Progressive Calendar 10.31.09
From: David Shove (
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
             P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R   10.31.09

1. Nonviolence       10.31 9am
2. Peace walk        10.31 9am Cambridge MN
3. Single-payer      10.31 10am Rochester MN
4. Arise brunch      10.31 10am
5. Divest Israel     10.31 10am
6. M Katch lit drop  10.31 10:30am
7. Anti-rape action  10.31 1pm
8. CUAPB             10.31 1:30pm
9. Northtown vigil   10.31 2pm

10. Stillwater vigil 11.01 1pm
11. ImmigrationVigil 11.01 2:30pm
12. RCV in Mpls      11.01 3pm
13. Samhain          11.01 5pm
14. CUAPB dinner     11.01 5:30pm

15. John Kolstad   - More with less/campaign finance/vote for mayor
16. Michelle Gross - Worst chief ever: Rybak pushes Dolan for another term
17. Charles Marowitz - Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story
18. Frank Smecker  - Derrick Jensen interviewed on science and technology
19. ed             - The BSR  (haiku)
20. ed             - Bumpersticker

--------1 of 20--------

From: Women Against Military Madness <wamm [at]>
Subject: Nonviolence 10.31 9am

A Conference on Christian Nonviolence: Ways of Peace I

Saturday, October 31, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. United Theological Seminary
of the Twin Cities, 3000 5th Street Northwest, New Brighton. Speakers
include: Rita Nakashima Brock, William T. Cavanaugh, Kathy Kelly, Gerald
Schlabach, Christine M. Smith, and Walter Wink. Tickets: $10.00. Sponsored
by: Friends for a Nonviolent World (FNVW). Endorsed by: WAMM. FFI: Call
651-917-0383 or visit info [at]

--------2 of 20--------

From: Ken Reine <reine008 [at]>
Subject: Peace walk 10.31 9am Cambridge MN

every Saturday 9AM to 9:35AM
Peace walk in Cambridge - start at Hwy 95 and Fern Street

--------3 of 20--------

From: Zack Farley <zack [at]>
Subject: Single-payer/health 10.31 10am Rochester MN

The MN Universal Health Care Coalition still has space available for its
upcoming organizing and advocacy workshop on Single-Payer health care and
the MN Health Plan.

Register TODAY if you are interested in learning more about the
legislation and how you can become an effective advocate on this issue!


***For those already registered for this event, thank you again and we
look forward to seeing you on Oct. 31!

Saturday, October 31, 2009
10:00  a.m. - 3:00 p.m. (lunch provided)
Rochester Senior Center, 121 Broadway Ave N., Rochester, MN 55906

~Rep. David Bly (25B), Chief House Author of the Minnesota Health Act,
Rep. Tina Liebling (30A), Co-Author, and a Panel of Physicians

~What is single-payer & why is it a good solution to our health care mess?
~What is the Minnesota Health Plan and how will it work?
~What are the prospects for the MHP this legislative session?
~How do I effectively engage my legislators?
~What is effective organizing and advocacy for health care?
~What steps can I take to promote the MHP?

~Minnesota Universal Health Care Coalition -
~TakeAction Minnesota -


*Suggested Donation $20 ~ No One Turned Away for Inablility to Pay
*Open to All ~ Lunch and Materials Included

For more information or questions, contact: info [at] or 651-641-4073
Thank you for your support!

Zack Farley (612) 226-5469 MN Universal Health Care Coalition

--------4 of 20--------

From: Meredith Aby <awcmere [at] GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Arise benefit brunch 10.31 10am

Arise! Benefit Halloween Brunch
Sat, Oct. 31 from 10am-2pm@ Walker Church, 3104 16th Ave S, Mpls

$5-10 sliding scale, no one turned away for lack of funds!  Times are hard
and we need your help to stay open!  Keep your favorite radical bookstore
open. Eat vegan pancakes and other delectable things. Check out new books,
zines and other neat stuff. C'mon, you know you want to.  And don't miss
the debut of "Recipes for Radicals," the new Arise! cookbook for making
change, trouble, and dinner!

--------5 of 20--------

From: Women Against Military Madness <wamm [at]>
Subject: Divest Israel 10.31 10am

Update on the Growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement: A
Talk by Amber Michel
Saturday, October 31, 9:30 a.m. (Refreshments); 10:00 a.m. (Presentation
and Discussion) Southdale Hennepin County Library, 7001 York Avenue South,

Amber Michel is the Central Minnesota Regional Organizer for a state-wide
campaign working for divestment, boycott and sanctions to end the illegal
occupation of Palestine. In August of 2009 she traveled through the West
Bank and Israel, meeting with various organizations working to end the
occupation. Amber will present the history of BDS as well as opportunities
to get involved and make change. Sponsored by: Middle East Peace Now
(MEPN). WAMM is a member of MEPN. FFI: Call 651-696-1642 or email
mepn [at]

--------6 of 20--------

From: Kaylea Crawford <klc [at]>
Subject: Michael Katch lit drop 10.31 10:30am

This weekend we will be helping Michael Katch hit some of the apartment
buildings downtown - this will make lit dropping quick and easy and we
won't have to deal with the chilly weather.

