ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/mobility/archive/v01.n321

Internet Message Format | 1999-02-02 | 22KB

From: [e-mail] (mobility-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: mobility-digest V1 #321
Reply-To: mobility
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes

mobility-digest      Wednesday, February 3 1999      Volume 01 : Number 321



Re: (mobility) evil ninja moby the non-vegan
(mobility) From a green party member...
(mobility) Re:  mobility-digest V1 #317
Re: (mobility) I am, well not so new...the reply...
Re: (mobility) Bessie Jones
Re: (mobility) @@@@here's some reality for Ed & Tim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:37:43 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (mobility) evil ninja moby the non-vegan

> I don't know if I will ever be able to be vegan, I'm not ready for
that!
> I like milk and cheese too much. What no sour cream??? What no ice
cream?

PAUL:
Yes, good for you for going vegetarian.  It's a difficult decision to
make sometimes, and even more difficult to stick to it.
As for the ice cream and sour cream and cheese that you think you'll miss
if you go vegan, there are some glorious imitation products out there.
Tofutti brand ice cream, cream cheese, sour scream, etc.  Soy cheeses.
Egg-replacer.  Any animal product your little heart desires....  I don't
know if you can find these products where you live, but I'm aware of a
couple of mail-order catalogs that specialize in vegan foods.  Email me
if you ever want more information.


>its all about finding a happy medium.
>
>moby is happy as a vegan. good for him.  find YOUR happy medium.
>that's
>all you need to do. so if that includes dairy products, so be it. do

There's no "happy medium" in the methods of factory farming, in the
torturous practices that animals used for human consumption are subjected
to.  No "happy medium" in the environmental destruction for which the
meat and dairy industry is responsible.  (As far as health goes, well, I
guess that's debatable.  Even crack in moderation won't certainly kill
you!)    The world would be an incredibly harmonious place if personal
comfort was in sync with the comfort of animals, the environment, other
people, other cultures.  But that's seldomly the case.  And that's why we
sometimes have to do things that aren't entirely within the realms of a
our own "happy medium."  Sometimes a little personal sacrifice is in
order.  But if one isn't in it for the animals or the environment, then I
guess it all comes back to (surprise!) the interests of the individual.
I do feel, however, that it's ridiculous to expect vegan fanaticism from
a person.  We still have to exist in the western/westernized world.  For
example, I take photographs, despite the fact that film is made with
gelatin.  Currently there are no alternatives to film with gelatin, but
there is an alternative to perpetuating animal suffering, environmental
pollution and destruction through eating meat and that is a plant-based
diet!  And I don't think that's a lot to ask of a person.

the un-militant vegan,
morgan.
- -----------------------------------
         FREE MUMIA!
Don't Let this Brother Die!
       www.mumia.org
- -----------------------------------

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 23:57:38 PST
From: "Android M" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (mobility) From a green party member...

to "The Chris' "

I believe you said (a few digests ago) that your topics were -Moby
related- because of his essays that appear on the last couple of albums
in which he spews out his view of the world.  It seems as if you're
using this reasoning to subject the list to your political view (albeit
interesting to hear and find out about fellow mobility members). While I
don't want to be a "Moby-topic-only!" kind of person, I feel it would be
more fun to talk about how often Moby jacks off (or you for that matter)
rather than hear a history lesson according to the Limbaugh "dog eat
dog" american conservatives.

I know, I know, you put the @@@ symbol in the subject line on some of
them.  It's great you express your views and I'm intrigued enough to
respond but please tell us more about your Moby-subway experience
instead...

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 04:29:30 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (mobility) Re:  mobility-digest V1 #317



------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:36:36 +0000 (GMT)
From: Tim Beecher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) I am, well not so new...the reply...

Yes, getting all moralistic about the environment, vegans,
human rights, can get too self-righteous. But sometimes it
needs to have a loud voice for it's views to be heard
amongst the fascists and capitalists who want to drown out
true morality and freedom. It needs to protest to make
people think and not become indifferent and accept the
status-quo. However, it doesn't force anyone by violence to
accept their way of life, it's merely voicing valid
opinions. You will always have extremists on both sides,
but the majority want democracy, truth, freedom and equal
rights, without inflicting suffering and pain on others.

