From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #157 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, April 25 2001 Volume 10 : Number 157 Today's Subjects: ----------------- don't burn my favorite SUV! ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: let's go ride a bike [Terrence Marks ] Re: Violence? [Charles Gillett ] there are no consumers in urban areas ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: Let me invest in you, GSS. [Stephen Mahoney ] Re: Violence? [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:55:21 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: don't burn my favorite SUV! >From: Eb > >Wow. Well, by now, anyone can see that you have lost rational control of >your faculties when it comes to me. But no one really cares. I wish you two would just ignore each other. It's not as if anyone's reputation is at stake...the counterattacks do more to damage the counterattackers than the attackers. >From: Capuchin > >Terrorism is threatening the general public to make your plight known. The >target of terrorism is the masses. > >What I'm advocating is essentially sabotage. It is directed action aimed >at damaging that which is causing the problem. > >Burning a bunch of SUVs is not terrorism if they are burnt to keep them >from getting out on the road. > >Burning a bunch of SUVs IS terrorism if people are in them and you're >doing it to raise awareness of working conditions in Argentina. Dude, one may be terrorism and one may not (and I think the distinction you propose is slimmer than Calista Flockhart's neck hairs, to be honest), but they're both pretty shitty things to do. I hate SUVs and a lot of the people who drive them as well, but that's really nothing compared to my hatred for people who try to excuse destroying my property as a political statement. Whatever you may think of the property itself or the system that allowed me to acquire it, like it or not, you are attacking me when you do something like that. By the way, does Portland's public transit system work well for transporting drum kits, speakers, and the like? >You say that violence begets violence and then point your finger at >PROTESTORS. Did it ever occur to you that the violence of a protest is >merely the begotten violence of our parasitic culture? I'm not going to buy this. I'm going to propose that this line of argument belies a philosophical position that is not opposed to violence but is opposed to the ends of violence brought about by those currently in power. When you attack Quail as "complacent" what you are saying is twofold: (a) he is not opposed to everything you're opposed to, and (b) his refusal to countenance revolutionary violence as an acceptable response to state violence is an acceptance of state violence. I think (a) is, you know, okay, and (b) is bullshit. Drew - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen.com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:15:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence Marks Subject: Re: let's go ride a bike On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Viv Lyon wrote: > Vivien > ps- the goal of Critical Mass is not to stop traffic, but rather to > highlight the fact that legally, cyclists ARE traffic, and deserve the > same rights (and responsibilities) as car drivers. Now, I'm a biker. I want to be damn sure that cars look both ways before pulling out, and check for people like me too. I don't trust car drivers. I recall (on this list, I believe) that there was a subset who decided to disrupt traffic at a Critical Mass and publicized this fact. (This would, I presume, explain some of the police presence at Critical Masses that Jeme complained about, wouldn't it?) While the stated goals of the Critical Mass movement is to let people know that bikes are traffic, there's some folk out there who set out to slow, stop, or disrupt it. Way I see it, that's as wacky as calling opening a hamburger stand "initiation of violence". But that might just be me. Terrence Marks Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://www.unlikeminerva.com The Nice (an organization for comic strips) http://nice.purrsia.com normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:17:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Charles Gillett Subject: Re: Violence? On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:30:43 -0700, The Great Quail wrote: > > [...] the evils of the word [...] I believe that should be "the *beauty* of the word." "And if you call me brother now, forgive me if I inquire just according to whose plan? For when it all comes down to dust, I will kill you if I must; I will help you if I can. When it all comes down to dust, I will help you if I must; I will kill you if I can." - -- Leonard Coh^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCharles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:23:07 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: there are no consumers in urban areas >From: Capuchin > >Subdivisions are the veal fattening pens of corporate culture. It's where >consumers are born and bred. Subdivisions are a means of disconnecting >people from the world that surrounds them and filling that void with >surrogate world of television and consumables. You've been to Times Square, right? >From: Stephen Mahoney > >are there any byrne fans out there? Yes. >From: Capuchin [smart third worlders emigrating to the US] >The whole process increases third world dependence and staves off fair >trade, let alone self-sufficiency of nations. Maybe we could send them more smart, ambitious people from our country