Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:58:05 -0500
From: Unka Bart <mendicant-AT-buddhist.com>
Subject: Re: neighbourhoods


(Oooooops, had a nasty brain-fart and neglected to send this to the list...)

Hi Cat, Nico, Carpo; Others,

Nice to hear from you again, Catkawin!

>And: it's okay to do a bit of bashing when one's ever so slightly p.o.ed.
>I noticed that remarks tend(ed) to cross a certain line during
>discussions, and so I tried to stay out.

Ahhh, the sweet voice of reason emerges as sanity raises its lovely head,
finally!

>As another peace of info re the neighbourhood and the opinion of people
>around, I'd like to add that most of those I've talked to say that what
>NATO is doing is an attack. Now, funnily enough, NATO was meant to be
>there for *defense* , so one might get the idea NATO is doing something
>they shouldn't.

I suppose that one could make the case that NATO intervention in this, is
an intervention in *defense* of the muslims.  I know, I know, pretty thin,
at best...  And I know that the case wouldn't hold up under close
examination, NATO being an organization for the defense of the *member*
STATES, but still...

But this whole business should be fertile ground for thought here.  Many
people on this list talk about the glorious Revolution-to-Come (TM) when
anarchists throw off the chains of oppression, eliminating, one supposes,
all forms of government and live in peace and harmony amongst one another.
When I hear this talk, I am for some strange reason reminded of the present
situation.

Perhaps it is my own lack of education, my cursed aversion to sitting up at
night, reading the wirdz of dead anarchists, but for whatever reason, I
have this gut feeling that *we* ain't gonna live in peace with each other
as long as *states* can'l live in peace with each other.

What an absurd idea!

Or is it...?  As I look around, the only folks I see who have the means to
wage war, are states.  Let's get real here for a moment, anyone who is not
living in a state at this moment, hold up your hand.

(he stands there, waiting...)

OK, I don't see very many hands up... So tell me, how many of you want to
give up your state (and it's *military*) as long as there are other states
(well-armed) led by mad men like the Serb, or the Iraqi, (or even the
Slickster) who might welcome an unarmed target?  Hold up your hands,
please...

OK, I see a few.  Probably the same number who felt the same way in the
Warsaw Ghetto.  Well, not much I can say about those hands beyond observing
that George Santayana was right afterall, about snoozing during hystery
class...

A novel idea might be that if we can get states to exist together in
harmony, the people in the states might relax enough to resent all the
money that it takes to support a military being withdrawn from their
economies, and do something about it.

States without a strong military might just be safe enough for folks to
consider eliminating the state in the first place, but they might also
evlove into less repressive/oppressive/coercive forms as to make the matter
moot.

I know, I know, pretty far-fetched.  Not nearly as far-fetched as the
notion that somehow people will even think about eliminating the government
as long as A) it maintains a Military; and 2) other states that do, present
a threat.

Not hearing the soothing sound of the soft fluttering of avian swine aloft,
I reckon the status quo shall remain for a day or two longer...

>As much as I understand your feelings that you wouldn't like your son to
>be sent over to drop a few bombs or even risk his arse on Serbian ground:
>that's a feeling not all that unknown over here. And your idea about
>having the Grrmans do the dirty work: that does have quite a tradition -
>remember "the Grrmans to the front"?

Yes, we do tend to waste a lot of time and energy on this list in
finger-pointing, don't we?  And pointing out each other's sins by
association and ancestry.

Bart