Michael Katch Lit Drop [Ward 7 city council]
Meet at Minneapolis HQ - 800 N. 3rd St. Minneapolis, MN
10:30 AM on October 31, 2009 (Saturday)

--------7 of 20--------

From: DeniseCBreton [at]
Subject: Anti-rape action 10.31 1pm

I just got this from Janice Bad Moccasin.  At least 15 Native girls and
women from ages 9 - 40 have been brutally raped recently in the Franklin

If they had been white women, I can only imagine the hue and cry that
would have gone up, but that has not happened ...

Janice and Dr. Tony Stately are organizing an emergency meeting tomorrow.
They need help from all sectors of the community.  And it would be good to
bring food.  As you see from the flyer, the meeting is Saturday, October
31 at 1:00 PM at All Nation's Church, 1515 East 23rd St., Minneapolis.

--------8 of 20--------

From: Michelle Gross <mgresist [at]>
Subject: CUAPB 10.31 1:30pm

Meetings: Every Saturday at 1:30 p.m. at Walker Church, 3104 16th Avenue

Communities United Against Police Brutality
3100 16th Avenue S
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Hotline 612-874-STOP (7867)

--------9 of 20--------

From: Vanka485 [at]
Subject: Northtown vigil 10.31 2pm

Peace vigil at Northtown (Old Hwy 10 & University Av), every Saturday

--------10 of 20--------

From: scot b <earthmannow [at]>
Subject: Stillwater vigil 11.01 1pm

A weekly Vigil for Peace Every Sunday, at the Stillwater bridge from 1- 2
p.m.  Come after Church or after brunch ! All are invited to join in song
and witness to the human desire for peace in our world. Signs need to be
positive.  Sponsored by the St. Croix Valley Peacemakers.

If you have a United Nations flag or a United States flag please bring it.
Be sure to dress for the weather . For more information go to

For more information you could call 651 275 0247 or 651 999 - 9560

--------11 of 20--------

From: Kathryn Sharpe <kathrynsharpe19 [at]>
Subject: Immigration vigil 11.01 2:30pm

Day of the Dead Vigil to Call Attention to Immigrant Detention and Border
Faith Action at Ramsey County Adult Detention Center
425 Grove St. St. Paul, MN
November 1, 2:30 PM

The Interfaith Coalition on Immigration, the Minnesota Immigrant Rights
Action Coalition, and the Sisters of St. Joseph invite the community to
participate in a vigil and procession for the Day of the Dead at the
Ramsey County Adult Detention Center. Community members are invited to
bring offerings for the altar that we will create at the detention center.

According to a recent report from Amnesty International, in just over a
decade, immigration detention has tripled. The Department of Homeland
Security has the authority to detain thousands of immigrants without the
right to a hearing to determine whether the detention is warranted. Today
more than 30,000 immigrants are detained each day and this number is most
likely to increase with new community and workplace enforcement policies.
The UC detains children, asylum seekers, torture survivors, longtime
lawful permanent residents, and parents of US citizen children.

Over 100 people have died in immigration detention over the past five
years, and thousands have been denied access to medical care. On April 13,
2006 Maria Iñamagua died at Ramsey Adult Detention Center due to a massive
brain infection.

On Nov. 1, All Saints Day, we will remember Maria and honor those who have
died crossing the border or in our immigration detention system. We will
have a reading of names, prayers, music, and a ceremony with the Ketzal
Coatlicue Aztec Dancers.

Faith Actions are planned for the first Sunday of every month at the end
of visiting hours. Faith and community groups are invited to lead or
sponsor a Sunday Faith Action.

For more information contact the Interfaith Coalition on Immigration at
interfaithimmigration [at] or Rev. Loren McGrail at 612-386-9789

--------12 of 20--------

From: "Of the People" <info [at]>
Subject: RCV in Mpls 11.01 3pm

How Real People Power Works:Ranked Choice Voting In Minneapolis

In This November Election Minneapolis & Some Other U.S. Cities No Longer
Have to Choose "lesser of two evils" Imposed by the Corporate "Duopoly"
posing as Democrats and Republicans.

[Some of us actually like being sat upon by giant corporations. We like to
watch our life force diabolically crushed out of us. Where but America
could our masochist class be so constantly served? Pain we love it. -ed]

Find out why and how on: Of the People with James Mayer this Sunday,
November 1, 2009 at 3PM AM950 KTNF or

Patrick O'Connor, City of Minneapolis Interim Elections Director will make
a return visit to Of the People this Sunday at 3pm. to explain tell us all
about Ranked Choice or Instant Runoff Voting and answer some of the
questions that are on the minds of voters locally and around the country.

In 1998, no Minnesota state-wide constitutional officer was elected with a
majority. Jesse Ventura won with just 37 percent. What if voters could
have ranked their first three choice votes for 3 candidates?  They can in
Minneapolis this November. (And what about that Presidential "election" in
2000 or in 2004?)

