Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
More Than One 2
More Than One
Issue 2
-Table of Contents-
1. Editorial
2. Letterz!
3. Solar Power (Excerpt from CENSORED)
4. Fear of a Utopian Planet
5. You're Next!
6. Stop the Planet, I Want Off!
7. An Ode to Ozone (Excerpt from CENSORED)
8. It Speaks
9. Woodstock (C) (R) (TM) '94!
Comments, questions, anything else of relevance, should be directed towards
mto@foul.cuug.ab.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial:
We-hell.... I started this issue in about the middle of summer, right
after doing the last issue. It's now about.... Well, Halloween to be exact.
So yeah, I've been putting alot of time and effort into this. I was
actually just getting comfortable in my Working-Guy routine, so now that
I'm comfortable... Lets get the show on the road again.
Alot of this text may seem outdated at this point, but some of the ideas
presented still hold some semblence of validity, so I decided to leave them
in.
This is a fairly small issue, due to the fact that instead of continuing
where I left off, I would rather just start over again on the long awaited
(yet unheard of) More Than One #3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, I actually got a letter! Well, I got lots of mail, but not all that
much pertaining to the magazine or its contents.
---
Greetings. I just finished reading MTO001, and I was quite impressed. Most
of the things in there I had heard about in one manner or another, but seeing
it all put together into a nice coherent package was definately better.
Some mention of the Drug War and its misgivings were included... How about
something in the future about the problems which would be fixed INSTANTLY
given the legalization of currently controlled substances like marijuana, LSD,
as well as the countless other lesser-known halucinogins and euphorics that
cause less physical harm than your average cigarette or bottle of wine?
The War On Drugs fails to distinguish between drug-related, and
drug-related-violence deaths stemming ENTIRELY from the illegalities of the
drug trade. Were most of the now-illegal drugs to be legalized, a) no one
would be killed over 'territory', b) fewer overdoses would be possible due to
government regulation, and distribution of 'standard' dosages by government
agencies, c) the government would rake in HUGE piles of tax money, and d)
people would be healthier and, overall, happier.
A 'joint' of marijuana contains one substance: marijuana. You know what you
are getting when you smoke it. You cannot be physically addicted to marijuana
(nor can you be physically addicted to many of the other Evil Killer Drugs
sought after by the War Against Drugs).
A cigarette bought from the supermarket, however, contains literally HUNDREDS
of varieties of poison, seeking to fill your lungs with tar, your blood with
carcinogens, and your brain with nicotine.
As everyone is well aware, cigarettes are VERY addictive. "Even more so than
heroin," according to those who apparently have had the misfortune of being
addicted to both. If cigarettes are so bad, and if all the things in them are
bad, and if they are more addictive than one of the most physically addicting
substances known to mankind, why, may I ask, are they available over the
counter and out of dispensing machines anywhere you go?
Similar arguments can be made against the use (and sale) of alcoholic
beverages. Alcohol makes many people violent, overly brave, and, let's face
it, plain stupid. Alcohol causes sclerosis of the liver in people who imbibe
a bit too often. THOUSANDS of people are killed annually by people driving
under the influence of alcohol. Yes, those are all GREAT things. Things we
should have MORE of in this already fucked up world. In the USA (perhaps not
in all States), they sell beer and wine at gas stations. This is just
perfect. People can drive around all night, getting both gas AND beer in one
convenient spot, running merilly over pedestrians and into other cars as they
go.
In this case, marijuana is probably not a wonderful substitute. For some
people it may be, but, like alcohol, it should probably never be used while
driving. If, however, someone DOES decide to drive under the influence of
marijuana (or any other perception-'heightening'/altering euphoric), their
reaction time will likely be better than those of the same person under the
influence of alcohol (in quantity).
You may not agree with some of this, or, indeed, any of it, but that is your
prerogative. I would be happy to argue about anything if you are like-minded.
Oh yes, I am entirely against cruelty to animals as well, so we can't very
well argue about that. I do drink milk, but not in quantity. I will probably
quit drinking it entirely in the near future, though. I do not eat eggs, and
I do not eat meat, either, so those are out, too. I guess we have nothing to
argue about after all. Damn. Cruelty to vegetables? sure, I laugh and point
like all the others, but that's ok, isn't it?
