From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #151 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 151 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Whack the bees' nest with a stick: ["Thomas, Ferris" ] Re: you'll probably want to skip this [Viv Lyon ] Ishmael [Michael Wolfe ] RE: you'll probably want to skip this ["Thomas, Ferris" ] Calling Robyn [Glen Uber ] Re: look at the massacres on cable... [grutness@surf4nix.com] bits of everything - cities to cars to the size of an elephant [grutness] I was an anar-CHIST! I was the anti-CHRIST! [Christopher Gross ] violence? we don't need no stinking violence!!! [GSS Subject: Whack the bees' nest with a stick: While we're on touchy subjects: Reparations for Slaves. 40 Acres and a mule? Discuss amongst yourselves. ______________________________________ Ferris Scott Thomas programmer McGraw-Hill Education 860.409.2612 ferris_thomas@mcgraw-hill.com (email) Friday or Saturday, what does that mean? Short space of time needs a heavy scene Monday is coming like a jail on wheels -The Clash ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:04:52 -0700 From: "Kenneth Johnson" Subject: RE: peaceful & violent If we assume, for the sake of this >discussion, that those changes are good, warranted, necessary, etc -- the >question resolves into one of PROCESS. absolutely I agree, and I will be the first to admit there are few good processes in place or even discussed Far be it from me to interject a >couple of musical references to the list, but consider: > >"but if you want money for people with minds that hate / all I can tell you >brother is that you've got to wait." > >"'cause if you wanna fight then you're just dying to get killed." yes more musical quotes and references are welcome! and these are valid. > >I understand the problem vis-a-vis the process question -- you believe so >strongly in your position or cause, and are so frustrated by the >complacency >and/or ignorance of most people, that you feel compelled and/or justified >in >taking extreme measures. Sorry, self-defeating, hate-perpetuating, tis no >good to anyone. (and I'm not accusing you, though you seem to condone >"throwing rocks.") I do not in fact condone this, you misunderstand. please see another post of mine recently on violence as protest. I am not condoning or proposing it here, merely calling attention to its existence. I do feel frustrated from time to time with people so set in their ways missing the proverbial forest. But I do NOT EVER feel compelled or justified with extreme measures. Please do not confuse the things I say with anyone else's post. Anyway I agree with what you say above. Don't preach to the damn choir. Make no mistake -- PETA, for instance, are comprised of >"minds that hate," and it's clear they "wanna fight." Does this >meat-eating, leather jacket wearing, pet owning man feel swayed by their >passionate statements and actions? Not a bit of it; to the contrary, every >time I hear about their antics, I want to grab a cheeseburger. do what you will and they will do what they will and I will laugh and shake my head at both of you and wait in vain for the day when everyone could be happy and healthy without being a detriment to others and the world. Fat Chance right?!! > >How is this relevant, you ask? If I use public transport every day (I do, >BTW), recycle every recyclable in my purview (getting there), foreswear all >products produced by corporate interests that oppress and pillage (umm, not >ALL), and, in short, do everything that you've been talking about to build >a >better society and a sustainable ecosphere, I get NOTHING (other than the >warm fuzzies deep inside), unless A LOT of other people send in their >eco-pledge cards. correct this would/must be a group effort. I hope you know you get more than warm fuzzies......... Likewise, if you can convince most everybody else to >pitch in, I can sit back in my gas guzzling el camino, spraying >chlorofluorocarbons into the air for fun, whilst sprinkling DDT on my >neighbors' vegetable garden, all with no fear that I am materially damaging >my environment. entirely wrong headed and false >Answer? Change yourself. that was MY suggestion after all If you don't go all the way (and I don't), you >can feel guilty about it and/or teach your kids to do better than you (I >try). If you want to prosthelytize, great, do it, but make sure no one >gets >hurt. that is the way I see it, again see above and elsewhere. please do teach your children well, the seeds of the future are there, sow them with compassion and sustainable sense, as opposed to greed and violence like the prosthelytizing forces of corporate amerika or the fundamentalist religious right. Kenneth _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:11:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: you'll probably want to skip this On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Stephen Mahoney wrote: > > > 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 On the dotted line, of course. No, seriously- I should have a petition page in a couple days, I'll trot it over to your house. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:55:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: Ishmael Stephen Mahoney wrote: >I do the max( portland areas train system) and buses- I have no >car. we also do car sharing. we have that on taken care of, at >least. has anyone read ishmael by daniel quinn? not a great >literary work, but some it has some really great ideas about >humankind! Yeah! I read it, and liked it. You're certainly right about its shortcomings as literature, but it's a nice piece of philosophy, I thought. I gave Jeme a copy for his birthday last year, and don't know if he ever got to it. - -Michael ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:05:59 -0400 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: RE: you'll probably want to skip this > I want to > write/pass/support legislation that encourages change, and I want to > promote social change. No guns on me, no sir. When you suggest legislation: would this be in the form of oppressive taxes and/or levies? > 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? I look around at the tracks that interlace the corner of New England I'm shacked up in and I think I can count on one hand the number of non-commuter trains I've seen in the last five years. It really is a shame--and I don't mean that from a trainspotter point of view. The infrastructure, no matter how delapidated, is there. We ought to utilize it. If nothing else it would free up some tractor trailers from the road. Bet the teamsters would cry foul if you tried though. (And yes, I believe that.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:09:57 -0700 From: "Kenneth Johnson" Subject: Re: Oh no! They burned down my favorite McDonalds! there seems to be a fallacy floating about here that anarchists are all these black hooded violent miscreants looking for a source to unleash their anger and hurt pride. Most anarchist I know, myself included, are pacifists. Those violent protestors just happen to call themselves anarchists for lack of any other identity. because, you know fascism, more akin to their tatics isn't as fashionable. I think anarchists get a bum rap here. > >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? > >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. Today's violently-protesting anarchist might not be an anarchist >who beats his kids in 20 years ... he's more likely to be a Christian >conservative gun nut who beats his kids. > >[PS: lest the nested quotes confuse anyone, I wrote the paragraph starting >"On the other hand...," Pat wrote the one starting "When they're not >busy...," and Viv wrote the one starting "You don't know any >anarchists...."] > >--Chris >self-proclaimed anarchist, 1985-86 > >______________________________________________________________________ >Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. >chrisg@gwu.edu _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:23:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: you'll probably want to skip this The closer I get to being caught up, the more I want to write! This has got to change. Viv, the Quail may be overreacting to you, but you're overreacting too. The way I read it (Q, correct me if I misrepresent you), he doesn't think you or the others are as bad as Lenin or Stalin; he thinks that you display attitudes -- giving up on the democratic system, condoning violence, advocating massive social change without acknowledging that most of society doesn't yet agree with you -- that Lenin also displayed, and if continued down that path you could, eventually, end up like Lenin, trying to remake society according to your bluepoint regardless of society's views. Dunno if that makes you feel any better.... On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Viv Lyon wrote: > 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. Hmm.... If that's how you seek change, then you sound like you agree with me, and maybe even TGQ, more than you do with Jeme or Eddie! Interesting. > > 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. Did TGQ say he's never judgemental? I don't remember that. But, to be perfectly blunt, he doesn't do it nearly as much as "you and a few others" do. > 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? You didn't say "switch to rail exclusively," but then he didn't say "rail is never practical in any circumstance," either. Pine just told me "6 new messages received!" Will I find the willpower to not reply to them? We'll see.... - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:26:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Violence? On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Kenneth Johnson wrote: > I cannot bring > myself to feel sorry for the greedy multinational corporation that has its > windows broken or tires slashed. Me neither, really. But just because I don't feel sorry for them doesn't mean I think it's right. As I said earlier, violence as a tool of political debate undermines democratic society, and it doesn't matter how rich the victim is. One trashed McDonald's doesn't matter much, but as trashing McDonald'seseses becames more and more common, force seems like more of an acceptable debating technique, and as violence against property becomes more normal, property owners become more afraid. And who among us isn't a property owner? You may mock the car owners who fear their Acords will be bombed by environmentalists, but it's already normal for PETA to throw paint on people wearing fur coats. What will be normal after a few more years of window-smashing and rock-throwing in the name of the environment? If we as environmentalists accept burning a McDonald's as a tactic, why should anyone who owns a restaurant or a store or a friggin' *house* trust us? > 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. I don't think he's saying that being bitter and complacent are preferable, rather that practicality and level-headedness are. As for me, I think the more foolish you are in your utopian phase, the more bitter and complacent you will be in your older wiser phase. > 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. I'm sure the right ideas are out there, but so is a lot of nonsense. I think the American left needs to get beyond the idea that anything advocated by a fellow leftist -- such as state socialism, smashing windows as a PR technique, violent revolution -- must be tolerated. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:31:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Glen Uber Subject: Calling Robyn Wow! Three digests in 93 minutes and the only mention of Robyn is in J. Brown's .sig file. You people sure talk a lot... ;-) Cheers! - -g- )+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+( ) ) Glen Uber // uberg at sonic dot net // Santa Rosa, California ) )+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+( ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:42:49 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com Subject: Re: look at the massacres on cable... >I see potential cases all the time at our library >kids come in and rather than learning to relate to one another or reading >they come in and surf the web. it went from radio to tee vee >to the internet............everyone learning to exist in their own >bubble. exactly, but as I said... >> If you must talk about anything, discuss how society got to the state >> where it was ever allowed to happen in the first place. so, how did it get that way? It seems to happen all the time in the US, but it's still rare in other countries. In fact I cannot think of any other instances of kids massacring their classmates other than in the US. There have been isolated cases of lone adult crazies - Dunblane, Port Arthur, Aramoana - but they were adult crazies (not that that makes it much better). But when children see using a gun as a normal everyday occurrence... . James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- You talk to me as if from a distance -.-=-.- And I reply with impressions chosen from another time =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:42:36 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com Subject: bits of everything - cities to cars to the size of an elephant >Oh no, I would never say that! YHWH forbid!! a Jewish friend of mine gets round it by calling him by his initial - Yod. Sorta sounds enough like a usually recognised name for him not to sound out of place in conversation, but obeys the rules. >> 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) and Britain's been doing this for the best part of a century. Telford, Milton Keynes, Welwyn Garden City... not all of them are exactly what you'd call successful, but the principle is right. And don't forget that many countries have topography which just about demands the location of cities anyway. California has a coastal area, a central valley, and loads of mountains. It's natural for cities to go in a particular place. Australia, and New Zealand's South Island have a fertile east coast and a rugged interior. Canada has a temperate zone along its southern edge. Putting settlements between cities is likely to be putting them where cities would eventually spring up anyway - hence ribbon development >> But how much would you save without a car $46NZ per week, last year average (and that includes a depreciation estimate of $10 per week). That's about $22US. Public transport costs for the same period would work out at $14NZ, then add on taxifares for going to and from gigs (ever tried to take an amp on a bus?), and the inability to regularly visit my partner at odd times of the day or night. Oh, and that $46NZ p.w. included the fuel/ferry costs of my three week holiday around the North Island (about 4000km driven in all) at the beginning of the year. Personally, I made on the deal, I'm sure. Even though the environment may not have. That's the tragedy of the commons for you. As for commuting, it's four miles across town from here to the university, so it only takes me about twelve minutes per journey (this part of the country has rarely seen a traffic jam). oh, and I and a group of friends were banned, permanently, from a branch of MacDonalds for singing "humerous songs" outside... I think it was the one that started "Old MacDonald had a caf" that caused the problems. >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. some countries got by very well without Nuclear Power thank you very much. The only nuclear reactor we use for power in NZ is the sun. Hydro-electricity, thermal energy and wind power provide most of what's needed here - there are some coal and natural gas power plants, but they're being slowly phased out. >What I find particularly interesting/fascinating about this information, if >it is close to true, is how very much food must be assimilated into our >bodies -- stored as fat, consumed for energy, etc. -- because the >difference between the size of "a car" and that of "six elephants," is of >course, *signfiicant*. ...at least, chi-squared and anova tests suggest so. Then again, it depends - - they could be small elephants and a REALLY BIG car. >Wow! I believe I've been on four different mailing lists with James during >various