Join us on Of the People with James Mayer this Sunday, November 1, 2009 at
3 p.m. on AM950 KTNF (formerly Air America Minnesota) or, if out of the
broadcast area, stream us at

--------13 of 20--------

From: Rebecca McConkey <mn_united_ireland [at]>
Subject: Samhain 11.01 5pm

Samhain Celebration
Sunday, November 1 5-7 pm
Newell Park

Dia dhaoibh,

A few of us are doing some organizing for the annual outdoor Samhain
Celebration at beautiful Newell Park in St. Paul. We'd like to see who
would like to participate and in what way. Here's some ideas for the

* potluck food & bonfire (we'll need firewood)
* storytelling
* honoring family & community members who've recently passed
* poetry & song
* music & dancing
* community news & events announcements

Put the date on your calendar, and call or email if you'd like to plug in
in any way. Do you have a song, poem, story or favorite food you'd like
to share with the community? Let's keep this tradition going!

Slan go foill,
Erin Thomasson skylark [at] 612-871-9548 Minnesotans for a United
Ireland 612-871-7110

--------14 of 20--------

From: Michelle Gross <mgresist [at]>
Subject: CUAPB dinner 11.01 5:30pm

Sunday, November 1, 5:30 p.m.
Walker Church, 3100 16th Ave, Minneapolis

Join us for a ceremony to commemorate the lives of people who have died at
the hands of police.  Since last October 22, 18 people have been added to
the list.  These people can no longer speak for themselves but we can and
must be their voices demanding justice.  Family members of victims of
police violence will speak on behalf of their loved ones, reminding us
that these were people with families who loved them.  This solemn ceremony
will be followed by a more festive dinner to mark our victories over the
past year, to remember old friendships and make new ones, and to fortify
ourselves for the work of the coming year.  There is no charge for the
meal -it will be our pleasure to have you join us for a sumptuous feast,
including vegan and vegetarian options.

--------15 of 20--------

From: Sue <kolstadformayor [at]>
Subject: Nov election and campaign financing

More With Less - Campaign Finance   [Kolstad for mayor -ed]

If you are a Minneapolis resident seriously concerned with CAMPAPIGN
FINANCE REFORM vote Papa John Kolstad your first choice on November 3.

Today on KFAI's Truth To Tell a group of news people were in agreement
that the amount of money a candidate raises before declaring is an
indication of the candidate's viability.

Papa John's campaign has run on a shoestring. The campaign is relying on
a network of supporters to spread the word. The media has ignored the
election because the challengers do not have huge war chests collected
from the rich and powerful around the country. Show the media that money
should not be the defining measure in a campaign.

In this time of economic crisis vote for Papa John Kolstad A CANDIDATE

[Replace the corporate developers' grade-F mayor (stadium, RNC) with a
grade-A guy. Kolstad for mayor. -ed]

--------16 of 20--------

From: Michelle Gross <mgresist [at]>
Subject: Worst chief ever: Rybak pushes Dolan for another term


Despite record settlements for police misconduct, mass demotions of
officers of color, huge spikes in police brutality incidents, the RNC
debacle, and his flat refusal to discipline sustained cases from the
Civilian Review Authority, mayor RT Rybak plans to renew the appointment
of police chief Tim Dolan for another three years.  Dolan's term expires
in December.

The community doesn't have to take this.  We can demand a public hearing
so that our voices are heard.  Call your city council member today and
demand a public hearing.  Even a few phone calls or emails will help put
this on the city council's radar screen.  Don't forget the MPD's
outrageous conduct after the Rage Against the Machine show during the RNC,
their treatment of RNC protesters in St. Paul, even their dousing of Leah
Lane in pepper spray as she held her fingers up in a peace sign.  Dolan
was right there for most of that and he has never bothered to discipline
those officers.  HE NEEDS TO GO!

Contact info for council members is at Please contact them TODAY.

--------17 of 20--------

Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story
by Charles Marowitz
Film Review

(Swans - October 19, 2009)   Michael Moore is somewhat slovenly and
unkempt. Even were he to don a tuxedo, one would feel he got it
second-hand from some rag-and-bone man. Because of his bluntness and
dubious taste, he is easy to disparage. But for me, Moore is the closest
thing we have to a contemporary Tom Paine and one of the few liberals who
not only speak truth to power but actually get out there and dirty their
hands tossing manure at his adversaries.

Capitalism: A Love Story is a pertinent, persuasive, and blunt analysis of
the way that a small, affluent, and greedy minority has succeeded in
dominating 95% of the American population. The "love story" element of the
film is pure tongue-in-cheek. For Moore, the greed of capitalists and the
"love" of their domination over us poor suckers is what enables the
romance to flourish. No one is spared from Moore's whiplash. Robert Rubin,
Tim Geithner, Henry Paulson, all emerge in the film like fugitives on a
post office bulletin board. To watch the film and then relate it to
current events is to appreciate the candor of Mr. Moore's revelations,
which, despite the fact they have been proselytized by journalists and
theorists, seem to have left little mark on citizens grown accustomed to
the false shibboleths that are at the bed-rock of American democracy.

Once the recession really hit in '08 and early '09, Washington's first
impulse was to rescue the Wall Street interests that, it was abundantly
clear, were largely responsible for the economic fiasco. As billions in
bailouts were doled out to the most favored financial institutions - in
most cases to the very executives responsible for causing the blight -
millions of Americans lost both their jobs and their houses, not to
mention their dignity. When slight signs of recovery were bruited, those
optimistic words referred not to the millions who had lost their jobs but
to the recovery of banks that had benefited from the government's
intercession. Again, the state of the union was measured not by those who
suffered the most severe losses but by that small, well-heeled minority
who inflated their bonuses and squirmed out of that very financial
quicksand that sucked in hundreds and thousands of working people; what
you might call "middle class America" although labeling them simply the
"victims of corporate greed" would be a more accurate description.