who don't like living in the land of rampant consumerism to solve problems in their countries. Incidentally, as I pare the digest down in my reply, I'm shocked to discover that GSS has essentially said just what I've said (or vice versa). I'm shaken but will try to take a positive view of the situation. Drew - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen.com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:28:52 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: don't burn my favorite SUV! On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > By the way, does Portland's public transit system work well for transporting > drum kits, speakers, and the like? again, i speak of DC, but... I have been more-or-less prepared to be told on some rush-hour day that I can't bring my equipment on board the metro rail during rush hour; it hasn't happened yet, although on my way to a session about a month ago it seemed a very near thing. They do tell you you can't bring large objects (or bikes) on board at certain peak times, e.g. fourth of july. Bikes aren't permitted at rush hour; luggage (thus far, including speakers, amplifiers, etc.) is. Baby carriages, which take more horizontal space than my sound gear, and at least as much as a bike, are always permitted to the best of my knowledge. it occurred to me after i sent my previous missive that it ought to have included a disclaimer about how the portland CM, which i've not seen a lot of press on, could conceivably be more constructive/less disruptive than what i've experienced in sf (where my old sometime girlfriend was the one who convinced me in the first place that it was a lousy idea, as it turned her from a bicycle advocate into an ANTI bicycle advocate) and here in washdc, even though i really effin' doubt it, but more power to it if so. so here it is. - -- d. - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.shoddyworkmanship.net -- post punk skronk rawk = the new thing - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = rock music ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:33:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Mahoney Subject: Re: Let me invest in you, GSS. things seem to only be good in that part of mexico because there are even more immigrants coming into places like rockwood, a mostly hud( low income housing) development here in the outskirts of portland and gresham. in the past ten years the esl program( english as a second language) has mushroomed and is now more than the teachers can handle from it mere handful of students back when it was first merged into my branch back in '89. there are also a growing populace of ukranians romanians albanian, etc....and they all love dragonball z and pokemon!!!!!!!!!!!!! On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, GSS wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Capuchin wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, GSS wrote: > > > Good fences make good neighbors but only when the fence is low and the > > > gates swing freely in both directions. > > > > This makes no sense to me. It's not a fence if the gate's always open and > > you can hope over it anywhere you like. > > That was my point. Fences, borders, whatever impedes movement, sucks. > > > > What NAFTA alone has done for Mexico, especially Northern Mexico in > > > regard to the standard of living for many people is unbelievable. > > > > I've heard this same sentence from both sides. > > I will use this reply to answer both your and Eddie. > > I cannot point to anything as reference except my own first experiences in > Mexico and the information that my girlfriend and her family have given. I > have been traveling to Mexico regulary for over 20 years. I have spent a > great deal of time on both sides of the border, from El Paso all the way > down to Brownsville and everything in between, along the Rio Grande and > throughout the Rio Grande Valley and the improvements to the human > condition for the Mexicans on both sides, which is a direct result of > NAFTA have been absolutely incredible. > > > > There are huge subdivisions of middle class homes going in all across > > > the Texas/Mexican border. > > > > Oooh! Subdivisions! Do they have Taco Bell and Wal*Mart, too? That's > > progress! > > No Taco Bells in Mexico at least in the parts of Mexico I have seen. The > Wal-Marts that are sitting on the Texas side are filled with Mexicans > both shopping and working. Just as the Fred Myers in and around Portland > are filled with people just like you. Previously they had shanty subdivisions > and now they have solid adobe and acme brick homes. I don't see a problem, > just an improvement in conditions for people who deserve it. > > > Subdivisions are the veal fattening pens of corporate culture. It's where > > consumers are born and bred. Subdivisions are a means of disconnecting > > people from the world that surrounds them and filling that void with > > surrogate world of television and consumables. > > First it was the urban ant farms that you so much enjoy and now it is > suburban ant farms that others enjoy. Coke or Pepsi, who the fuck > cares. > > > > There is a new powerful third class in an area that previously had > > > two. > > > > And how does this class have power? They don't have land and they're not > > the food-producing labor. What makes you say they are powerful? > > They now have sustainable incomes that allow them to get loans > for property and for opening small businesses. They have bank accounts > and savings accounts and can make investments, short and long term, > locally and globally if the wish. They