Also remember that before the U.S. and Britain and
probabaly other European nations helped Castro into power,
the ousted marxist government was democratically elected by
the people of the country. That doesn't mean to say Marxism
is right, but it's also not right that the Western
capitalists should interfere and force their political
agendas on other countries.

TMB

>
> To make this Moby-related, I suppose that liberal activists
> (environmentalists, vegans, anti-smokers, etc.) don't typically conduct
> themselves in such self-righteous ways, right? Enforcing any kind of law is
> forcing one set of morals on someone else.
>
> --
>     C        The C.O.D.         John Turpin
>     |                <jct1@
>    / \                Ra.MsState.Edu>
>   O   D    <http://www2.msstate.edu/~jct1/cod/>
>
>
>

- ----------------------
Tim Beecher
Cranfield University
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:43:11 +0000 (GMT)
From: Tim Beecher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) Bessie Jones

On Tue, 02 Feb 1999 22:00:07 CST Derek Goodwrench
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> >BTW, they were talking about "The Smiths", a British band of the 80's,
> >I remember.
> >
>
>     Long live the Moz!
>
>
>    And they're both vegetarians?

Yeah, but Morrissey is a prick - The Smiths produced some
brilliant tunes though (note the Smiths and NOT just
Morrissey!).
>
>
>    d
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>

- ----------------------
Tim Beecher
Cranfield University
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:45:30 +0000 (GMT)
From: Tim Beecher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) @@@@here's some reality for Ed & Tim.

On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 23:12:28 -0600 Christopher Michael
Bourke <[e-mail]> wrote:


> Secondly, on to Tim's letter:
>
>
> >Oh come on both Chris', let's get some reality here.
> >Britain was primarily interested in advancing it's own
> >wealth at the expense of the people it conquered - thank
> >God colonialism has virtually died amongst the European
> >nations. It was pure exploitation, and competition for
> >power that accelerated the ravaging of other cultures and
> >their wealth to be ahead of their other European rivals.
> >The French and the British were constantly at it and look
> >how the Spanish before them decimated the peoples of
> >Central and South America. They had a very advanced
> >civilisation compared to many money grabbing, war mongering
> >Europeans.
>
>
> Again, in historical context if you pick up any book on Britain's history,
> instead of quoting the biased opinions of the "New Internationalist"  you
> would see mounds of documentation.

I don't just read New Internationalist, by the way and
actaully it is very fair and allows for capitalists to view
their opinions, unlike many other biased capitalist
literature!

While France, Portugal and Spain
>attempted to drain colonies of natural resources and
violently put down it's
> local people, enslaving them Britain had a much more positive effect.  I'm
> not saying that colonialism was ever justified, just that relatively, the
> Brits never went to the extent of the rest of Europe.  The Good that they
> did far outweighed the bad, and their motives were just as I said, attempts
> to open new markets and tear down trade barriers controlled by local and
> regional tyrants

... because they were doing it for their own interests, not
to benefit anyone else, not to try and 'help' people, but
subjugate them by force - that is not right, pure and
simple.
>
> >I think it's pure arrogance to suggest that any nation
> >should be encouraged to force others to accept its way of
> >life, culture and religion. Some people in the West have a
> >serious superiority complex!
>
However, I will state that
> there are objective rules/guidelines for morality.  Would you take your
> cultural relativism so far as to say WWII Germany was justified in their
> autrocities in so far as their own borders were concerned?

Of course not! But everyone under the the capitalist god
seems forced to obey within and without various countries
borders anyway. It commits atrocities against the majority
of it's people.
>
> >
> >Tribal wars in Africa were far less damaging to the world
> >and humanity than those fought by present 'first world'
> >nations over the centuries, but none so appalling as this
> >century.
>
> A result of Nationalism/Facism/and Socialistic trends, Capitalism did not
> percipitate in any measurable degree the events leading up to the Great
> world wars.

Maybe you need to have another look at history and the
industrial revolution and what it lead to....
>
> >The U.S.A. was also built on colonialism to get where it is
> >today - the native peoples didn't get much say when it came
> >to living on their own land and what rights they had to
> >their own land. I don't think you'd be saying the same
> >things if the tables were turned.
>
> What the US Government did to the native americans was unforgivable.  But
> one must understand the mentalities and situation involved.  The Native
> Americans were largely Nomadic people who had no concept of "owning land."
> Even if the "white man" were to pay the native Americans for their land,
> they would see it as very odd and would probably not have anything to do
> with such a transaction.  Europeans and Americans on the other hand had very
> evolved and developed sence and legal definitions of ownership which
> included land and natural resources.  This culture clash was sadly
> inevitable, but I don't think that this country was build on the Manifest
> destiny move westward.  The east already had highly developed and rich
> economic bases.