One of the great virtues of Moore's documentary is that it provides the
historical basis for the catastrophe that, despite optimistic forecasts,
still envelopes the nation. Clearly, the election of Ronald Reagan,
captive of the nation's corporate interests and guardian of Wall Street
sovereignty, was the first lurch in the fatal direction and once the
supremacy of corporative domination was established, it remained protected
by every succeeding president as if it were a principle in the
presidential oath of office. Had it been properly disseminated, there
might have been a little more furor about the injustice, but it was simply
taken for granted. Capitalism and its bitter enemy, the will of the
people, were forever enshrined in the Republic's tautology.

The great value of Moore's blunt indictment of capitalism is that it
musters just enough salient examples to prove his point. We are a nation
victimized by a small, greedy minority of bankers, speculators, and
exploiters and we lack the gumption or the will to rise up and try to
change a situation that subtly envelops three quarters of the nation -
even when the evidence of exploitation is revealed to us every moment of
every day in books, media, and the spiritual diminution of our private

Tom Paine, like Michael Moore, constantly hammered out his own message of
"change." Another was eloquently expressed by President Obama during the
presidential campaign although signs of it are very scarce now that his
presidency is almost a year old.

What Moore's film does, better than anything like it now in circulation,
is to provide both facts and examples of how low we have sunk in 21st
century America. But what it also does is suggest that, given the
unpredictable American spirit, it may still be possible to reverse a
diabolical trend that inflicts misery on a large majority of the
population. All the truth needs is one disruptive breakthrough and the
character of an entire nation can be altered. Films like Moore's are a
salvationary form of agit-prop. If it doesn't enrage you, there is
something amiss with your metabolism.

It would be ridiculous to try to evaluate Capitalism: A Love Story simply
in cinematic terms. It would be like evaluating Paul Revere's ride in
terms of equestrian skill. It doesn't matter that the documentary is
fragmented, editorially sloppy, reminiscent of earlier Moore films, and
unabashedly left-of-center propaganda. It's what it says that matters -
and the relevance of that should goad a soporific public into action.

--------18 of 20--------

An Interview with Derrick Jensen on Science and Technology
Agaisnt Prometheus
October 28, 2009

Derrick Jensen is the prize-winning author of A Language Older Than Words,
The Culture of Make Believe, Listening to the Land, Strangely Like War,
Welcome to the Machine, and Walking on Water. He was one of two finalists
for the 2003 J. Anthony Lukas Book Prize, which cited The Culture of Make
Believe as "a passionate and provocative meditation on the nexus of
racism, genocide, environmental destruction and corporate malfeasance,
where civilization meets its discontents." He is an environmental activist
and lives on the coast of northern California.

Frank Joseph Smecker: You write that this culture is murdering the planet
- species extinction, entire continents of clear-cuts, the removal of 90
percent of the large fish from the oceans, global warming - all are but a
handful of the dire effects of industrial civilization; how has philosophy
shaped and influenced the behavior that has led to these despairing

Derrick Jensen: The stories we are told shape the way we see the world,
which shapes the way we experience the world. R.D. Laing once wrote that
how we experience the world shapes how we behave in the world. If the
world is presented as resources to be exploited, then more than likely,
you're going to exploit the world. For example, if one sees trees as
dollar bills, then one will look at trees and treat trees one way; if one
sees trees as trees, for what they are - as other beings to be in
communion with - then one will see them and treat them another way.
Philosophy is the telling of the world a certain way.

FJS: Would you say that the stories and ideas passed on by Western
philosophers and other ideologues, which have influenced the modern
behavior of the dominant culture, are perpetuated through other mediums

DJ: Absolutely. Even today our media and entertainment present stories
that affect our behavior. Take for example Ugly Betty - that new show on
television. This is just cruel, and ultimately influences the way this
culture sees and treats women. Personally, I think she's fairly cute, and
if I'm going to do the objectifying rating of women thing, scores easily a
six or more on a scale of one to ten. but they throw some glasses and
braces on her and suddenly the culture is telling us that she is ugly. My
point is that in Hollywood, even someone who is explicitly labeled as
"Ugly Betty" is still reasonably good looking. What does that, along with
all the other images of women that are put out there, do to both women's
and men's perception of women?

Newspapers, too, are just as responsible. For example, I recently read an
article in some newspaper about the decline of certain frog populations,
and the header of the article read something along the lines as: "Another
Frog Croaks". What that does is trivializes - it makes a joke out of
species extinction! Or how about the salmon that are going extinct? In
this culture, if salmon are of no economic utility then what good are
they? This seems to come from a place of hatred and narcissism.

I write in Endgame how the narratives we are told shape the way we live.
If you are told your entire life that only the most successful at
dominating survive; that nonhumans have no desires of their own and are
here for us to use; that the U.S. has your best interests at heart; that
those in power hold some inherent moral and ethical value; that trees and
mountains are resources to be extracted, then you will come to believe all
of that and behave in the world one way. If the stories that are told are
different, then you will come to believe and act much differently.

