[Powderworks] Re: Replacing Peter
Miron Mizrahi
mironmizrahi at yahoo.com
Thu Sep 30 03:09:03 MDT 2004
neil young as the oils front man. both of my favourites of all time
in one band? i don't think i will survive the experience.
--- powderworks-request at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu wrote:
> Send Powderworks mailing list submissions to
> powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> powderworks-request at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> powderworks-owner at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> specific
> than "Re: Contents of Powderworks digest..."
> > Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: Protesters chip (PG and public policy vs private morals)
> (Kate Parker Adams)
> 2. Re: If they were to pick another singer... (Beth Curran)
> 3. Re: PG in the Financial Review (Beth Curran)
> 4. Replacing Peter (Randy Van Vliet)
>
> ATTACHMENT part 3.1 message/rfc822
> From: "Kate Parker Adams" <kate at dnki.net>
> CC:
> To: "Powderworks at Cs-Lists. Cs. Colorado. Edu"
> <powderworks at cs.colorado.edu>
> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:09:07 -0400
> Subject: RE: [Powderworks] Protesters chip (PG and public policy
> vs private
> morals)
>
> Julian, and all ...
>
> I don't think your moral issues surrounding animals are at all
> silly ...
> they are what runs your life and your choices. I'm just an
> oddball
> scientist with a head for policy who frequently moonlights for a
> sustainability think tank, so I tend to think in terms of what can
> reasonably be done to create a more precautionary and sustainable
> society
> and reduce harm. I really don't disagree with your take on
> abortion either -
> its not for me, but not for me to say that it's not for you
> either.
>
> Therin lies the HUGE difference between practicing one's personal
> morality
> and creating ethical public policy solutions. I think this is
> also a point
> of confusion on the Peter Garrett as polician front and will
> remain so until
> he clarifies things - and it sounds like he should do so right
> quick. In
> the past, Pete has advanced initiatives aimed at creating a
> sustainable
> Australia that balance the need for jobs and local economic
> development with
> the fragility of the environment, all with the implied ethical
> mandate for
> fair distribution of costs and benefits. Some of these programs
> and values
> clearly conflict with Labor platform and policy positions and the
> "new" PG
> stance seems to be quicksand. Pete has also led a personal life
> of devout
> Christian conviction and maintained fairly conservative personal
> beliefs and
> values. He's kept these moral mandates at home ... so far.
>
> It remains to be seen how PG resolves this in the public
> governmental
> sphere. I do hope, however, that Pete does not get lulled into
> thinking
> that private moral values can be directly imposed as public
> policy. That's
> Asscroft and W thinking - and it collides with important policy
> values and
> documents like the constitution. Morality-as-policy does little
> to advance
> larger social objectives, alleviate the root problems, or even
> accept basic
> human nature (like the failed alcohol prohibition experiment).
> Much better
> to say "what is the problem here and how can we effectively reduce
> the harm"
> (e.g. reduce the rate of abortion by identifying reasons for
> termination and
> creating more alternatives) than proclaim "thou shalt not our you
> will burn
> in hell" as law.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
> [mailto:powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of
> Julian
> Shaw (Man Myth or Monkey?)
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 12:37 PM
> To: Powderworks at Cs-Lists. Cs. Colorado. Edu; kate at dnki.net
> Subject: RE: [Powderworks] Protesters chip away at Garrett's
> forests
> stance
>
>
> Kate
>
> I know you may think I live in a "dream world" but for me it is
> ethically
> unacceptable to use animals as we please. So buying anything that
> is a
> product
> of their death or mistreatment is wrong. That's my view and I know
> I have
> about zero chance of ever seeing the majority of people in this
> world see it
> the same way, so I never try and force my view upon people. There
> is no
> middle
> ground if you believe it's ethically wrong to harm animals - an
> animal isn't
> any less dead if we eat less of that animal - we are just killing
> less
> animals
> collectively.
>
> However I agree if you are trying to reduce environmental impact
> then
> getting
> people to eat less beef is good...
>
> So I think we are coming at this issue in different ways.
>
> Julian
>
> >===== Original Message From kate at dnki.net =====
> >Ah Julian, we meet again ...
> >
> >In the US at least, beef is the reason for cattle, followed by
> dairy. The
> >less beef eaten, the less grazing land, etc. and the less the
> environmental
> >impact.