are building schools and community > centers and hospitals and post offices. Wow, what a drag for us and them. > > > > If all we do is allow the current elite, politicians, landowners etc. > > > to retain control of these economies, nothing will ever change. > > > > Huh? Removing all barriers to trade just makes it easier for those with > > money and power to take control over new markets. > > > > > 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. > > > > Except they don't own the land anymore and it's illegal for them to grow > > their indigenous crops. > > Shit, they didn't own the land or anything else before. > You've never been to Mexico, have you? > > > > 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. > > > > Has the amount of waste and chemical run-off gone DOWN? No. Has it > > stayed the same? No. It's just not AS BAD as projected. > > > > I've used the analogy before, but if you're driving south at 100 Mph, it > > doesn't do a bit of good to slow to 60 if you want to be driving north. > > Well, the person driving sixty won't be as far from the intended destination > after an hour as the person driving faster for the same amount of time. > > > Investment does not add money to an economy. Investment is not "welfare". > > Investment is when a company brings in a small amount of money now in > > order to draw out a large amount of money later. > > That is an absolute incorrect generalization and you know it. If you give > people jobs where before there were no jobs, the local government would > then use the taxes generated from the new incomes to build a waste water > disposal system or a school or pave the dirt roads or hire new teachers or > dig new wells or clean the streets or organize counseling for abused woman > and Leninist Utopian Smoozers or whatever the hell else they decide should > be done. The city now needs to hire more employees, the local food market > can't keep the shelves stocked because now the people have money to buy > thing they could never have before afforded and must now expand. These are > the types of things that I have seen happen. Damn, what a terrible thing. > > > When Wal*Mart comes into a community, they "invest" and create jobs, but > > they never spend more than they draw out... that's not profitable. > > > Only by taking more money out than they put in can a company succeed in a > > profit-motivated system. You can't always get more out than you put > > in... somebody loses. > > What the hell are you doing living in a concrete jungle, supporting and > being a part of the systems you so despise? Why don't you move into the > woods, grow pot and turnips and carrots and beets and use Hot Tuna bootlegs > for currency? That's what I'll be doing starting next summer. > > gSs > "THE CATS ARE HUNGRY...RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! Alone, only a harmless pet... One thousand strong, They become a man-eating machine!" - -ad for THE NIGHT OF A THOUSAND CATS, 1972. Stephen Mahoney Multnomah County Library at Rockwood branch clerk stephenm@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us 503-988-5396 fax 503-988-5178 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:40:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Violence? OK, here we go. I'm not going to be short-sighted and say this is my "last word" because, as Quail has clearly shown, nobody can make such a promise. (Is there a lesson to be learned here?) (Yes, that was condescention. Thanks for noticing.) On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, The Great Quail wrote: > Because Capuchin's patronizing and insulting tone has me genuinely > angered, and my Irish is up and running, and I will say exactly what I > mean, even though I may regret it later. Well, maybe that's part of the difference between us, Quail. I believe I always say exactly what I mean. I'm not pussy-footing or beating around the bush or leaving things assumed and unsaid. Perhaps that's why I feel I have to be so patronizing with you. You're constantly bringing in assumptions that are SIMPLY NOT present in what I wrote. I see now that it's your nature to not say everything you really mean, but you're in error when you assume that others do the same. > That's not just sabotage, Jeme, that's intimidation; the same tactic > some Christian fundamentalists use against abortion clinics. Yes, it is the same tactic. It is a direct attack against the institutions that are creating "the problem". But war isn't terrorism. The victim is not innocent. > Terrorism does not just involve physically harming people, it also > involves making them afraid. And you know what? I am afraid of someone > who wants to trash my property. Perhaps you should consider WHY they want to trash your property and consider whether or not they have a point. Much like Ed Poole (and his reaction to PETA), you have a tendency to be reactionary. You go directly against the views expressed by those who use TACTICS with which you disagree simply because you disagree with the tactics. As I understand it, you agree that cars are a poor solution to daily transit... that energy conservation is key and that a long-term view must be taken in our daily lives. Am I wrong here? Then honestly consider whether or not your OWNING a car is a benefit to the world at large. If I understand your attitude thus far, your answer is "I don't care because it is nice for me now." > The very fact that I feel I have to defend the fucking COPS, just to > point out that because they don't want you clogging the roads with > your bikes so you can all have your moment in the sun, smugly shaking > each other's hands and saying, "Oh, wow, are we radicals, we're > sticking it to the MAN with our expensive bikes...." This is so much bullshit, I don't know where to start... but I'll begin with the beginning and work my way down until I'm tired of it. 1) Critical Mass does not "clog the roads" to one one-hundredth of the degree that single user vehicles do in "rush hour" traffic EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. 