If your culture told you stories since childhood that eating dog shit
tasted good, that's going to affect your behavior. What I mean by this is
that if someone told you story after story extolling the virtues of eating
dog shit since you were a child, you'll grow to believe them. Sooner or
later, if you are exposed to other foods, you might discover that eating
dog shit doesn't taste too great. Or if you cling too tightly to these
stories of eating dog shit - that is if your enculturation is so strong
that it actually does taste good to you, the diet might make you sick or
kill you. To make this example less silly, substitute pesticides for dog
shit, or for that matter, substitute Big Mac., Whopper., or Coke..
Eventually physical reality trumps narrative. It can just take a long

FJS: You often write that the dominant culture has robbed the world of its
subjectivity; how does this influence our behavior? And if the stories we
are told inculcate an objective perception of the world and those around
us, then how do we shatter those lenses in order to begin perceiving the
world for what it is - a matrix of subjective relations to be in communion

DJ: If you do not perceive the fundamental beingness of others (i.e.
nonhuman animals, trees, mountains, rivers, rocks, etc), or in some senses
do not even perceive their existence, then nothing I say or write can
convince you. Nor will evidence be likely to convince you, since, as
already mentioned, you won't perceive it, or more accurately, won't allow
yourself to perceive it. No matter how well I write, if you have never
made love, I cannot adequately describe to you what it feels like to do
so. Even moreso, if you insist that no such thing as making love even
exists, then I will certainly never be able to adequately explain to you
what it feels like. For that matter, I cannot describe the color green to
someone who is blind, and who even moreso insists that green does not
exist, could never exist; as well as to someone who knows that
philosophers from Aristotle to Descartes to Dawkins have conclusively
shown that green does not exist, could not exist, has never existed, and
will never exist; or to someone who is under the thrall of economic and
legal systems (insofar as there is a meaningful difference, since the
primary function of this culture's legal systems is to protect - through
laws, police, courts, and prisonsthe - exploitative activities of the
already-wealthy) based so profoundly on green not existing; who cannot
acknowledge that this culture would collapse if its members individually
and/or collectively perceived this green that cannot be allowed to exist.
If I could describe the color green to you, I would do it. I would drive
you, as R.D. Laing put it, out of your wretched mind. And you might be
able to see the color green.  Or someone else could drive you out of your
wretched mind. It certainly needn't be me. I'm not the point. You're not
the point. Your perceived experience isn't even the point. The point is
your wretched mind, and getting out of it. And beyond that, the point then
is your experience.

FJS: So to "see green," figuratively speaking, is to experience the world
personally, emotionally, convivially and reciprocally with other beings,
rather than to experience it as a set of objective truths for personal
material gain or information, or as protocol to maintain the status quo?

DJ: Exactly. This culture is based on the assumption that all of the world
is without volition, is mechanistic, and is therefore predictable. The
existence of the willfully unpredictable destroys a foundational
assumption of this culture. The existence of the willfully unpredictable
also invalidates this culture's ontology, epistemology, and philosophies,
and reveals them for what they are: lies upon which to base this omnicidal
system of exploitation, theft, and murder; it's much easier to exploit,
steal from, or murder someone you pretend has no meaningful existence
(especially if you have an entire culture's ontology, epistemology, and
philosophy to back you up), indeed, it becomes your right, even your duty
(e.g. war, genocide, death squads, mercenaries, etc). The existence of the
willfully unpredictable reveals this culture's governmental and economic
systems for what they are as well: means to not only rationalize but
enforce systems of exploitation, theft, and murder (e.g., effectively stop
Monsanto's exploitation, theft, and murder, and see how you are treated by
governments across the world).

FJS: So it's really about personal experience over narrative, over

DJ: In many ways it is. R.D. Laing began his extraordinary The Politics of
Experience with: "Few books today, are forgivable". He wrote this, I
believe, because we have become very alienated from our own experience,
from whom we are, and this alienation is so destructive to others and to
ourselves, that if a book does not take this alienation as its starting
point and work toward rectifying it, we'd all be better off looking at
blank pieces of paper. I of course agree with Laing that few books today
are forgivable (and the same is true for films, paintings, songs,
relationships, lives, and so on), and I agree for the reasons I believe he
was giving. This culture is murdering the planet. Any book (film,
painting, song, relationship, life, and so on) that doesn't begin with
this basic understanding - that the culture is murdering the planet - is
not forgivable, for an infinitude of reasons, one of which is that without
a living planet there can be no books. There can be no paintings, songs,
relationships, lives, and so on. There can be no dreams. There can be

FJS: It's about experiencing a symbiotic world that is in dynamic
equilibrium, not a world that is at our disposal. It's about recognizing
the pervading relationships between all of us: trees and fresh water,
birds and wall-eyed pike, mountains and the sky, you and I; not about
hours and wages, markets and policy, resources and industrial modes of

DJ: Correct.

FJS: The indigenous were and are in kinship with nonhumans, and in fact
indigenous peoples never once held a utilitarian worldview over their
landbase insofar as they perceived the natural landscape as a matrix of
reciprocal relationships to enter into. Why do you think it is that the
dominant culture cannot engage with the land in the same way?