> >
> >The cattle industry could not survive on the leather trade.
> Period. It is
> >entirely argurable that it is more traditional than economically
> feasable,
> >actually. Leather is essentially value-added trash, and the
> cattle
> industry
> >doesn't see much of that added value. That's why the cattle
> industry
> throws
> >subsidized tizzy fits when beef consumption drops, but doesn't
> launch huge
> >"wear REAL leather" campaigns in the face of challenges from
> ultrasuede and
> >pleather.
> >
> >Furthermore, why "bring and end" to it? Everything doesn't have
> to be so
> >absolute - and there are sustainable and organic cattle
> operations as well
> >as local suppliers to consider. Furthermore, if you are aware of
> organic
> >farming techniques or read Guns, Germs, and Steel, the
> traditional farm is
> a
> >poop-based ecosystem and many farms have gotten into the business
> of
> >ranching because they need all that crap to keep the veggies
> growing and
> the
> >land . Even devoted vegan/vegetarian producers either keep
> animals around,
> >keep dairy animals, or use manure from other sources. Otherwise,
> farmers
> >must use chemical fertilizers and that becomes unsustainable and
> damaging
> >rather quickly.
> >
> >Of course, the dynamics of this are extremely skewed by large
> scale
> >operations driven only by dollars in/dollars out. Those should
> be the real
> >target.
> >
> >Modest reductions in beef consumption by a very large number of
> people are
> >more likely to happen than convincing a select few to abstinence
> - and thus
> >more likely to make an extensive dent in mainstream factory
> cattle
> >production (and the attendent impacts)and skew the economics
> toward
> >sustainable local production. People tune out moral judgments,
> but can be
> >convinced to buy less of a better product.
> >
> >Yes, some people would like to bring an end to ranching, but it
> isn't going
> >to happen. Let's not even go into the cows versus pigs either,
> given the
> >extreme animal welfare and environmental disasters in factory
> farming of
> >swine. I go for the impact, not a pure society or self. Not
> eating cows
> >reduces the beef demand that drives the industry. Reduced demand
> means
> >fewer cattle and less environmental impact. It goes to the
> dominant term
> in
> >the economic equations of unsustainable production. By
> comparison, wearing
> >or not wearing leather is so economically trivial to the cattle
> industry as
> >to be a matter of fashion or taste or ideology. Third-world
> sweatshops and
> >the treatment of the humans who add value to that leather on the
> other hand
> >are a far more compelling reason to forego the fancy jacket or
> the Nikes.
> >
> >-kPa
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
> >[mailto:powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of
> Julian
> >Shaw (Man Myth or Monkey?)
> >Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:21 AM
> >To: Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu; David; kate at dnki.net
> >Subject: RE: [Powderworks] Protesters chip away at Garrett's
> forests
> >stance
> >
> >
> >I disagree Kate. If you are a veggie and want to bring an end to
> the meat
> >trade you do that by making it unprofitable. The best way of
> doing this is
> >to
> >stop eating meat and cut out all meat by-products (leather,
> dairy, etc)
> from
> >what you consume. What is the cow killed for exactly? Why do
> people assume
> >it's the meat first? Many cows are killed just to keep milk
> production
> >flowing
> >and leather just keeps the whole system more profitable.
> >
> >Julian
> >
> >>===== Original Message From kate at dnki.net =====
> >>Hey all,
> >>
> >>Actually, it makes perfect sense to use the woodchips to protest
> if you
> >>understand that woodchips are generally a byproduct, not a
> primary product
> >>of forestry - at least with most old growth timber. Until other
> markets
> >>were found, mills simply burned the stuff for heat. I remember
> giant
> >wigwam
> >>burners going day and night at the sawmill where my uncle
> worked, until
> >they
> >>were shut down for emissions issues. When my mom was little,
> pacific
> >>northwest residents bought truckloads of chips from the sawmills
> or had it
> >>delivered for use in residential furnaces much the way coal was
> used on
> the
> >>eastern seaboard.
> >>
> >>Plenty of vegetarians don't eat cows, but wear leather shoes
> because the
> >use
> >>of leather does not drive the unsustainable aspects of the
> cattle industry
> >>like the use of beef does. Traditionally, the relationship
> between
> >>woodchips and lumbering is similar.