So you think all that was justified!?
>
> >Capitalism and globalisation today, thanks to the 'free
> >market' has pushed its new brand of colonialism and
> >imperialism on other nations inside and outside the West,
> >to satisfy the minority rich in the rich nations and fuck
> >up the 'have-nots' in the process - the majority of these
> >people are forced into poverty by the current system. The
> >Majority world (Third World) nations are held to ransom by
> >the IMF and World Bank by never-ending debt and usury
> >(usury, at one time being a sin according to old
> >Judaeo-Christian and Islamic beliefs).
>
> Excuse me?  The Third world's economic capital comes from INVESTMENT from
> the west, not extrodinarily high interest loans.  If anything The third
> world nations would never (governmetns) would never get ANY loans because of
> political turmoil making them extremely bad credit risks.  Instead these
> countries tend to print more money which leads to hyper inflation, ruining
> their OWN economies.  The have nots are have nots, not because of external
> "multinational" corporations but because of thier own autocratic governments
> controlling their economy and raping their resources in attempts to continue
> their regimes.

Excuse me, but the reason many have autocratic governmnets
is because of the European colonial system and capitalism
is a new extension of colonialism - sorry the above just
doesn't wash!
>
> >Laissez-faire capitalism (sounds better than the present
> >form) but has led to ludicrous pacts between rich
> >governments allowing industry to have free reign, in
> >whatever countries industry chooses, i.e. the MAI pact
> >recently in Geneva. Industry will have no accountability -
> >so it can exploit workers, pollute the environment and just
> >continue to ravage about any decent thing left in society
> >and the world around us with no controls and governments of
> >poorer countries and even the rich ones won't be able to do
> >a damn thing about it unless this crazy notion is stopped.
> >So capitalism, laissez - frigging - faire or not, will
> >still exploit for capitalists' own ends; someone will
> >always suffer as a result.
>
> Ha!  You have shown that you have no concept of what Laissez-faire
> capitalism is!  No Government intervention in the economy is exactly what it
> says!  NO INTERVENTION.

That's exactly what I said - no government intervention!
 economic development.  No controls doesn't mean no accountability!

You really think that industry will happily give account of
all it's environmental destruction, exploitation of
workers, etc without any control measure - no government
interference? You are more naive than I thought!

Yet
> another way government controls in the form of tort reform pervert the true
> principles of Capitalism!  Public resources such as drinking water and the
> air would be subject to public protection, ie through civil action against
> those who would polute the environment.  Exploitation in a true
> laissez-faire, free market economy is NOT possible.  Every man/woman is free
> to decide who to work for and at mutually agreed upon wages.  Low wages are
> NOT exploitation in and of themselves.  Please.

What? Are you crazy? Yeah right, man/woman will mutually
agree upon wages and low wages are acceptable to keep the
workers below the poverty line - great!
>
> >I'm not sure you can refer to Indonesia as a socialist
> >nation - it is still hands-in-glove with the capitalists of
> >the West, which helps fund it's repression of the East
> >Timorese and it's own people. Even China is more of a
> >capitalist nation with the gloss of communist principles
> >over it - now that is repressive to the extreme - the worst
> >of both bad worlds.
>
> ?!?!!?  Indonesia not a socialist country?  What praytell is it?  If not
> socialist I would agree that it is ruled by a MILITARY REGIME, and not
> governed by capitalistic principles(which include respect of personal
> liberty against a tyrannical government)
>
> There is not a single private, major industrial entity in all of China with
> the exception of HK.  Communisms death has been staved off and they have
> made capitalistic reforms in the last few decades, but they are FAR from
> capitalism.  Everything is still state owned.

I still think they're capitalists underneath it all - if
they were really socialist they would not do business with
capitalists.
>
> >As for the rainforests and indigenous peoples - I'm not
> >just referring to the Amazonian one. Their destruction is
> >fuelled by the insatiable desire of capitalist-driven
> >globalisation. Subsistence farmers wouldn't have to destroy
> >so much if they were in a state that provided controlled
> >and carefully managed agriculture and
> >conservation/ecological principles to benefit everybody and
> >everything. Let's also remember that the prime culprits of
> >rainforest destruction are the rich cattle ranchers, heavy
> >industry and dam builders funded by the World Bank, for the
> >rich countries own interest and usury.
>
> Just like Stalin's Russia huh?

No, of course not! I knew you would immediately latch
on to that. Like that was what I was getting at - not!

The murder of millions of Kulaks in the name
> of government controlled agricultural development.  Global warming and the
> Rain Forests are scientifically questionable to begin with.

So rainforests and the people that live in them are
expendable are they? Government controlled ecological
principles don't have to result in murder when everybody
gets a fair share of everything. It is possible to work
together happily in different areas of life. You know there
were such things as happy communities that people used to
live in and survive in quite well. But no, the
capitalists of the world have to bulldoze in and fuck
everything up. It's normally when there's a huge gap
between rich and poor that creates revolution, uprisings
and murder.

Ha!  You sound
> like a militia man they with your conspiritorial antagonisms toward the
> World Bank.  They don't own everything my friend.

They own most, unfairly - which is the point.


>
> >There is enough food to feed everyone in the world right
> >now, but under the current economic regime (which is out of
> >control and is on the verge of self-destruction)- the haves
> >get more and the have-nots get even less. Where does it end?
> >
> >Are you saying that all us comfortable, well-off types
> >(usually already born with a silver spoon in our mouths,
> >while others are trapped in poverty with no chance of ever
> >escaping, all because of past silver spoon, exploitative
> >bastards), should leave people starve to death? Do you
> >think they willingly let themselves starve to death and so
> >they deserve it? Should we exterminate all handicapped and
> >ill people because they are a drain on our military
> >expenditure because they deserve it? People must be fired
> >from there jobs and become homeless because they're human
> >and not running around like headless chickens for the sake
> >of the stock market to feed the fat bastards at the top.
> >Some of us have short memories.
> <<<<snip>>>>but simply self-destruction.
> >
>
>
> Atlas Shrugged.  You identify the prime mistake in all statist/conrolled
> economy advocates.  First, you resort to pathos-like rhetoric trying to
> appeal to people with the pathetic starving masses.  You ignore the entire
> basis of WEALTH.  Wealth is not static, it is not given, it is created!  The
> Atlases of our world create weath through hard work and earned(ie deserved)
> endeavors.  In a free society wealth cannot be used to exploit put down or
> influence anyone to do anything!

Now that view is biased!

Yes it bloody can exploit! There will always be some greedy
bastard who will do anything, even indirect murder to
promote his/her own business at the expense of any other.
Selfism has no respect for humanity or itself. You seem to
ignore human and environmental suffering, not realising
what the cause of it is. You think that is progress and
this will last, this insatiable desire to consume out of
control? That doesn't give many other poeple a chance for
freedom, does it? All I advocate is giving everybody a
chance, no matter where they are from and capitalism
doesn't allow this, but forces the majority into positions
they cannot hope to be given a chance in.


>
> >True equality is liberty against economic and social
> >oppression.
>
> True equality is equality before the law.  The only entity that should
> morally be allowed to have a monopoly on physical force is the Government.
> And within that government, application of the law is equal accross all
> social/political/racial/etc... differences.  Egalitarianism is a vile and
> perverse form of equality that should never be allowed("Harrison Bergeron").
> There is no such thing as a right to a house, a right to food, a right to
> entertainment or anything else.  There is only a right to freely persue the
> acquisition of these things through one's own work and talent.  No one is
> entitled to another man's property.

Of course no one is entitled to have someone else's
property. You capitalists are paranoid aren't you? There is
a place for equality where the law gives everyone equal
opportunities, but also caters for those who will
inevitably make mistakes, or through no fault of their own,
fail - because they are human. A government that can help
provide a small helping hand for those in that less
fortunate position, rather than let them rot around us.
It's not like present rich governmment nations can't afford
to do it, either. Unfortunately the money goes on far more
wasteful and unnecessary things like the military, to
suppress others who don't want to follow a capitalist way
of life!

TMB

- ----------------------
Tim Beecher
Cranfield University
[e-mail]

------------------------------

End of mobility-digest V1 #321
******************************

-------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [e-mail]
with the line "unsubscribe mobility-digest" in the body.