DJ: In all of my books I've emphasized that the fundamental difference
between civilized and indigenous ways of being is that for even the most
open-minded of the civilized, listening to the natural world is a
metaphor. For traditional indigenous peoples it is not a metaphor. It is
how you relate with the real world. This culture's way of life is based on
exploitation, domination, theft, and murder. And why? Because it is based
on the perceived right of the powerful to take whatever resources they
want. If you see yourself as entitled to a resource, and if you're not
willing or incapable of seeing this other as a being with whom you can and
should be in relation with, then you're going to take the resource.

FJS: Do you believe that scientific philosophy galvanizes the exploitative
utilitarian worldview?

DJ: Richard Dawkins, the popular scientific philosopher - he's got almost
as many Google hits as Mick fuckin' Jagger - states that we exist in "a
universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic
replication". Implying that humans are the only meaningful intelligence on
earth, and possibly in the universe, the world then consists of objects to
be exploited, not other beings to enter into relationship with. Dawkins
also writes: "You won't find any rhyme or reason in it [the universe], nor
any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we
should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no
good, nothing but pitiless indifference". Because the latter scientific
assumption posits that nonhumans have no meaningful intelligence, they
have nothing to say, to each other or to us. Thus interspecies
communication is bunk, no matter who the nonhumans are: animals, plants,
rivers, rocks, stars, muses, and so on. Anyone who thinks otherwise, and
this is key, is superstitious, that is, delusional, maybe primitive, maybe
crazy, maybe childish, maybe just plain stupid. Suddenly science has a
stronger hold on one's belief moreso than any religion. Scientific
philosophy is much better at controlling people because if you don't buy
into it, you're stupid. The fundamental religion of this culture is that
of human dominion, and it does not matter so much whether one
self-identifies as a Christian, a Capitalist, a Scientist, or just a
regular member of this culture, one's actions will be to promulgate this
fundamentalist religion of unbridled entitlement and exploitation. This
religion permeates every aspect of this culture.

FJS: In the book you wrote with George Draffan, Welcome to the Machine:
Science, Surveillance, and the Culture of Control, you elaborated on the
conflation of science and control; can you talk a bit about what you
wrote? And would you agree that there's also something to be said of this
culture's conflation of the power of command and truth?

DJ: Absolutely. First, if the scientific materialist instrumentalist
perspective is right and every other culture is wrong, the universe is a
gigantic clockwork - a machine: a very predictable and therefore
controllable machine. Power in this case, then, is like meaning in that
there is no inherent power in the world (or out of it) - just as no power
inheres in a toaster or automobile until you put it to use - and the only
power that exists is that which you project onto and over others (or that
others project onto and over you). Power exists only in how you use raw
materials - the more raw materials you use more effectively than anyone
else, the more power to you. And science is a potent tool for that. That's
the point of science. This means, of course, that might then makes right,
or rather, right, too, is like meaning and doesn't inhere anyway - if
nonhumans are not in any real sense beings and are here for us to use (and
not here for their own sakes, with lives as meaningful to them as yours is
to you or mine is to me) then using (or destroying) them raises no
significant moral questions, any more than whether you or I do or don't
use or destroy any other tool - which means right is what you decide it
is, or more accurately, it's irrelevant, right is whatever you want it to
be, which means it's really nothing at all. But this malleable notion of
right means that you can fairly easily talk yourself into feeling good
about exploiting the shit out of everyone and everything else. If all of
this sounds sociopathological, that's because it is. Western philosophy
and scientific philosophy is sociopathological, it finds logic through the
power of command. It makes us all insane.

Richard Dawkins wrote, "Science boosts its claim to truth by its
spectacular ability to make matter and energy jump through hoops on
command, and to predict what will happen and when". Do you see the
fundamental flaw in logic here? I'm guessing that if we lived in a culture
that wasn't sociopathological we would all see through this in a
heartbeat. Let's ask a simple question: How does science boost its claim
to truth? Here is Dawkins's (and the culture's) answer: by making matter
and energy jump through hoops on command, and by predicting what will
happen and when. Do you see the problem yet?

Okay, let's try it a different way: Let's say Dawkins has a gun. Let's say
he points this gun at your head. Let's say he commands you to jump through
hoops. Let's say you do it. He does, after all, have a gun pointed at your
head. Now, with this gun pointed at your head, he tells you to jump
through those hoops again. And then he predicts that this is precisely
what you will do. You do it. Whaddya know, he's a fucking genius: He
commanded you to jump through hoops, and he predicted right when you'd do
it. Dawkins was with this sentence incredibly intellectually dishonest -
and sneaky as hell - and the only reason he hasn't been called out on it -
and someone seriously needs to call this fucking guy out - is that he has
a whole culture of sociopaths for company. He has conflated the power to
command with truth. He has conflated domination with truth. But neither
the power to command nor domination is the same as truth. The power to
command is the power to command, domination is domination, and truth is

Richard Dawkins could put a gun to my head. He could even kill me. But
that wouldn't mean that he is telling the truth. This culture is
dominating the planet. This culture's domination of the planet is killing
it. That does not mean this culture is telling the truth, or is even
capable of understanding it. At the same time, the power to dominate is a
sort of truth. But there are other truths as well, that can be masked,
obscured, or destroyed by this truth. An example should make this clear.
Let's say I force you to jump through hoops. Let's say I enslave you. Are
there not other truths that have been closed off because I forced you to
jump through hoops, because I enslaved you? Any path forecloses others.
Some paths foreclose more than do other paths. The same is true with
truths: some paths to certain forms of knowledge, and some paths to
certain forms of truth, irrevocably foreclose other paths to knowledge,
and other paths to other truths.