> >>
> >>Then again, way too many trees are chipped for paper these days,
> at least
> >on
> >>this side of the ocean. Most trees chipped for paper on the
> eastern US
> are
> >>what is called "pulp wood", or knotty, half-rotted, or otherwise
> unusable
> >>for lumber. That does not justify clearcutting, however, nor
> the
> attendant
> >>erosion and habitat destruction that happens regardless of
> whether the
> >trees
> >>cut down had a lot of knots or are diseased or stunted. I don't
> know what
> >>the practices are in Tasmania, but I suspect they aren't
> chipping this
> >stuff
> >>but shipping it to the same asian lumber mills they rip out
> Pacific
> >>Northwest old growth for - there are no mills left in the states
> that can
> >>take the monster trees.
> >>
> >>Kate Adams
> >>
> >>~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> >>Kate Parker Adams
> >>University of Massachusetts - Lowell
> >>Department of Work Environment
> >>Kitson 202A
> >>Kate_Adams at uml.edu
> >>~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> >>Practice Abstinence: No Bush, No Dick in 2004
> >>~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
> >>[mailto:powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu]On Behalf
> Of David
> >>Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 2:37 AM
> >>To: Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
> >>Subject: RE: [Powderworks] Protesters chip away at Garrett's
> forests
> >>stance
> >>
> >>
> >>Some protesters just don't get it.
> >>
> >>They buy a tonne of woodchips to try and reduce woodchip
> production?
> >>
> >>Next they'll be chaining themselves to buried combi vans to
> protest
> >>against landfill.
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Powderworks mailing list
> >>Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
> >>http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Powderworks mailing list
> >>Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
> >>http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Powderworks mailing list
> >Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
> >http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Powderworks mailing list
> >Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
> >http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
>
> _______________________________________________
> Powderworks mailing list
> Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
> http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
>
>
>
> ATTACHMENT part 3.2 message/rfc822
> From: "Beth Curran" <bcurran at columbus.rr.com>
> CC:
> To: <stephan.jaensch at gmx.net>,
> "Powderworks Mailing List" <powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu>
> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:16:13 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Powderworks] If they were to pick another singer...
>
> I would so dearly love to hear Mark Knopfler write and record with
>
> Mogini/Hirst/Rotsey/Hillman. Ooh, I can hear the dobros
> now.......I'm
> transporting to a higher plane - Beth
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephan Jänsch" <stephan.jaensch at gmx.net>
> To: "Powderworks Mailing List"
> <powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 4:28 AM
> Subject: [Powderworks] If they were to pick another singer...
>
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > somehow I couldn't sleep right last night so I tried to occupy
> my brain.
> > Maybe ist been on the list before but one thing that came to my
> mind was
> > to
> > try to imagine which singer, dead or alive, might actually fit
> in with the
> > Oils other than Peter. Of course this is an entirely
> hypothetical question
> > and I guess nobody would seriously want them to pick another
> singer but it
> > was interesting. I always wondered a little about the frequent
> comparison
> > of
> > the Oils with U2... For all I know Bono and Pete are friends and
> Countdown
> > is supposed to be one of Bono's favourite albums but last night
> it struck
> > me: Bono was the only one I could imagine doing the Oils' stuff
> right! It
> > really sounded cool in my head ;)! And I could finally sleep :D!
> >
> > What do you guys think about this, any other candidates?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Stephan
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Powderworks mailing list
> > Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
> > http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
>
>
>
>
> ATTACHMENT part 3.3 message/rfc822
> From: "Beth Curran" <bcurran at columbus.rr.com>
> CC:
> To: "Julian Shaw \(Man Myth or Monkey?\)"
> <julian at monkeyfamily.freeserve.co.uk>,
> "<" <powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu>,
> "Erin Oneill" <Erin.Oneill at newcastle.edu.au>
> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:34:08 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Powderworks] PG in the Financial Review
>
> Is Latham "out"? (i.e. openly nonreligious)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Shaw (Man Myth or Monkey?)"
> <julian at monkeyfamily.freeserve.co.uk>
> To: "<" <powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu>; "Erin Oneill"
> <Erin.Oneill at newcastle.edu.au>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:15 AM
> Subject: RE: [Powderworks] PG in the Financial Review
>
>
> > Interesting...where is powderpolitics when you need it?