periods, and this is the first time I've EVER seen our beloved, >flag-waving academic become "crude." ;) ehhh. fuck you Eb ;) >Me too! And usually he's much more careful to quote the person >he's *disagreeing* with when he sends in a contrary argument, >instead of the other way around! oops! Mea capella. Then again, it was a dissing voice about the argument as a whole, not just one side of it. James now flying - the New Zealand flag - blue, with the Union Jack in canton and four red stars fimbriated (outlined) in white, representing the Southern Cross, in the fly. It's ANZAC day (our equivalent of armistice/remembrance day) - today's the 86th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings. Lest we forget. James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- You talk to me as if from a distance -.-=-.- And I reply with impressions chosen from another time =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:10:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: I was an anar-CHIST! I was the anti-CHRIST! On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Viv Lyon wrote: > 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. That's not exactly what I meant, though. It's more like this (I'm speaking for myself here, not Pat): a person who joins the "black bloc" and smashes the window of a Gap, thinking that this is a good political tactic, probably has a predisposition to violence. Persons with such a predisposition are not going to get it out of their systems and spend the rest of their lives peacefully; they're more likely to commit violence again, whether or not they have a political excuse for it. NOTE: I don't claim *all* anarchists (or other violent radical demonstrators) are predisposed to violence, though I do suspect a good many of them are. And I don't think everyone who has had violent tendencies will always be that way; some of them probably do grow out of it. > > --Chris > > self-proclaimed anarchist, 1985-86 > > And what did anarchism mean to you? Ahh, the memories.... In brief, at that period I believed all evils were caused by capitalism and government, that a healthy cooperative stateless society was possible, and that people raised under that society would be free of all the flaws that make us need (or as I would have said "need") a government right now. My fantasies on how we'd get to that society were variable, sometimes by violent revolution, sometimes by peaceful evolution from socialism (which would be established by violent revolution), sometimes by even less probable means. All this was bound up with a lot of hardcore punk.... Before being an anarchist I was a communist and a socialist of various stripes, and afterwards I went through syndicalism and other varieties of socialism. Now I'm just a wimpy reformist. > ps- save the tree-octopus: > http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus.html > > Now there's a cause I could get violent about! I'm there! But let's not forget the Alaskan Sea-Moose either.... On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Kenneth Johnson wrote: > there seems to be a fallacy floating about here that anarchists are all > these black hooded violent miscreants looking for a source to unleash their > anger and hurt pride. Most anarchist I know, myself included, are > pacifists. Those violent protestors just happen to call themselves > anarchists for lack of any other identity. because, you know fascism, more > akin to their tatics isn't as fashionable. > I think anarchists get a bum rap here. Fair enough; mea culpa! (I did try specifying "violent protester anarchists" sometimes, but I should have been more consistent about drawing the distinction.) Of course there have always been both violent and pacifist strands in anarchism, and neither one is the "true" anarchism. About those violent anarchists: I'm sure many are like you say, just seizing on anarchism for lack of other identity; but I'll bet there are also those who are sincere about their anarchism, though they may be unconsciously motivated by a lust for street fightin'. - --Chris, who has now gotten posting out of his system ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:13:46 GMT From: "Bayard Catron" Subject: Re: Robyn played baritone? Gosh, are we getting close to a record number of digests today? I see at least six, and the night is young... matt sewell writes: > >http://www.underwatermoonlight.com/large_images/africa.html > > Looks like a Danelectro bass to me... possibly used for Insanely Jealous > (I reckon the album version has 2 bass)... any ideas? They sometimes switched instruments, at least in the Egyptians days (on listening to the higsons and.... tell me about your drugs, i think?) maybe this was an early example of that. where was the link to this photo? morris played guitar on higsons, andy played drums and robyn bass. And I don't think Eddie or anyone else who advocates violence would mind being called a terrorist... one of the definitions of 'terror' is, after all, "Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes..." =b "sing a little baritone, also sing a little baaaaaass" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:27:50 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: violence? we don't need no stinking violence!!! On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Viv Lyon wrote: > Now, I've seen you post sensible things on this here list Could you give us an example? > and I've met you in person, you've even been in my home yeah, it still amazes me, the fact that you let me in. > and I have ascertained that you are a reasonable creature. Compliment or not, I am still wondering. > I may have to alter that judgement, however, Don't be fooled by second or even fifth impressions. > if you tell me that you don't think that there should be retribution for companies that abuse > their workers, poison the air, water and land, lie to consumers, and produce dangerous > and shoddy merchandise. People should be allowed to live work and play, pretty much wherever the hell they desire. Good fences make good neighbors but only when the fence is low and the gates swing freely in both directions. What NAFTA alone has done for Mexico, especially Northern Mexico in regard to the standard of living for many people is unbelievable. There are huge subdivisions of middle class homes going in all across the Texas/Mexican border. There is a new powerful third class in an area that previously had two. What it has done for the individual of those areas should only be praised and admired. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions now who just 10 years ago lived in wood and sheet-metal shacks with dirt floors, no running water with open septic systems, now live in brick homes with electric stoves, right across our border. Tell those people NAFTA sucks and then explain why. In almost all of the countries that will be involved in the FTAA, it is nearly impossible for the individual to improve their condition. Free trade and open borders will change that. There will be problems of course, but with open borders we can go anywhere and help organize the people around these problem areas to find a solution. If all we do is allow the current elite, politicians, landowners etc. to retain control of these economies, nothing will ever change. Feed 'em just enough you and they will just stand there waiting to be fed again. Feed them well and they will have the extra time and the extra energy needed to start feeding themselves. It is similar to what we could have done but failed to do with the last election in that if we keep electing Democrats and Republicans, nothing will ever change. We need to bite the bullet and grit our teeth for the short run, so that the little things we suffer through now and then force to change will help us through the big changes for the long run. Don't misunderstand me, some of the corporations have and will bring a great deal of problems, but for instance the initial estimates of waste and chemical runoff that was expected to wash right out into the Gulf of Mexico from the Rio Grande as a result of the flurry of large business developments both Mexican and American, and the huge number of small and medium sized businesses opened by Mexicans as a result of these big businesses, has not come to be. The state and big business are now one in the same and that is why looking towards them in anyway expecting help is ludicrous. Free trade and open borders is the best thing we can do and it is absolutely the most important thing. I won't waste time try to explain the importance of a healthy ecosystem as most of us will agree on its neccesity, but since the population growth is out of control, we need to find a way to reduce this growth in population. There are the easy things like famine, disease and war that have up until now been a reasonable cure but I along with most people do not like any of them. We have to find a way to reduce the growth in human numbers but in a way that is civil and fair. Increase wages by developing business and industry in underdeveloped countries which will improve living conditions for the majority of people, will slow the population growth. Allowing foreign investors, be they small or medium level companies, and corporations to invest in these countries is the first step that absolutely must be made. The arguement that developed countries should only trade with developed and the underdeveloped should only trade with underdeveloped holds no water. They are underdeveloped only one reason, THE STATE. Had the individuals of these countries been allowed to trade, develop, migrate whatever, like in the US, their country would not be in it's current condition. But for whatever reason, be it imperialism, militarism socialism, leninism, stalinism, maoism and colonialism in some cases (each of which results in a fucked up state) they have not been allowed to develop fully. If the current upper class in these countries retains all the power, nothing will change. You know we can't expect those in power to do what is right for the individual. The individuals must become there own leaders. Unfortunately they can't do this without money. Without dramatic improvements to the development of their economies there will be no additional money and therefore no improvement in conditions . There are a great deal of factors involved in the whole thing, but we have the ability to bring any of the problems that could result to the surface. And we have not only the backbone, but the strength to see that whatever problems arise are resovled. Free trade and open borders I believe are the only things that will help improve the conditions for most of the people south of the United States. Ok it ain't perfect, but it was the best I could do in 5 minutes. gSs ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #151 ********************************