have we ever really insulted each > other on the List, and my respect for him is that of a friend. Well, you sure as shit insulted him on the list. He thinks violence against property can be justified, and you think (and said) that makes him a terrorist. What's that, a compliment? > In fact, I was addressing Jeme, primarily, with a little aside to > your postings. Oh, my posting in which I advocated forcing people to dismantle their cars and build high-speed rail in the countryside? Wait...I don't remember writing that at all... > No, at worst, I see you more as Lenins, to be honest, filled with > "correct" intentions that will be forced on the people for their own > good, ignorant of the fact that Stalin is probably already lurking in > the shadows of your rhetoric. There's that word again- forced! Who EVER said that anything should be forced on anyone? If you're talking about Jeme's and Eddie's defense of direct action, that's one thing. But if you honestly think that I want to force people to change- well, you're just going to have to take my word for it that I don't want to _force_ people to change. I want to write/pass/support legislation that encourages change, and I want to promote social change. No guns on me, no sir. > > At best, I see you as well-meaning, daydreaming Utopians that > occasionally get in the way of more realistic social progress and > change; but I have always been more "selfishly" concerned with issues > of human and reproductive rights here and now, instead of global > concerns, so that may color my thinking a bit. GETS IN THE WAY??? I'm sorry, I guess I don't write to you often enough to tell you of my exploits. How's this for realistic progress- I'm working on a ballot initiative that creates civilian oversight of the Police Department. Is that realistic enough for you? > I believe that violence is violence, and it's application should be > carefully weighed. Don't try to shrug away the menacing undertones of > some recent postings, be yourself and Jeme. No, I don't think you > would actually set fire to a corporation, but then again the > intelligentsia never get their hands too dirty -- it makes wringing > them in a show of despair more messy. I reserve every right to shrug away the menacing undertones of Jeme's posts- I love the guy, but I do not always march in lockstep with him, and I won't take responsibility for the tone of any of his writings. As far as setting fire to a "corporation", well...that's not possible, is it? How about trying to get a corporation dissolved? Is that violence? > Of course, that's all you (and a few others) ever seem to do, is > judge, judge, judge and moralize. It gets wearying to some of us. And your insistence that you're free of such behavior (who was that judging Bush supporters?) is....well, I'd say hypocritical, but then I'd just be judging you again. You can't live in a moral soup. Judgement is necessary. re: high-speed rail > Because it is not practical in rural America, where a car is a > necessary fact of today's life. Because it isn't practical in one place, that means it can't be practical in another? I didn't say "switch to rail exclusively", did I? Oh no, why am I forgetting what I've written? But what about electric cars, and > more safe nuclear power? Oh, of course, that's not an option is it? I > said the N-word. But where will the electricity for the rail come > from? And so on. You come up with a safe way to dispose of the waste, and then we'll talk- you, me, and Cheney. Electricty for the rail could come from a combination of renewable sources- mag-lev, geo-thermal, solar...I don't pretend to be an expert, I just thought a Seattle-SanFran rail line would be sweet. Apparently I'm a tiny reincarnation of Lenin for thinking so. > I have said this before: I feel a lot of your Utopian thinking is > predicated on a false belief that there will be a "waking up" of > America. But if you'd read my post, I believe I said that I didn't think such a thing was going to happen. I do believe, however, that if I and a lot of other people work long and hard, we might be able to implement some things that would be quite nice. And before you start in on the "Oh, but just what _you_ think would be nice, right?" I will say, OF COURSE! Do I make fun of you because you choose to work on something _you_ like? I feel that human nature is not going to change so radically > -- just because one person suddenly feels that cars should be > abolished, it does not suddenly "prove" a fact. But what is a majority of people find that they don't really want a car anymore? Then it would be a 'fact' that they ceased to drive them. We are dealing with > belief, complacency, and territoriality. These things are not going > to change in any way but very slowly and naturally. I believe I said "slowly," didn't I? Am I losing my mind? > >What you wrote was so insulting, I don't even know what to say. > If I may take a cheap shot: You seem to have a lot of words for > someone who doesn't know what to say. Cute. > So it speaks poorly only of my reading skills, and has nothing to do > with