I recently read an essay by Sam Harris, an ally of Dawkins and a
full-blown nature-hater in his own right. The essay is entitled "Mother
Nature is Not our Friend". It begins, "Like many people, I once trusted in
the wisdom of Nature. I imagined that there were real boundaries between
the natural and the artificial, between one species and another, and
thought that, with the advent of genetic engineering, we would be
tinkering with life at our peril. I now believe that this romantic view of
Nature is a stultifying and dangerous mythology. Every 100 million years
or so, an asteroid or comet the size of a mountain smashes into the earth,
killing nearly everything [sic] that [sic] lives. If ever we needed proof
of Nature's indifference to the welfare of complex organisms such as
ourselves, there it is. The history of life on this planet has been one of
merciless destruction and blind, lurching renewal". The whole essay is as
shoddy as it is full of nature-hating. I'm not sure why he couldn't be
bothered to spend a whole thirty seconds doing a Google search to learn
that only one of the major mass extinctions was probably caused by an
asteroid. I'm also not sure why he didn't just say that nature is red in
tooth and claw, and be done with it. The exploration of mass extinctions
is based on data gathered by scientists using the premises, methods, and
tools of science, then turned into stories by these or other scientists
using the framework of scientific stories to assign meaning to these data

Big deal, you might say. Well, it is a big deal. The premises and other
preconditions of any story nearly always overdetermine the direction of
that story. They especially overdetermine a story's morality, and even
moreso they overdetermine the moral of the story (which is not the same as
the story's morality). And of course the story about multiple mass
extinctions has a moral that is obvious at least to Sam Harris. This moral
is precisely that of the larger scientific materialist instrumentalist
mechanistic perspective, that, "Nature" is, as Harris says, "indifferent".
Or actually "Nature" is - as Harris would say were he a clear enough
thinker to have even the slightest bit of internal consistency - even less
than indifferent: "Nature" is insensate: indifference implies a capacity
to feel. I can reasonably be described as indifferent as to whether the
Knicks or the Spurs win tomorrow night. That may also be true for you. But
one does not normally describe one's clothes hamper as "indifferent" as to
the outcome of tomorrow night's game.

I want to focus just a bit more on Harris's sloppy word usage here,
because I think it's indicative of something far deeper than unclear
thinking. Part of my clue for this is that his use of the word indifferent
wasn't the only interesting choice of words. Another was his title:
"Mother Nature is Not our Friend". I am fascinated by the fact that
although people like Harris and Dawkins claim to believe that the universe
is mechanistic, they so often use emotion-packed words like mother and
friend and trust and merciless, and their language is quite often hostile,
as though they're describing not a machine as they pretend, but rather an
enemy, or someone who has betrayed them. Think about this in your own
life: how often have you said that your clothes hamper is not your friend?
How often have you said your toaster is merciless? If you truly believe
that something - something - is utterly insensate, you would hardly be
likely to describe this thing as either a friend or an enemy or as
anything other than a thing.

These supposedly clear thinkers are, I believe, very confused in their
thinking and most especially in what they feel about all of this, by which
I mean what they feel about life. I can't prove this, of course, but it
seems very clear to me that the emotions they express toward life and
toward the natural world are not the sort of neutral feelings one would
normally experience and express toward an inanimate object, but rather a
hatred toward, and fear of, life and the natural. I believe, and once
again I can't prove this, but it feels right, and has felt right since I
first read Dawkins twenty years ago, that they really fear life, and fear
death, and feel betrayed by life in part because they, too, like everyone
else, must suffer, and they, too, like everyone else must die. The fact
that they, too, must pay this price of suffering and death as a cost of
participating in the joyous web of experience and relationship that is the
ongoing and eternally creative process of living, somehow seems to them an
affront. To which I have a two-word response: grow up.  Clearly in their
descriptions of life, they focus more on inherent suffering than they do
on inherent joy and delight.

Were they not so influential their perspective would merely be
pathological and pathetic. As it is, their popularity is of course what
one would expect it to be in a culture that hates and fears wild nature,
that attempts to control and destroy wild nature, and that is in fact
killing life on earth. The perspective of people like Harris and Dawkins
(and indeed most people in this culture) - that of believing that the
universe is "merciless" or is otherwise insufficient and needs to be
significantly manipulated and/or improved in order to make it bearable -
is a central perspective and driving motivator of the murder of the
planet, and is in utter contrast to the perspectives and motivations of
most of the indigenous, who generally perceive the natural world as
sufficient, as bountiful, as beautiful, as generous, as provider, as
mother, as father, as family. The perspective of people like Harris and
Dawkins - the perspective that underlies civilizationis - not only
murderous, but it is also extraordinarily ungrateful.

Whether or not you believe the universe is mechanical, it gave you your
life, your extraordinary, unique, awe-filled life. Unless your life truly
is miserable, to not show gratitude for this gift is to show yourself a
spoiled, immature wretch.

FJS: Has science provided the world with anything good?