The Ranger
---
I'm not all that sure about which problems legalization would stop and
which it would cause. There would be an obvious increase in the number of
people using the currently illegal drugs, I'm sure. And with this increase
would probably be an increase in apathy which seems to go hand in hand with
the use of drugs.
Even if 'most' of the currently illegal drugs were legalized, there
would always be someone fighting over territory. Look back into the Chicago
gang era. The main cause of violence in the drug trade is not the drugs,
it's the money that the drugs generate. And even if marijuana and LSD were
to be legalized, there would always be new and innovative illegal drugs to
fight and die for.
The number of chemicals in marijauna is actually also in the hundreds.
Chemicals can also be added to marijuana just as they are added to tobacco.
While you may not be able to get physically addicted to marijuana, there is
still such thing as psychological addiction.
Cigarettes are indeed very addictive, and quite destructive from what I
have seen and experienced myself. I'm currently a smoker. One of the few I
know who fully supports and agrees with the anti-smoking movement. There
are several ways one can quit smoking. Self-help groups, nicotine patches,
nicotine chewing gum, or just be a real Punk Rawk god and do it yourself.
I, however, am obviously not a real Punk Rawk god.
Alcohol is also a problem I see in society. Which makes me a hypocrite,
because as of recent I've 'fallen off the wagon' and been drinking. I've
never been violent when drinking, perhaps a bit overly brave, and perhaps a
bit stupid, but not violent. I think the major thing that attracts people
to alcohol is that they get an excuse to act stupid. Perhaps if people
lighten up and take into mind that you only live once, they wouldn't need
depressants or stimulants to have a good time. [Note: Taking into mind that
you only live once is NOT the same as saying 'who gives a shit'. One has to
realize that if we have had our chance to live and make our mark on society
(which is hopefully not a gaping wound) that it is our responsibility to
make sure that others that come after us also have the same chances.]
Cruelty to animals is something alot of people are against. Alot of
people however either do not consider cows/chickens/pigs (the majority of
meat people eat) to be animals, or do not think that living out your entire
life in a cage and ending it all off with having your throat slit, dumped
in a pot of boiling water, to be cruel. People do not want to give up their
leather, and their hamburgers. And once again, I am a hypocrite. I wear
leather boots. I wear a leather belt. I still eat meat on occasion. But,
if I was faced with the decision of buying leather boots, or non-leather
boots today, I would choose the non-leather. I have cut down drasticly on
my meat intake. I plan on cutting it out entirely once I know what
suplements I need and what vegetable foods I should consume. Once again,
thank you for writing.
- Bobby
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken From "CENSORED: The News That Didn't Make The News--And Why"
By Carl Jensen
Solar Power Eclipsed by Oil, Gas and Nuclear Interests
Synopsis: On November 27, 1991, the California-based solar energy firm Luz
Internation Limited announced that it had filed for bankruptcy. Luz
designed, built and operated the world's nine largest Solar Electric
Generating Systems (SEGS), which generated 95 percent of the world's solar
electricity.
Luz's collapse reflects the problems faced by a solar power industry
shackled by hostile government policies and the protection of natural gas
and oil interests. While the Department of Energy (DOE) claims to be
committed to the development of solar energy, the facts reveal that while
the cost of generating solar power has decreased 73 percent from 1980 to
1990, federal research and development (R&D) spending on solar energy has
decreased 90 percent.
Presently, the nuclear industry receives more than 70 percent of the
DOE's funding outlays for technology-specific development. According to the
DOE's R&D budget, the total administration request for nuclear fission and
fusion for fiscal 1993 is $1,377 billion, an increase of $100 million from
1992. However, the total request for conservation R&D, renewable energy and
state and local conservation, combined, is just $768 million, down $100
million from 1992.
Investigative author Julie Gozan reports that if it weren't for the
government subsidies, nuclear power would be priced out of the market.
Gozan notes that while the cost of solar is down to 8 cents per kilowatt
hour, the cost of producing nuclear energy is nearly 13 cents per kilowatt
hour.
According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor, the next
generation of solar plants, which had been planned for construction by Luz
in 1994-5, would have brought the costs down to 6 to 6.5 cents per kilowatt
hour--less than the cost of natural-gas electric generation.
