sides?

[Joel Katz]

i don't know about you, but i get a secret sexual thrill when i see 
westerners fleeing for their lives.  only minutes before they were reading 
about the federletus, and now they're bloody and terrified and fleeing for 
their lives.  it works for me.  most of those people in the photos, like you 
and me, have no problem endorsing rote barbarity every day of their lives.  
a terrible burden, to be sure.  maybe that's what you'll be hearing the 
fetishistic word 'innocence' used so much over the next several weeks.

and the $60 bil for africa?  who gives a fuck, really.  it's not really a 
lot of money, it all goes to pharmaceuticals anyway (fresh from their 
triumphant $250 bil overage on the prescription drug benefit), and it's 
clearly motivated by our interest in at least stalling the relentless 
incubation of superbugs on freud's favorite continent.  and as with the 
majority of these global aid intiatives to africa (same as with the jerry 
lewis telethon and pbs pledge drives), nobody really gives what they say 
they're going to.


>From: Mike Weaver <mike.weaver at zen.co.uk>
>To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: sides?
>Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 05:18:10 +0100
>
>Rob advises:
>>they need to think very carefully about the way their
>>cause is portrayed. Whether the public face of the lobby (i.e. the
>>violent brick throwers) [...]
>
>The violent brick throwers are in the focus of public attention for how 
>long? while day in day out the rest of the year the activists of the 
>movement are working on getting people's attention and influence. Rob, I'd 
>suggest the modern equivalent of tubal detox might be in order.
>
>>I think these are steps in the
>>right direction and need to be acknowledged as such.
>
>Taking a couple of steps sideways to avoid a big puddle ain't in the right 
>direction.
>
>>it's better than nothing, which is what has
>>been offered as an alternative.
>
>Yes it is better than nothing but nothing is not the alternative being 
>offered. Alternative meanings here however:
>
>You could mean that the G8 leaders are the only ones with the decision 
>making power so nothing anyone else is suggesting is worth a sou, or you 
>could be back to your nihilist brick throwers.
>
>Assuming the first - personally I'm glad that some concessions have been 
>made, for the people around now to benefit from it. That doesn't mean I've 
>any more respect for the G8 leaders. Extremes of wealth is structurally 
>integral to the system they preside over. Extreme poverty mean early death 
>for multitudes. There are alternatives being touted, but they mean, at the 
>least, hitching the hell horses of capitalism to some basic system of human 
>'rights'. While the priorities of our economies remain private profit and 
>war any concession to the needs of the weakest is, beyond the short term,  
>little more than a valium laced sop for the caring masses to keep them 
>petitioning and not revolting. Those leaders aren't going to do anything 
>which threatens their paymasters' domnation of the global economy are they?
>
>If you really think they are making steps in the right direction then I'd 
>like to see you propose some viable next steps which the G8 leaders would 
>be willing to make which would guarantee the necessary reduction in 
>extremes.
>
>BTW as far as the UK Welfare State goes, Blair has carried on restricting 
>its reach and farming out as much as is politically expedient to private 
>companies. The process is continuing...
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/