the thinking or tone of some of these arguments? Not really, since most of your arguments centered on the idea that any of us wanted to force people to do certain things, which no one ever ever said. > But you define "better," and you set the only "correct" methods of > realizing your goal. I, too, think a better world is possible, but I > approach that from a very different angle. Then work for it, brother. And if you are doing so, more power to you. > >Changes this > >massive must happen slowly, and with the will of the people. > > Yes, so I agree. But many of your arguments past and present don't > really seem to support this statement...? This is most confusing of all. I am forced (oh no!) to conclude that either you or I haven't been paying attention to my posts. To which arguments do you refer? > That's your prerogative; but my guess is that within a decade you > will look back at this period of your life and smile wearily at some > of your ideas. Maybe not; who knows? And my guess is that within a decade or so I will be an attorney working in the public interest, and too busy to spend all day on an email list bickering about whether or not I should be considered a terrorist simply because the idea of Jose Bove smashing up a McDonalds doesn't move me to tears. > PS: Just in case, Viv, you are still confused at where I am coming from.... > > Below are all excerpts from today's emails, which I see as filled > with a level of personal insult, moral self-righteousness, hypocrisy, > spite, dangerous innuendo and muddled thinking. A few of which I wrote, and I will answer to those only. > >I respect you, Quail, but I am close to losing that respect. It was the truth. I am used to seeing more well-reasoned, less insulting posts from you. > >Subject: Oh no! They burned down my favorite McDonalds! A joke. > >I'm not going to burn your McDonalds > >down (don't worry- I'm afraid of fire) Another joke. Jesus Christ, since when did joking become a crime? Or rather, a terrorist act? > >What you wrote was so insulting, I don't even know what to say. It also > >speaks poorly of your reading skills Yeah, yeah... we've been over this. > >Yeah, I guess you're not against violence...just violence against > >McDonalds. Woo, what a stance. Bravo. A person who claims that destruction of a fast-food stand is "the worst kind of violence" (apparently worse than rape, murder, or genocide) deserves to be scorned. > >You don't know any anarchists, do you? Beating up their wives... > you're >hilarious, you know that? The anarchists I know, while they do occassionally engage in property destruction, would never raise a hand to a human being. Moreover, their violence is inspired by political motives. > > >Well, this country's too big for a lot of things. And frankly, I'm > >beginning to think it should be broken up. Secession! A JOKE! C'mon! > >Slowly, with great forethought and planning, by altering existing > >cities and encouraging redistribution of population densities Encouragement = force. Right. I must remember that. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:34:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Mahoney Subject: Re: Violence? me .02 centavos por favor: I think that its the idea(l)s that you want to blow up not any material things. if you blow up general electric or coca cola or chrysler or aol/warner another one will be put together as so much pre-fab stuff and take its place..... but us as a corporate/convenience/capitalistic/intraveneously fed by a t1 line society we have got to re-evaluate our own lives and realize that some things matter and are important and some things are not, make choices based upon our evaluation and move on. we have the right to choose them or not. and those things that are not a choice we should organize and let our voicce be heard in a ghandi-esque sort of way. let those who want mickey d's or dvd's or suv's or pepsi or brittany spears choose those things. we shoulndt force any viewpoint on anyone else. 'nuff said! On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, The Great Quail wrote: > >I respect you, Quail, but I am close to losing that respect. > >So some posts today upset you. Instead of responding to people > >_individually_, you >lump Jeme and Eddie and Michael Wolfe and I all > >into one all-purpose > >"terrorist" niche. > > Actually, I had nothing at all against Mr. Wolfe. And I already think > that Eddie is as politically crazy as he thinks I am a pawn of > Coca-Cola, but not once have we ever really insulted each other on > the List, and my respect for him is that of a friend. > > In fact, I was addressing Jeme, primarily, with a little aside to > your postings. > > >We aren't the same person, we don't all agree that > >violence is an acceptable means to change society, and as far as FORCING > >you to do anything, my god! Do you think of us as a little society to > >Stalins- sitting around, waiting for the chance to outlaw cars and > >hamburgers? Well, "we" aren't. > > No, at worst, I see you more as Lenins, to be honest, filled with > "correct" intentions that will be