> >
> > I'm not a Christian and I disagree with a lot of Christian
> ideas. But I
> > think
> > this is a bit one sided.
> >
> > 1) Being anti-abortion is not a Christian idea it is a piece of
> Church
> > dogma.
> > I myself am anti-abortion but I'm for a woman having the right
> to chose.
> > There
> > is no reason to think that PG would try and force his views on
> other
> > people.
> >
> > 2) Just because people don't subscribe to a major religious
> faith doesn't
> > mean
> > that there decisions aren't marked by dogma. In fact you will
> find that
> > most
> > political parties are filled with people who will always vote
> with their
> > side,
> > loyalty to the party and all forgetting any reason or
> principles. In some
> > cases being Labour, Liberal, Communist becomes like a religion
> with all
> > the
> > conditions that you should believe in set out for you before you
> join the
> > brotherhood...even if some of them make no sense.
> >
> > 3) In the Oils lyrics the Christian images have always been very
> universal
> > and
> > carefully balanced with other forms of spirituality. There is no
> reason to
> > think that PG has suddenly become a right-wing religious
> fundamentalist. I
> > think he has too much intelligence for that.
> >
> > Julian
> >
> >
> >>===== Original Message From Erin Oneill
> <Erin.Oneill at newcastle.edu.au>
> >>=====
> >>hello one and all...
> >>
> >>Last saturdays' financial review had an article on PG. They
> commented on
> >>how
> > he is anti-abortion etc (ie has very conservative Christian
> views) and may
> > use
> > his public tenure within the Labor Party as a possible
> pro-Christianity
> > push
> > using the Labor Party as his vehicle.
> >>I have to say this worries me.
> >>I can appreciate his concerns about abortion, but when push
> comes to shove
> >>I
> > don't think he should have the right to dictate to women (of all
> religious
> > persuasions) how to live their lives just because he believes in
> a the
> > Christian god. My second concern is how so much of parliament
> (both
> > sides) is
> > being dominated by God-botherers (e.g. Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott).
> I note
> > that
> > Mark Latham (leader of the opposition) is not religious and is
> criticised
> > for
> > this. Perhaps that puts him in a good position to assess policy
> on it
> > merits
> > rather than what will make him feel good about his god. I'm
> afraid my
> > experience with religious people in general (of any religion)
> has shown me
> > that they put their god and their beliefs before the masses
> (especially
> > those
> > not of their persuasion), and so good public policy is severly
> compromised
> > or
> > stuffed entirely.
> >>
> >>I have to say though, I'm not suprised.
> >>
> >>If you want to find the article here in Australia, public and
> university
> > libraries usually carry copies of the sat. Fin. Review.
> >>
> >>Cheerio,
> >>Erin.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Powderworks mailing list
> >>Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
> >>http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Powderworks mailing list
> > Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
> > http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
>
>
>
>
> ATTACHMENT part 3.4 message/rfc822
> From: Randy Van Vliet <bigdaddyrv at yahoo.com>
> To: Powderworks <powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu>
> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: [Powderworks] Replacing Peter
>
> As the frontman on the band, Peter is obviously a force of nature
> on the stage that can't be duplicated. I don't know of anyone
> around today that I'd like to see try. It would be very
> interesting to take one of the late 50's rockers like Little
> Richard or Jerry Lee Lewis (Goodness Gracious, That Bed's Afire!)
> bring their talent and showmanship forward and see what happens.
> As for addiitons to the band musically, I'm not sure if it would
> be pretty, but I'd like to see how the late 60's Lennon/McCartney
> would interact the Jim and Rob. Or how about Donald Fagan and
> Walter Becker (Steely Dan)? Or even Neil Young (although that has
> the potential to be a complete train wreck).
>
> How about the Labor candidate Peter Garret to replace Peter? I'd
> love to see that!
>
>
>
>
> Send this to 4 people and you will see the Taco Bell dog run
> across your screen. If you send this to 8 people Ronald McDonald
> comes out and attacks the Taco Bell dog.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!>
_______________________________________________
> Powderworks mailing list
> Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
> http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
>
=====
Miron
How could people get so unkind?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail