From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #156 Reply-To: ammf@smoe.org Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Friday, July 24 1998 Volume 01 : Number 156 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: greetings from Alberta! ["Demetriou, Melanie" Subject: RE: greetings from Alberta! On Friday, July 24, 1998 12:23 AM, MTKeener [SMTP:keenerms@ix.netcom.com] wrote: > If I had as little luck at the racetrack as I do in the voting booth I'd be > destitute! But, just like the lottery (which I don't waste my time or money > on) "you can't win if you don't play" Or, as my mother said, "Don't play if you can't win." She meant to say what you said, but she came up with a truism nonetheless! > ...and if nobody played we'd be living > under a military dictatorship (or a nearby approximation). It is the unfortunate truth that the most effective way to change a system is from within. The hard part is surviving within that system until such time as one has sufficient sway to effect change, without losing one's original purpose along the way. (The hard part is following that sentence! ) Many teachers succumb to burnout because of this. They think they can change things, but by the time they make it to some administrative level, they've been beaten down by the very system they sought to change. It can be pretty depressing. > Subvert the > dominant paradigm! Yeah! And question authority! *smirk* > When there's a few winners at the top you can bet > there's a lot of losers at the bottom -- thus the status quo is only popular > so long as you can (for lack of a better term) brainwash the masses. Well, I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say "brainwash." But there's definitely a particular bias in most mass literature, textbooks, advertising, what-have-you. While there's a continuum along that bias, it's all shades of the same color. It's all mainstream hypocrisy. Finding a different color can be *extremely* difficult...("Nowhere is the dreamer or the mystic so alone") > And if > that makes (flag burning, presidential indescretions, the "defence of > marriage act", <>) or a serious > campaign issue, well, I think I need someone else to vote for....usually > have to write 'em in. So, what would you like to see the candidates discussing? > Pinhead Matt (am I elected yet?) Is Zippy related to you? He ran for Pres a while back. Melanie I'm not braindead yet ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 1998 21:01:05 GMT From: dot0926@aol.com (Dot0926) Subject: Re:greetings from alberta wow, aol is really messing up the ng...now it's finally working , so im going to try and post this again ( for the fourth time), so if in the next few days the other versions of this post show up, sorry for taking up space, please ignore them.... >Richard Butterworth wrote: >There are two points in here and I'm not sure which you are arguing for. > >1. Government is unrepresentitive. >2. Government has no right to legislate morality. > >Are you arguing that if a government was (somehow) representitive then it >would >have the right to legislate morality? Or are you arguing that no government, >no >matter how representitive, should legislate morality? hmm, thats a good question. i guess in order to explain my point, ill have to explain a concept from the gemarah (basicly the books of jewish scholars and rabbis discussing the laws of judaism and trying to interperet the laws, i think it's yiddish, possibly hebrew- my 12 years of learning hebrew have apparently taught me nothing....). this concept it called cal v'chomer ( im sure there's an english term for this and that this explaination is truly not needed, but i just can't think of it right now), which basicly states if you take a fact, and then take the same fact to a greater degree, obviously, the same rules apply, for example, if you are not allowed to work on saturdays,the sabbath, then obviously you are not allowed to work on yom kipper (considered the holiest day in judaism)- likewise, since i don't believe that government should have the right to legislate morality, cal v' chomer, a government that is unequally representative shouldn't have the right. sorry to bring up all this theological stuff, i just couldn't figure out another way to explain my thought process. >Now, a government cannot precisely represent everyone, unless everyone is >part of >the government (which I think is a definition of anarchy). Any government can >only >represent an *approximation* of its people's views and wishes, so no >government >can be perfect. Some are more perfect than others, of course. Unless you're >arguing for an anarchist state, and that's a whole different thread... > i always thought that everyone being a part of the government was the true definition of democracy. anarchy, on the other hand, is the complete absence of government, not complete participation. in truth, maybe one day i will be arguing for an anarchist state. right now im leaning towards socialism, but in truth, i truly don't know. im still developing my political opinions, after all, im still only 17. every day im learning more, and i am quite aware that my evolution into an informed and socio-politicly concious individual is far from over.(this is expressed in another post that is also floating somwhere in aolville, but, what the hell-) i really want to thank everyone who is contributing to this thread, im really learning a great deal. >My government is *approximately* representitive, as is, I believe, yours, >especially compared to most other governments on this planet. I would argue >that a >government that is wholly unrepresentitive has no right to legislate >morality, or >indeed do anything else. Approximately representitive govenments have a right >to >legislate a partial morality. Saying `Oooh, you might find that this record >corrupts your kids, but nobody's going to stop you buying it if you want.' is >a >rather good example of partial morality. > yes, i agree, comparatively (spell check??) the u.s. government is not an evil entity, but should we settle for not bad, or strive for perfection ( or as close to it as is possible) ? partial morality only works if all people are aware that it's only an opinion and not a fact. many parents see this "partial morality" as proof of perversion or obsenity, and therefore, indirectly, it becomes complete, rather than partial morality forced upon those who simply don't know any better. >Hey, and seeing as we're both vegetarians, where do animal `rights' fit into >a >system of government? Votes for all living things? :) > you sound like my cousin who tried to make my vegetarianism into a joke with these hypothetical questions he keeps asking me ( usualy about hot dogs)... but since you are one yourself, ill just let it slide :) >Physical harm is not objective, by the way. How about disabling someone >trying to >rob your house? I don't know about laws in America, but here you're `allowed' >to >use `reasonable force' to disable an agressor. That's a moral judgement >someone >has made about using physical force in unpleasant situations and has >legislated >based on that morality. > thats self defence, not an unpleasant situation. you never know if the person is trying to rob, rape, kidnap, kill etc. and so by entering a persons house illegaly, you forfeit your right to be protected against bodily harm...... personally, self defense is the only type of violence i condone. > > >Every now and again there's talk in this thread about `conservative, >unthinking >masses' and how we as `free thinkers' should be protecting them against the >Powers >of Evil in the form of right wing moralisers. I think this argument is as bad >as >trying to set yourself up as a Guardian of Public Morals and trying to >protect the >`impressionable masses' from the Evils of liberal free thinkers and their >sinful >rock and roll music, strange sexual practices and unusual haircuts. you are one hundered percent, completly,and totaly correct. if i have ignorantly made blanket statements like those, please pardon my stereotyping and stupidity. - - nora ( tag! (line), you're it....) ************************************************************************** ******* " there's something exciting about the failure of modern technology to create a real looking fake human." - john linnell nora cohen (dot0926@aol.com) **************** ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 1998 21:45:43 GMT From: dot0926@aol.com (Dot0926) Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! this too might turn up out of the aol void in another form, sorry. >"Stephen R. Laniel" wrote: i wrote: > >> the first step is to make our government truly representative of all >>americans. >What is your standard of whether a legislative body is representative? >Will it have to contain members of every single subgroup of the American >population? This, of course, is impossible, because subgroups can be >defined in infinitely many ways (I am a member of the curly-haired, >engineering school-attending, Pontiac Bonneville-driving, Chomsky-reading >subgroup). i think we could tackle the obvious first, the economic, racial, religious, gender lines. then we can work on the curly haired etc. subgroup. :) >Could we say that a legislative body represents its people if it does what >the people as a majority want? Then we certainly have a representative >legislative body. Polls acheive representation. In fact, many complaints >about the US Senate in recent years have said that senators overuse polls >-- that is, that they are overly representative. ah, but who really takes these polls? i don't know any statistics on this, but i highly doubt that the poverty stricken, single mother with 10 kids, living in the slums, trying her hardest to keep her family fed, ect. has time to answer polls. >I would suggest that what we need is a legislative body which is only >representative to a point. When we elect representatives, rather than >running a direct democracy like the Greeks did, we assume that someone >else can do a better job of legislating than we can. but who decided that the system should be so? the "founding fathers" of course. their basic desire was to keep the control of government in their hands, therefore creating a government run by one social and economic class. these men did not have faith in the common man's ability to run government, or even to make intelligent choices, for that matter. true democracy was never intended to be the outcome of the constitutional convention, rather a republic which represents only one class' view: the white, rich majority, for example, the white males who made up the constitutional convention and who wrote the constitution only allowed white males to vote. this , in turn, lead to the legislature being made up of white males, who, according to the setup of government expressed in the original constitution of 1787, appointed the senate. those people wishing to be senators would bribe the members of the house, thereby filling the senate with not only white males, but wealthy, corrupt ones. the founding fathers had no problem with a government based on representation, because the representatives and the represented were one and the same. The issue of democracy was never an intention of the constitutional convention, and thus, was never truly implemented into our society, as illustrated by our nation's current socio-economic-political situation >> perhaps the basis of western law needs a bit of undermining, if it is >comprised >> of a small unrepresentative representative (how's that for an >oxymoron??) body >> that wishes to preach personal morality, while providing little to no >example >> of this morality. > >Again, in what sense is our legislative system unrepresentative? In a >sense I agree with you that the system is unrepresentative (cf. Chomsky, >and start with "Manufacturing Consent"), but I don't think you're being >clear about how you think it is unrepresentative. well, the entire political system is dominated by greed and financial gain, and the majority of politicians represnt only the needs of those who can help them monetarily. under our current system, however, there no true representation in america the people do not rule, as democracy, by definition, would dictate. so few Americans vote in elections, because they rightfully believe that the government does not work for them, rather, for the interests of the wealthy and the powerful. american elections are dominated by big money and image, politicians are the representatives of big businesses whose lobbyists buy their votes for the best price. under the present system, us citizens do not have the liberty to make a real democratic choice of political leadership. americans vote in such small numbers not due to apathy, because they have become disillusioned due to the corruption of the political process and are resigned to the fact that the concerns of the public are never truly articulated by the politicians. the act of voting itself is completely futile if business elites decide who will run and who will win. the wealthy are capable of affecting election outcomes, and subsequent legislation, with the money they spend to buy politicians, while the poor recognize their causes as lost, and surrender before the battle has even begun. >Direct democracy is probably the only truly representative system -- the >only one which represents each voice with 100% accuracy. But it comes >with its own problems. If we commit to a representative democracy, we >commit to its problems. One of these is that it does not represent all of >its people clearly. When we take positions according to the beliefs of >the majority, we exclude the minority. Can you suggest a way of >simultaneously representing everyone and committing to representative >democracy? I don't believe it's possible, but I'm open to suggestion. well, all i can do right now is quote chomsky: "as long as there is private control over the economic system, talk about democracy is a joke. you can't even talk about democracy until you have democratic control of industry, commerce, banking, everything... " - -noam chomsky but in truth, no i have no answers, i wish i did. as stated before, im still ( and constantly will be) learning and evolving. maybe one day, i will have an answer. when i do, you'll be the first to know. - - nora ************************************************************************** ******* " nora, why dont bugs sleep?" - - my camper jenna nora cohen (dot0926@aol.com) snafru on irc **************** ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #156 ********************************************