Government obstacles to safer, cleaner energy go beyond fiscal favors
for nuclear power and the oil and gas industry. Lawmakers set a cap of 80
megawatts on the amount of energy that a solar plant can generate and sell.
Luz, which had the capacity to build SEGS that would generate 200
megawatts, or enough energy to meet the electricty needs of 200,000 homes
daily, was forced to build plants below this optimum usage and had to
"dump" solar energy rather than use it.
Author Gozan also reports that in order to compete with oil and gas,
solar power must somehow match hidden government subsidies given to
conventional fuels. Oil and gas receive the equivalent of a 25 percent tax
credit. These include an immediate tax write-off for drilling costs and
"percentage depletion" for the cost of pipes, pumps and tanks used to
complete a well.
As Luz International Chairman Newton Becker observed when the company
filed for bankruptcy, Luz's demise was not attributable to technical or
economic failure; it was simply the result of our not having a national
energy policy. Meanwhile, environmentally sound solutions fall victim to
money and politics.
Sources:
Multinational Monitor
PO Box 19405
Washington, DC 20036
Date: April 1992
Title: "Solar Eclipsed"
Author: Julie Gozan
The Christian Science Monitor
One Norway Street
Boston, MA 02115
Date: 3/12/92
Title: "Unbind Solar Energy From Washington's Red Tape"
Author: James Weinstein
[
And here's a little something that just kind of goes hand in hand with
the last one. ]
Plutonium is Forever
Synopsis: In the 1950s, a nuclear energy critic warned "nuclear waste is
like getting on a plane, and in mid-air you ask the pilot how are we going
to land? He says, we don't know--but we'll figure it out by the time we get
there." Well, 40 years later we're ready to land our nuclear plane, and we
still haven't figured out how to do it.
Each year, the nuclear industry produces tons of high- and low-level
waste not knowing what to do with it. Nicholas Lensen, a researcher at the
Washington-based Worldwatch Institute, estimates the world-wide volume of
nuclear waste at more than 80,000 tons. In 1990, the world's 413 commercial
reactors produces 9,500 tons. And that's not counting the tens of
thousands of tons from weapons programs, and medical and industrial uses.
In 1989, U.S. reactors alone produced 67 times the plutonium it would take
to give everyone on earth lung cancer.
There have been two great hopes for nuclear waste disposal--Yucca
Mountain in Nevada and the Waste Isolation Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico.
Yucca Mountain was selected by the Department of Energy (DOE) as the
national "permanent repositor for high level nuclear waste." But after ten
years of research and $6.7 billion spent by industry including $2 billion
in taxpayer funds, not a single hole has been dug in the mountain. The
primary obstacle to the Yucca Mountain site is public opposition. In June
1992, a 5.6 tremor confirmed fears in Nevadans already leery of their state
becoming the permanent home for tons of waste which remains dangerous for
hundreds of thousands of years. It now appears that their repository will
evolve no further.
Unlike Yucca, WIPP is not intended to house high-level waste but rather
low-level nuclear garbage--radition contaminated rags, rubber gloves, test
tubes, pipes, etc. Nonetheless, the dangers of radioactivity in this waste
make it imperitive that WIPP not leak (appreciably) for the next 10,000
years.
Incredibly, the site selected for WIPP is in a stratum of salt thought
to contain significant amounts of brine. The DOE itself estimates that
within 20 years of burial, the thousands of soft-steel drums containing
waste will corrode and their contents will be exposed. Despite the
potential hazard, however, WIPP seems destined to open. It is the only
existing repository and, with the apparent demise of the Yucca repository,
the pressure for a dump site is building. In any event, critics say that
WIPP is only a partial solution. To contain the volume of
plutonium-contaminated waste currently in retrieval storage across the
country would require three WIPPs; to hold the entire backlog of military
and commercial waste, ten WIPPs would be needed.
Yet another hurdle must be jumped--what kind of a sign do you put up to
warn whoever may be inhabiting the earth in 10,000 years to "Keep Out" of
WIPP? The simple "keep out" sign probably would not suffice. As Alan
Burdick reminds us, of the original Seven Wonders of the World, only
one--Khufu's pyramind in Egypt--still stands, a mere 4,500 years old;
Stonehenge is a thousand years its junior. And remember, plutonium is
forever.