DJ: That's a very common question that is asked: Hasn't science done a lot
of good for the world? For the world? No. Show me how the world - the
real, physical world, once filled with passenger pigeons, great auks, cod,
tuna, salmon, sea mink, lions, great apes, migratory songbirds, forests -
is a better place because of science. Science has done far more than
facilitate the destruction of the natural world: it has increased this
culture's ability to destroy by many orders of magnitude. We can talk all
we want about conservation biology and about the use of science to measure
biodiversity, but in the real, physical world the real, physical effects
of science on real, living nonhumans has been nothing short of atrocious.
Science has been given three hundred years or so to prove itself. And of
course three hundred years ago great auks (and fish, and whales) filled
the seas, and passenger pigeons and Eskimo curlews filled the skies, and
soil was deeper, and native forests still stood. If three hundred years of
chainsaws, CFCs, depleted uranium, automobiles, genetic engineering,
airplanes, routine international trade, computers, plastics, endocrine
disrupters, pesticides, vivisection, internal combustion engines,
fellerbunchers, dragline excavators, televisions, cellphones, and nuclear
(and conventional) bombs are not enough to convey the picture, then that
picture will never be conveyed.

Without science, there would not be ten times more plastic than
phytoplankton in the oceans. The Nazi Holocaust was, as I made clear in
The Culture of Make Believe, and as Zygmunt Bauman made clear in Modernity
and the Holocaust, a triumph of the modern industrial rationalistic
scientific instrumentalist perspective. Global warming, which may end in
planetary murder, would not be running rampant without the assistance of
science and scientists. Without science there would be no hole in the
ozone. Without science and scientists, we would not face the threat of
nuclear annihilation. Without science, there would be no industrial
civilization, which even without global warming would still be leading to
planetary murder. Sure, science brought us television, modern medicine
(and modern diseases), and cardboard-tasting strawberries in January, but
anyone who would rather have those than a living planet is, well, a
typical member of this culture. If it's the case that evolution happened
so that we would come to exist, then it's pretty damn obvious we're
fucking up whatever we were brought into being to do. How much sense would
it make to have all of this evolution take place simply so that the point,
the apex, the pinnacle of this evolution can end life on the planet? Talk
about the world's longest and stupidest shaggy dog story.

FJS: Is there any personal philosophy you do uphold? And is there any hope
for the future survival of life on the planet?

DJ: Everything is circumstantial. We can definitely rely on tenets to
guide our behavior, but ultimately, care about what happens in the world
supersedes philosophy. We need to recognize that physical reality trumps
our philosophy. Life is far more complex than philosophy can state. I
can't even figure out romantic relationships, or the relationship between
what I eat and my Crohn's disease. As for philosophy, it is like a map.
The map is not the territory - the territory is far more complex than the
map, and the constituents of the territory are even far more complex.
Ourselves, trees, mountains, nonhuman animals - everyone alive in this
world is far more complex than the philosophy or science that seeks
understanding (viz. control). In all honesty, we can't talk a philosophy.
Philosophy teaches us how to live, so a philosophy must be land-based.
Therefore, the philosophy of Vermont has to be different in Vermont than
the philosophy of northern California. As for hope, hope is a longing for
a future condition over which you have no agency. That's how we use it in
everyday language: we don't say, "I hope I eat something today." We just
do it. But the next time I get on a plane I hope it doesn't crash, because
once I'm in the air I have no agency. So I don't hope this culture doesn't
kill the planet: I'll do whatever it takes to stop it. I have agency. So
do you. We must actively protect as much of the natural as possible. When
we realize the degree of agency we actually do have, we no longer have to
hope at all. Think about it: what is the real source of our life? Of our
food, our air, our water? Is it the economic system? No. It's the
landbase. And those in the future will only care about whether or not we
left them with clean air, clean water, and healthy intact landbases. The
world is being killed and we have to stop this.

Thousands of years of inculcation and ideology all aimed at driving us out
of our minds and bodies, away from any realistic sense of self-defense,
real land stewarding, have gotten us to identify not with our bodies and
our landbases, but with our abusers, governments, and civilization. Break
this identification, and one's course of action becomes much clearer. Love
yourself and love the land, and each other, and you will act in the best
interest of, and defend, your beloved. The material world is primary. This
doesn't mean that the spirit does not exist, nor that the material world
is all there is. It means that spirit mixes with flesh. It also means that
real world actions have real world consequences. It means this mess really
is a mess, and we have to face this mess ourselves; that for the time we
are here on Earth - whether or not we end up somewhere else after we die,
and whether we are condemned or privileged to live here - the Earth is the
point. It is primary. It is our home and it is everything. It's silly to
think or act or be as though this world is not real and primary. It is
very silly to not live our lives as though our lives are real.

Frank Joseph Smecker is a writer and social worker from Vermont. He can be
reached at: frank.smecker [at]

--------19 of 20--------

 The Benighted States
 of Richerica demands
 your car house life soul.

--------20 of 20--------

                                eat the rich


   - David Shove             shove001 [at]
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments

                          vote third party
                           for president
                           for congress
                          now and forever

                           Socialism YES
                           Capitalism NO

 To GO DIRECTLY to an item, eg
 --------8 of x--------
 do a find on

  • (no other messages in thread)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.