forced on the people for their own > good, ignorant of the fact that Stalin is probably already lurking in > the shadows of your rhetoric. > > At best, I see you as well-meaning, daydreaming Utopians that > occasionally get in the way of more realistic social progress and > change; but I have always been more "selfishly" concerned with issues > of human and reproductive rights here and now, instead of global > concerns, so that may color my thinking a bit. > > >I'm not going to burn your McDonalds > >down (don't worry- I'm afraid of fire), > > That sarcasm adds a certain dangerous edge to your statement, and > that's just the kind of thing I have been reacting against. How would > you feel if a racist on the List wrote, "Don't worry, I'm not going > to burn down your Negro Church (I'm afraid of fire)" in a posting > with a subject line, "Oh No! They burned down my favorite church!" > > I believe that violence is violence, and it's application should be > carefully weighed. Don't try to shrug away the menacing undertones of > some recent postings, be yourself and Jeme. No, I don't think you > would actually set fire to a corporation, but then again the > intelligentsia never get their hands too dirty -- it makes wringing > them in a show of despair more messy. > > >but I won't eat there. And I think > >eating there is a bad idea. And if so inclined, I might talk about how > >eating there is a bad idea. Am I judging your actions? Yes. > > Of course, that's all you (and a few others) ever seem to do, is > judge, judge, judge and moralize. It gets wearying to some of us. > > >If you don't think high-speed rail > >is a good idea, why don't you present me with some reasons why? > > Because it is not practical in rural America, where a car is a > necessary fact of today's life. But what about electric cars, and > more safe nuclear power? Oh, of course, that's not an option is it? I > said the N-word. But where will the electricity for the rail come > from? And so on. > > >And if > >your main reason is "It's never gonna happen," then I'd like to remind you > >that people thought the airplane would never happen. They also thought > >that velocities higher than 30 mph would kill a person. > > That's totally different reasoning and you know it. Your example > states technological states which are subject to scientific progress. > Through testing and experimentation, popular disbelief can be > conquered in a heartbeat -- a million people could feel the Wright > Brothers would fail, but if they succeed, the fact itself has the > power to sway them. > > I have said this before: I feel a lot of your Utopian thinking is > predicated on a false belief that there will be a "waking up" of > America. I feel that human nature is not going to change so radically > -- just because one person suddenly feels that cars should be > abolished, it does not suddenly "prove" a fact. We are dealing with > belief, complacency, and territoriality. These things are not going > to change in any way but very slowly and naturally. Even raising the > consciousness of people is best done when the society is > fundamentally stable and complacent. For instance, do you think the > recent gains in Gay acceptance would make this much progress if we > weren't an affluent, complacent society? After we conquered the > Indians, stabilized America, and made our society "safe?" Ah, but of > course, these are selfish wishes. I forget that America is the cause > of all the world's evil. > > So back to my point, your above comparison is not logically valid. > > >What you wrote was so insulting, I don't even know what to say. > > If I may take a cheap shot: You seem to have a lot of words for > someone who doesn't know what to say. > > > It also > >speaks poorly of your reading skills (which I assume must be rather better > >than you showed today). > > So it speaks poorly only of my reading skills, and has nothing to do > with the thinking or tone of some of these arguments? > > >Granted, > >I am naive enough to think a better world is possible, > > But you define "better," and you set the only "correct" methods of > realizing your goal. I, too, think a better world is possible, but I > approach that from a very different angle. > > >and I am naive > >enough to think that I can, in some small part, help to bring it about. > >But I don't think it's going to happen at 6 am tomorrow morning, or a year > >from now, or ten years from now. Thus, your "argument" that such changes > >would cause riots and fires and bombings is just ridiculous. > > My argument is hardly that these changes would cause riots -- though > they certainly might. My argument was simply that violence begets > violence. Some of you don't feel that overturning someone's car and > lighting it on fire, and maybe smashing some windows is violence. > Bullshit. It's intimidation, and aggressive, and dangerous, and it > usually leads to bad things. > > >Changes this > >massive must happen slowly, and with the will of the people. > > Yes, so I agree. But many of your arguments past and present don't > really seem to support this statement...? > > >If the will > >of the people is to eat McDonalds and drive cars, I guess we'll always eat > >McDonalds and drive cars. I happen to think that the people are smarter > >than that, in the long term. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'll die very > >unhappy (just like my hero, HG Wells). > > That's your prerogative; but my guess is that within a decade you > will look back at this period of your life and smile wearily at some > of your ideas. Maybe not; who knows? > > --Quail > > np: Bob Dylan, "My Back Pages" > > PS: Just in case, Viv, you are still confused at where I am coming from.... > > Below are all excerpts from today's emails, which I see as filled > with a level of personal insult, moral self-righteousness, hypocrisy, > spite, dangerous innuendo and muddled thinking. In fact, part of the > reason it makes me sick is there are some definite changes that need > to be made, but a few people on this List think that unless you are > getting tear-gas rammed down your throat or have voted the "correct" > way, you can't possibly really be anything but a blabbering, idiotic > pawn of the evil corporations. > > >I respect you, Quail, but I am close to losing that respect. > > >destruction of property is not violence. > > >so trashing a mcdonald's is really just an indirect > >form of a plowshares action. > > >Subject: Oh no! They burned down my favorite McDonalds! > > >I'm not going to burn your McDonalds > >down (don't worry- I'm afraid of fire) > > >What you wrote was so insulting, I don't even know what to say. It also > >speaks poorly of your reading skills > > >Yeah, I guess you're not against violence...just violence against > >McDonalds. Woo, what a stance. Bravo. > > >You don't know any anarchists, do you? Beating up their wives... you're > >hilarious, you know that? > > >Well, this country's too big for a lot of things. And frankly, I'm > >beginning to think it should be broken up. Secession! > > >Slowly, with great forethought and planning, by altering existing > >cities and encouraging redistribution of population densities > > >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. > > >And you're too lazy to improve the situation. That's where it all really > >comes down. > > >Try LA. They love your type there. > > >Chris, get out your head out of your ass. > > >THAT is why we need to move > >to different methods of combat. > > >An appropriately named Motherfucking Asshole > > >As long as we quibble over selfish shit like abortion, gay rights, and > >taxes, we're going to be manipulated completely on global issues. > > >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. > > >...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. > > >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. > the average person eats about three pounds of food a day, 1095 pounds per year. by the time you blow out the candles on your 70th birthday cake, you will have eaten 33 tons of food, or a pile about the size of six elephants. Your total waste exiting from a certain orifice will amount to the size of a car! - -"the encyclopedia of everything nasty" Stephen Mahoney Multnomah County Library at Rockwood branch clerk stephenm@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us 503-988-5396 fax 503-988-5178 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:43:06 -0700 From: "Kenneth Johnson" Subject: Re: Violence? first let me weigh in on this violence debate as it were. I believe that under no circumstances is violence a preferred method of bringing about positive change. If you do not agree with someone or something, the answer it not to blow them up or pelt them with rocks. (The answer is obviously barbed flaming emails!!) Violence solves nothing and only exacerbates the situation further into the negative. Violence, against people and property unfortunately happens and sometimes the only way to combat or contain that violence is a counter strike, but even then I cannot find violence laudable. Violence against property, whilst it cannot be condoned, is certainly better than attacking living beings (this includes the environment as a whole). I cannot bring myself to feel sorry for the greedy multinational corporation that has its windows broken or tires slashed. People get what they deserve....(Time is round and my space is at the curb) I don't want to see McDonald's in flames, I would like people to seriously consider some facts about their business practices and what a detriment they are to the environment. We won't just have to worry about public transportation and the increase of carbon dioxide from auto emissions when we no longer have the green space needed to supply breathable air which are razed to feed the cruel corporate farms of your beloved fast food convenience. >I have said this before: I feel a lot of your Utopian thinking is >predicated on a false belief that there will be a "waking up" of >America. I feel that human nature is not going to change so radically >-- just because one person suddenly feels that cars should be >abolished, it does not suddenly "prove" a