1a) In point of fact, the police following and halting Critical Mass riders account for ALL of the traffic disruptions during a ride. 2) Critical Mass is a pleasure ride and show of solidarity among those who take their lives in their own hands every day to keep the air cleaner and transit more speedy. 3) Bicycles are "traffic" in exactly the same sense as automobiles. A group of bikes on the road is no more "clogging" than a single car. 4) Bicycles cost, on average, about one one-five-hundredth the cost of an automobile. 5) Shaking hands on bicycles is extremely dangerous and I don't know anybody that does it as a matter of course. > This is hardly a Police State. I am not saying that we can ease our > vigilance of the state and its arms of power, but I am not going to > compare us to a police state because you get in trouble for riding > your fucking bike. Neither of us defined "police state". I was using a definition very much like "a jurisdiction in which the law enforcers are capable of selectively enforcing or violating the law to satisfy their personal idea of how things should be done". That's exactly what it's like. Cops break the law for their own benefit. Cops invent reasons to hassle or arrest you. Cops ignore the law being broken if they don't personally think it's a big deal. That's a police state. > Just keep making sure you get to exercise and expand your rights, > fine. Cops can be evil, and the State doesn't like protest -- no shit. This is WRONG. The "state" is the people. Any divergence from that indicates a grave error in our development. I had jury duty a couple of months ago. During the jury selection process, I was asked by the District Attorney what I thought the state had to do to "lose this case". Here's almost exactly what I said: "The state cannot lose this case if justice is served. I mean, if somebody goes to jail who did not commit a crime, the state loses. If a person who committed a crime lives without consequence, the state loses. The state is the people and as long as the will of the people is served, the state wins." Needless to say, I was not selected for that particular jury. > But these ludicrous comparisons actually demean people who are > suffering under totalitarian regimes. I can understand your desire to reserve certain words or ideas for systems that you perceive to more severely restrict the rights of people than others. But that desire is counter to the language you have chosen. If it is a police state, it is a police state. If rights are restricted, the people are suffering. Neither of those words carry with them any particular connotation of degree. Our cities are police states. They are not totalitarian regimes. OK, so there you go. We have our distinction. > And you can blame the US all you want for all the evils of the word, > and blame the US for every regime oppressing every person in the whole > world; but you are still demeaning the people struggling under a real > police state with your WHINING about bikes in Portland. This just as much a "real" police state. And I'm not whining. Here's a scenario for you: You're on your bicycle and going down a one-way street. A policeman whistles at you as you pass. You turn your head and the policeman motions for you to come closer. You make a U-turn on this empty street and ride up to the policeman. The policeman cites you for going the wrong way on a one-way street. You tell people about it and try to fight it in court. People tell you "You're just whining... there are people in REAL TROUBLE out there!" Do you really think that's a fair characterization? > Your very GOAL is to clog up the streets and to annoy people. What do you know? I suggest you read a bit about Critical Mass. There you go again with your preconceived notions. > This is what I mean by the bourgeois, convenient radicalism espoused > around here. DO NOT tell me that you're calling us "bourgeois, convenient radicals" because we complain about what's going on and are ignoring the "real" police states of the world when you're sitting on your ass bitching about Gore v. Bush while they BOTH supported the most oppressive totalitarian regimes in the world. Talk about trying to turn the tables. "Convenient radicalism" is exactly what you practice. You call it prudence, though... and practicality. But really it's just convenience... like your eating habits and "arts" patronage. > No, actually, I am not. And stop patronizing everyone who disagrees > with you, my disagreement is not a function of my intelligence. I'm not saying it's a function of your intelligence. I'm saying that you're willfully misinterpreting what's being said. You're adding all kinds of views and "facts" not in evidence and generally muddying the otherwise fairly clear water with your personal grudges and misinformed ideas. > >We get cheap luxuries because the rest of the world lives in fear of > >our armies and our corporations control their local resources. > > Some of this may be true, surely, but it's not all life, you know? What the fuck does that mean? > There's a larger picture, and a lot of that has to do with the ugly, > smelly fact that some humans are bent, corrupt and greedy, and they > come in all flavors or race, religion, and nationality. I am so SICK > of hearing this constant tirade that US corporations are responsible > for all the evil in the world -- and then when someone like me says it > just ain't so, we are lectured like a schoolboy, forcing us to remind > you over and over again that we can still believe that the US *has* > done wicked things, and that corporations can be irresponsible and > some things need to change; but we are not willing to roll over and > lay the whole tamale of blame at the feet of Mammon. Well, how much of the tamale are you willing to swallow? And how much of that which IS the blame of US corporations are you willing to alleviate by changing your habits? I'm ASKING for personal accountability here. I hear you saying that because not ALL of the world's evil is the fault of US corporations, your patronage of those corporations does not contribute to the evil. If you were to even TRY to stop encouraging those corporations, you'd see what I mean. Every time you spend money, think about where it goes within, say, three generations (or "hops"). You spend it here and some if it goes where? And then where? And then where? Now try to keep that money out of the hands of corporations that are responsible for or directly fund corporations that are responsible for some major slice of that tamale. It's nigh impossible. That means that the problem is insurmountable as long as you're spending money. That means boycotts don't work unless you're completely self-sufficient. Now look at votes. You said it only made sense to vote for Gore or Bush in the last Presidential election because they're the only candidates that "had a chance at winning". Now consider your opposition to the sanctions in Iraq or Colombia. How could you have voted to stop that process? Oh, you couldn't. That means voting doesn't work unless you think outside of the two major parties. Where do you diverge, here? > >The rest of the world tries all the time to fix this. > >They attempt to > >nationalize their resources (because they know that private ownership is > >just going to lead to selling out to American companies who can make > >outrageous offers in the short term) > > Again, your arguments hold some truth, but your constant alarmism, > hyperbole, and hypocrisy tend to undermine your points, Well, if you're smart enough to see through the "alarmism, hyperbole and hypocrisy" and that allows you to see the truth in what I say, then go with it. You recognize the truth. Don't the my rhetorical failings make you knee-jerk against what you've already realized is true. > and you tend to forget instances of nationalization that caused havoc > and chaos and pain. Whose call is that, though? Is that the call of the US or the corporations that were profitting from the privatized industry? Or is that the call of the nation that chooses nationalization? Havoc or help, it's not our business to interfere with the sovereign will of a foreign nation. > Not to mention the fact that nation-states can sell out quite nicely, > too. But that's all *our* fault, isn't it? Selling out is a two party game. And more often than not, the nation-state is selling out to an American corporation. And if you want to PREVENT the selling out of a nation-state, you will prevent your hard earned cash from going into the hands of those that would or could BUY OUT a nation-state. > Again, I know the US has done a lot of wrong -- hell, when I was in > college I used to be real in with the Latin American crowd, and I > have been to my share of peaceful protests. But that does not mean > that the Iraqi government has no responsibility for anything, and so > on and so on. Evil is not a monopoly of the US or of the corporations. Certainly not. But the decision of consequence, judgement, and enforcement seems to be. > Actually, I feel we should lift the sanctions on Iraq. I also feel we > should stay the fuck out of Colombia. And what do you think you're going to DO about it? YOUR nation is causing these problems. YOU are complicit in these actions. Have you written to your congress people? More importantly, have you VOTED AGAINST THOSE THAT SUPPORT THESE ACTIONS? The answer is no. Why? Because you're a "good democrat" and the Democratic Party supports these actions. > And I am also tired of your linguistic games. Support of troops in > Bosnia is not "vehemently supporting the killing." "Support of troops" is just about the most brilliant euphemism since the War Department became the Department of Defense. The troops you're "supporting" are hired goons for the US government (not the people) and the trans-national corporations it serves. Surely the best support a soldier could get is a one-way ticket home. > But the point is, I supported Al Gore, who is more likely to listen to > these arguments against killing than, say President George W. Bush. You don't think he's heard them? You think he was just blissfully unaware of the problems in Colombia? Totally ignorant of the situation in Iraq? He's heard all the arguments and made his decision. And you think he's beholden to the PEOPLE in any way? I point you to his selection of Joe Lieberman as a running mate and the quote posted on this very forum by eddie several weeks ago wherein Lieberman indicated that, since most people don't think we should be spending money on the military, the government should do something to change the minds of the people. > >Oh, wait, I forgot. You don't care about global violence, just local > >violence... especially if it gets in the way of your supply of convenience > >items. > > That's a cheap shot and you know it. Not at all. You specifically said that you don't care about what's going globally nearly as much as you care about getting MORE rights for people that already have basic protections against unsafe jobs and a gaurantee of some kind of welfare. > And I don't see you living in a shanty-town, working at a minimum-wage > job, and disowning all your electronics and CDs and books and shit. > That's part of what burns me -- the hypocrisy. I can be guilty of it > too, I know; but at least I admit it. How is being well-paid and living in a modest home "hypocritical"? It's not about how much you make, but about where the money GOES (and believe me, all of my money goes). And you've got about a hundred times the electronics, CDs, and books as I have... And I was careful to procure mine in the safest way possible (which is nowhere near 100%, of course). That's not hypocrisy. That's walking the talk. > The point being, I do care about global violence, I just care about > immediate human rights in the US more, nor do I agree with you that > these are "selfish" desires. In fact, I wonder if maybe you are the > more selfish one -- it's all-so easy to rail against what you can't > change and then walk away feeling superior. At what point did I "walk away"? And when did I say you can't change anything? I said voting and boycotting aren't going to do it. But this whole argument came about when I said there was another way and that it was worthwhile. > If you are so concerned with all these problems, why are you > constantly writing umpteen-page posts on a music List? Evangelism. It has been shown time and again that fegs are smart, influential people. Any soapbox, I say. As long as others can hear. It's not like anybody's going to put me on television. > Why are you working in an industry that is not related to these > concerns? I believe my industry is DIRECTLY related to these concerns. I believe my work is a bold step in changing the direction of this massive vessel. I work for a network carrier. Our goal is to improve communications worldwide. We have a very ethical policy regarding bilateral peering with smaller networks and I am currently working with the marketting department to develop a program where free bandwidth will be provided to non-profit organizations. It's good for business because it increases the amount of traffic on our network and makes us more attractive to multi-homed networks and networks with which we have no peering agreement. It is also important to note that I am a senior software engineer who is paid to write software that is available freely to the world (as I've explained on this list many times). If I am completely successful in my work the world's dependence on copyright holders will diminish because their need for proprietary software will be gone and their ability to share information quickly and easily will increase. Also, I take money OUT of the corporate economy (through my paycheck) and put it into the private economy as much as possible in my spending habits. What do you do? > I don't mean to suggest you cannot have legitimate concerns, but the > tone and tenor of your constant, strident denunciations seems to me to > hide a burned-out cynic who is too afraid to depart his own "bloated, > destructive" life, and barely conceals his unhappiness and acid > misanthropy by railing against bogeymen. These are not bogeyman and you've said so yourself. Honestly, Quail, I'd really say the above about you. You're the one who burned-out and gave up. > >You support Taco Bell and their rampant violence against farmers and > >the very fabric of life in their use of genetically modified corn? > > Yes, as a matter of fact I am all for genetic research, and I think > it's a misguided notion that it's doing "violence against the very > fabric of life." I am also all for genetic research. But I think it's pure arrogance to assume that our research has progressed to a point where our tinkerings can be considered viable in the wider environment. Injecting non-native organisms into an environment is violence against the ecosystem at least. > As far as rampant violence against farmers, I am not sure what you > mean, and if you can send me some information off-list, I would be > interested. How about destroying a farmer's ability to perpetuate his living by reaping his own seed crops? (Genetically modified crops are built so that, when "fertilized" from another like plant, they do not produce viable seeds. The agri-business companies use this little "feature" to force the farmers to buy seed year after year instead of harvesting their own as has been custom for thousands of years.) Also, these genetically modified crops are almost always built to be resistant to a specific inorganic chemical pesticide. This encourages farmers to use copious amounts of said pesticide on their fields. Surely that's a kind of violence. > >You support the MPAA and RIAA in their violent intimdation of all > >creative people. > > I guess I do, because I am not about to go out and burn all my CDs and > DVDs. Nobody said you should. And you're not patronizing them by KEEPING what you've ALREADY BOUGHT. You patronize them by going back for more. I'm not saying you have to shred your past, just modify your future. > So I suppose I am an evil, wicked person, and I can live with that. Only because you don't really believe it. And that's how you go on with your destructive ways. You tell yourself that it's ok and that it's worth it and you go on. But who do you really benefit? > I may not like all elements of the "system," but I am not about to (1) > be a hypocrite, You're