fact. We are dealing with >belief, complacency, and territoriality. These things are not going >to change in any way but very slowly and naturally. Even raising the >consciousness of people is best done when the society is >fundamentally stable and complacent. I agree with your analysis Quail, but I believe a change is necessary or this joy ride is over sooner than you think. People do need to wake up. Habits can be changed without harming the organism, this is one of the evolutionary strengths of the human animal. >For instance, do you think the >recent gains in Gay acceptance would make this much progress if we >weren't an affluent, complacent society? hello muddled thinking, what kind of logic is that? sorry you lost me there for a second. I didn't really disagree with anything else you've had to say until this came out of left field. Without our affluent, complacent society the nature of homosexual relations and acceptance might be totally different, but that's not to say it would or could not have seen the same or comparable progress. How can you make this claim? It seems to me you would have no way of knowing. After we conquered the >Indians, stabilized America, and made our society "safe?" Ah, but of >course, these are selfish wishes. I forget that America is the cause >of all the world's evil. It certainly is a proponent. You cannot ignore the wrongs inherent in our society. Feel free to call attention to them and attempt to steer us clear of them if we can. Our capitalistic republic with its sweatshop colonies and increasing military arsenal is responsible in a very selfish manner of creating and perpetuating evil in the world. How can you honestly say we have a safe or stabilized society? I know there is sarcasm imbedded in the statement above, perhaps I am misreading you???? You decry some of the young idealist thinkers and utopian fools. You predict that they will become bitter complacent older wiser fools in years to come. I can't imagine this being preferable. What does it take to break a person down? Where is the point you gave up your passionate (misguided, muddled or otherwise)ideals that you once may have supported and nurtured? I find that a sad state and cannot imagine ever giving into thoughts that once I might have been more irrational than I am ever going to be. The problem I have with that criticism of yours is that you have turn it around on the "older wiser" set as well. They are just as self-righteous and set in their ways to boot. That seems like a less attractive mindset to me. I only wish more idealistic young and old were willing to work for positive change. The "right" ideas exist, it only requires the cooperation of like minded people to implement them. silence + complacency = death Kenneth looking for some effigies of the present pretender to the throne to smash or deface etc. If I purchase a statue of G'Dub and smash it to smithereens with my baseball bat, is that wrong? How do you feel about violence against one's own property? Can we condone that? ; ) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:53:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: black bloc On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Christopher Gross wrote: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Viv Lyon wrote: > > You don't know any anarchists, do you? Beating up their wives... you're > > hilarious, you know that? > > That's not much of a reply. His point, if I understand correctly, was > that people who have crossed the line into violence once are more likely > to do it again. I don't agree that that's *always* true, but it can be. > Do you think anarchists are all, without exception, noble souls who only > use violence to bring about a better society and will never ever acquire a > taste for violence for its own sake? Noble? Not really. But do I think throwing rocks at windows is a form of "gateway" violence that will potentially lead to other, more harmful and personal kinds of violence? Nope. I do think that once you experience the liberating feeling that comes from "sticking it to the man," you will want to do it again and again. And if "sticking it to the man" means rock-throwing to you, then you'll probably throw rocks again. You might vandalize some buildings. You may even graduate to arson via the so-called ELF. But I seriously doubt that that kind of property destruction, however thrilling, is going to lead someone to beating their spouse. Could be wrong. Haven't done a study. I do know that these "violent anarchists" are politically motivated, in large part (not all of them, there are quite a few twisted little gutter punks among them) and I fail to see the political motivation behind beating your kids or wife. > Personally, I suspect that a lot of today's crop of violent-protest > anarchists are attracted to anarchism because it offers a chance to > unleash the violent side of their personalities, and that side of their > personalities is likely to still be there after their political ideas have > changed. Actually, I think most of them work it out of their system pretty quickly. > --Chris > self-proclaimed anarchist, 1985-86 And what did anarchism mean to you? Vivien ps- save the tree-octopus: http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus.html Now there's a cause I could get violent about! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:52:17 -0400 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: RE: Violence? The Great Acid Quail recklessly said: > ...But what about electric cars, and > more safe nuclear power? Oh, of course, that's not an option is it? I > said the N-word. I've got some environmental leanings. Hell, I would even say a few Green ones. There's one thing I don't get, though. There's fantastic computer models purported by the Greens that allegedly prove the Greenhouse Effect. Tricky stuff, that; showing movement of atmospheric gasses and taking into account weather patterns, climates, topographies. If the environmentally conscious public so willingly buys into the build-up of atmospheric gasses proven by their computer statistics then why can't they accept a different set of models purporting the safety of properly maintained and funded nuclear power plants? It's a lot easier to model steam passing through pipes then it is the (theoretical) trappings of the atmosphere. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:57:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Mahoney Subject: Re: you'll probably want to skip this > GETS IN THE WAY??? I'm sorry, I guess I don't write to you often enough to > tell you of my exploits. How's this for realistic progress- I'm working on > a ballot initiative that creates civilian oversight of the Police > Department. Is that realistic enough for you? yes! I was wondering what happened to that initiative where do you want me to sign - -the orifice dude who gonna get in trouble for using his county e-mail if he doesnt shut u..............uh oh!!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:00:14 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: RE: eat the state ============== PRIVACY NEWS UPDATE ============== You are receiving this update because you registered at http://www.DefendYourPrivacy.com, the site that was instrumental in killing the FDIC's Know Your Customer regulation in 1999. We are writing to update you about our campaign to stop the new HHS "medical privacy rule," which would allow the government to seize control over your private medical records and transfer them to third parties. However, if you do not want to receive further updates, please use the unsubscribe directions at the end of this message. ================================================== Bush ignores comments and quietly imposes rule; privacy advocates pin hopes on House resolution Dear Friends: We have bad news and good news to report regarding our e-mail campaign for medical privacy. First the bad news: In a surprise move, President Bush has quietly decided that the HHS regulations will start going into effect on Saturday, April 14. According to an article in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, Bush has quietly decided "against any further delays in implementing" the Clinton-era rules. You may have noticed that the Bush ruling, which the Journal said "stunned industry lobbyists," got very little publicity. That's the way Bush wanted it, because he and HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson know that the public is becoming alarmed at the government's attempt to seize control over medical records and turn them over to "third parties." Bush's maneuver comes despite the fact that: * On Monday, Thompson admitted that he had been inundated with over 24,000 letters commenting on the rules and needed more time "to assimilate the written documents." Thompson claimed he wanted a 60-day delay to allow time to change the rules before imposing them. Oddly, Thompson made no mention of the Bush decision, which was also made on Monday, according to the Journal. * The regulations were originally written by the Clinton administration under the guidance of then-HHS Secretary Donna Shalala. * Industry groups had warned that the new regulations could cost the health-care system up to $18 billion over 10 years. * Most important, more than 60,000 people have flooded the federal government with comments over the past 30 days. As of Thursday at 4:15pm, 43,975 people had signed the pro-privacy petition to Congress located at http://www.DefendYourPrivacy.com. Combined with the 24,000 comments mailed to the HHS, that means that the opinions of over 67,000 Americans have now been brushed aside by the Bush administration. (A White House spokesman that Thompson will "work to modify the rules" over the next few months, but doing so will be much harder once the rules are put in place.) But the most dangerous aspect of this regulation -- and the one most overlooked in news reports -- is that for the first time the government, rather than patients and doctors, would be in complete control of private medical records. That's because the regulation requires doctors and hospitals to share all electronic medical records with the government for a variety of vague purposes, such as to "streamline medical billing procedures" or for "public health surveillance." Then the government, rather than individual patients, will decide who gets to see them. Not surprisingly, the government promises to keep your medical records confidential. But keep in mind that this is the same government that once promised to keep your Social Security number confidential. The same government whose IRS employees illegally rifle through Americans' tax returns. The same government whose FBI agents illegally turned over 4,000 confidential personnel files to the White House. Sadly, the only way to truly protect your medical records is to make sure the government doesn't have them. And that's why Bush's sudden decision is so disappointing. Now here's the good news: There is still one way these rules can still be stopped, whether Bush and Thompson like it or not. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas has introduced a resolution, HJR 38, which declares that the rules "shall have no force or effect." Under federal law, this resolution would make the HHS regulation null and void -- but only if it passes the House and Senate within 60 legislative days. In other words, if we can generate enough Congressional support for HJR 38 by about June 15, Bush's directive would become irrelevant. And there's good reason for optimism: According to reports by Reuters news service and The Washington Post, Thompson has come under heavy pressure from "industry groups and lawmakers" who are worried about the regulations. Translation: Our e-mail campaign has grabbed the attention of Congress, which in turn grabbed the attention of Thompson. At this point, House representatives have been inundated with an average of 101 e-mails each from http://www.DefendYourPrivacy.com -- and that's far too many to ignore. No wonder Americans are worried. This regulation, which was published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2000, would: * Give dozens of government agencies and thousands of bureaucrats access to your medical records -- including the private notes of a psychotherapist -- without your consent. * Assign every American a "unique patient identifier," whether you want one or not, by working in conjunction with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The number would be similar to a Social Security number for medical transactions -- and would make accessing an individual's medical records as easy as running a credit check. * Permit police agencies to access medical records without a search warrant. * Let government agencies share your records with marketing companies. The rules specifically allow pharmacies to share prescription records "for the purpose of marketing health- related products and services" without your consent. * Allow private insurance companies to compile the medical information into a database. * Prevent patients involved in health research projects from accessing their own medical records in some cases. Now that the Bush administration has issued its anti- privacy decree, it's time to concentrate our efforts on HJR 38. If we can hit Congress with another big wave of e-mail over the next 60 days, we might be able to force the government to pull the plug on the regulation permanently. Our strategy is to let politicians know that they will be held accountable on Election Day if they refuse to dismantle this regulation. Sadly, unelected bureaucrats like Tommy Thompson may not care what you think; after all, you can't fire them. But you can fire your Congressional representative -- so they *have to care* what you think. Now it's time to let your House representative know, loud and clear, that you're opposed to any attempt to turn your private medical records over to the government and third parties - -- and that you want the HHS medical privacy rule killed. Please visit http://www.DefendYourPrivacy.com immediately. With the click of a button, you can ask your Congressional representative to support Joint House Resolution 38, which would pull the plug on this regulation once and for all. Then circulate this e-mail to your friends and refer them to the site. Thank you again for your support of http://www.DefendYourPrivacy.com ================================================================== TO UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:privacy-news-request@defendyourprivacy.com?body=unsubscribe Or, if the above method doesn't work with your software, please send an e-mail FROM THE ACCOUNT SUBSCRIBED to the mailing list to: privacy-news-request@defendyourprivacy.com and in the body of the message type only the word "unsubscribe" (without the quotes) IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION that requires an answer, YOU MUST mailto:info@defendyourprivacy.com Replies to the List Manager or to the list itself will be deleted by our mailing list management software. ================================================================== ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #150 ********************************