not a hypocrite if you truly have no choice. > or (2) check into a monastery and pretend I am not one of the > historically privileged. What price privilege? I KNOW I'm one of the historically privileged. Does that mean it's good and right to exploit that for all it is worth? Or should I do what I can to help spread that privilege as far as possible? Like I said, it's impossible to live in this country and participate in any meaningful way without taking advantage, to some extent, of the raping and pillaging done for our benefit. But that doesn't mean you have to like it or take more than you absolutely have to. > I am, to be honest, too much an Epicurian for that. You're under the mistaken assumption that there aren't great things outside of that system. > >Did it ever occur to you that the violence of a protest is merely > >the begotten violence of our parasitic culture? > > Uh, yeah, I went to college too. But you see, I also have this belief > in something called personal accountability. So what personal accountability should be laid on Al Gore for his work in the Clinton administration and support of the atrocities in Iraq and Colombia? How about Clinton himself? How do we apply your idea of "personal accountability" to the faceless government agencies and corporations that are committing the inital acts of violence to which our protests are only mild reactions? > As Chris said, there are more effective ways of protest than violence, > which in most cases is like a hit of smack -- feels great at the time, > but fuck what it does to everyone around you. Show me an effective one. Show me on that's made a difference against a trans-national corporation or the US government in the past twenty years. > Yes, well, good, we've learned that violence is at the foundations of > power. Great. So I suppose that makes it right. As right as power. Makes no sense, you say? Power simply IS, you say? But if power is violence and power simply IS, then how can violence be right or wrong? Violence is at the foundations of power. Violence is no more wrong than power is wrong. It is the abuse of power and the excessive use of violence that is wrong. > And recall, I am actually *for* violence at times, I think it's the > only way to topple some systems. But I do not think this system is so > corrupt that it needs to be burned down. If you can show me that this is possible, I'll do it. Even if you'd just like to try, I'll listen or watch or whatever. But so far, I'm unconvinced. You say boycott and vote. I have a few solid arguments against those two methods. Refute them and you win me over. > And you know what? Most people don't think so either. Most people don't think the US is a broken system that should be smashed? On which global poll do you base this information? OH, you mean most AMERICANS don't think that the state that coddles them, allows for their complacence, encourages their apathy, and helps them to live on the backs of the rest of the world's labor needs to be taken down. Right. Never would have guessed. > Of course, you see them as the great unwashed benighted masses. And > this is why I draw a loose comparison to Lenin. Hey, fuck the > lumpenproletariat and the shawlies, right? Oh, please. When did I say anything of this sort? You're putting your prejudices before the facts. Again. > >Again with the bullshit. This has nothing to do with religion or the > >spiritual world and you're just playing games with affections (or showing > >your preconceived notions). > > No, it's not bullshit. I would rather see someone turn to Christainity > -- I mean, become an honest to God Christian, or Buddhist, or > something, some philosophy that removes one from the material world -- > any day, than see them promote violence against a system that the > masses wish to maintain. Because your precious violence and sabotage > and intimidation has an effect on other, unwilling people. And that is > something that I will never condone. That's a false dichotomy. And that's the bullshit I called. You basically said that if I didn't want to live in a consumerist, exploitative world, I should become a spiritualist monk. Don't try to save face by explaining that it's what you'd PREFER to see happen, you said those were my choices. And I think all you'd really prefer is for me to shut up and sit back and pretend like it's all going to be OK... as long as I'm not challenging you or your belief in the US of A and nachos bel grande. Again, bullshit. > My bloated, destructive way of life doesn't seem to bother any Fegs > whenever they come up to visit. It's not polite to insult one's host. But I do believe you were gently ribbed during my visit about 1) the size of your CD collection 2) your consumption of Taco Bell "food", et al. 3) your seeming obsession with Hitler, and 4) the movie Titanic and your "suckerhood" for that sort of work. > And there you go again, with an implied threat. Can't you see that's > what is angering me, that's what made me take off the gloves, and > that's what I cannot stand. Quail, I would LOVE to see a world where there is no institutionalized way to destroy the world around us or exploit other people. Much of the way of life that you are defending is nothing more than an institution of destruction and exploitation. I would love to believe I am a danger to such institutions. You, personally, you're just a pawn in the game. (Not that I'm anything more, just that I'd love to be.) > I am done, as I said with Vivien, you can have the last word on this. I really doubt it. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #157 ********************************