Sources:
Utne Reader
1624 Harmon Place, Ste. 330
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Date: July/August 1992
Title: "Plutonium Is Forever"
Author: Monika Bauerlein
Harper's Magazine
666 Broadyway, 11th Fl.
New York, NY 10012-2317
Date: August 1992
Title: "The Last Cold-Way Monument"
Author: Alan Burdick
Los Angeles Times
Times-Mirror Square
Los Angeles, CA 90053
Date: 7/26/92
Title: "All Shook Up"
Author: Jennifer Warren
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cholesterol Content of Common Foods
Animal Food Plant Food
-------------------------------------------
Cholesterol Content
(In Milligrams per 100 Gram portion)
Egg, Whole - 550 All grains - 0
Kidney, beef - 375 All vegetables - 0
Liver, beef - 300 All nuts - 0
Butter - 250 All seeds - 0
Oysters - 200 All fruits - 0
Cream Cheese - 120 All legumes - 0
Lard - 95 All vegetable oils - 0
Beefsteak - 70
Lamb - 70
Pork - 70
Chicken - 60
Ice cream - 45
Source: Pennington, J., _Food_Values_of_Portions_Commonly_Used._
Harper and Row, 14th ed., New York 1985
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fear of a Utopian Planet
By Bobby Quine
I've been hearing alot about gun control lately. The need for more
gun control laws, no wait... less gun control laws... or was it bigger guns
for officers of the law... maybe it was bigger guns for movie stars... In
any case, I began thinking (wow), what would the world be like, if there
were no guns? Well "hmmm," I thought, lets pretend:
Earth
- One Instrument Of Death & Destruction
-------------------------------------
= a beautiful utopian planet???
Well, not really. We've found hundreds of thousands of innovative ways
to inflict death and destruction. Guns however, are seemingly the most
popular among the masses. Perhaps because of their wide variety of styles
and shapes. I can just see myself in a gun shop now, "Ooooo, look at that
baby, wouldn't you love to blow a quarter inch hole through someones head
with that!" Yes. I am being sarcastic.
I'm all for rights and freedom, but would the world be a horrible
place if we all lacked the ability to go out and purchase a "killing
machine", with which we could pointlessly end animal/human lives, take
out old man Stanford's christmas lights, or perhaps even rob a bank? For
some strange reason, I doubt it.
I'm all for fighting crime, as well. However I fail to see how police
officers carrying larger, more powerful weapons, is going to put an end
to crime, or even have a slight effect on the amount of crime, for that
matter. Does a bank robber contemplate how large the police officer's gun
is going to be when he robs a bank? I wouldn't know, I've never robbed a
bank before, but for some strange reason, I have trouble believing that
too.
The world may not be a beautiful utopian paradise without guns, but I'm
almost positive it would be a better place than we happen to inhabit at
the current moment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU! Yes YOU!
I was reading the paper, and what do I come across but the old
"Grandpa Kills Over Computer" story. A rundown is in order for those of
you who are not familiar with the scenario:
MANILA -- A Filipino grandfather shot and killed his daughter because
she wouldn't let him play with the family computer police said Sunday.
Retired soldier Benjamin Raymundo, 60, was so incensed by his 29
year-old daughter Jessica's refusal to let him use the computer he shot her
in the face in their Manila home Saturday night, investigator Justiniano
Estrella said.
Raymundo also fired at his eight-year-old grandson but missed.
He then fled and is still at large.
(Taken from section A2 of the Calgary Herald on Monday, July 18, 1994)
So I'm left wondering, what the hell is going through people's heads? Why
is it that stupid things like this are happening on a daily basis?
Another example:
There was a story not too long ago of a man who started shooting at a
car for no apparent reason. Upon questioning afterwards he said that he
began shooting because the license plate "JABU" on the car had reminded him
of a traumatic incident in which he had been stabbed in prison.
You'll have to forgive me for saying so, but I find this kind of
behaviour absolutely moronic. A man kills his daughter because she wouldn't
let him play with the family computer? Another is thrown into violent
flashbacks because of a license plate? How long can we continue to think of
ourselves as the 'intelligent' species when things like this are happening?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In November, Dr. Avi Ben-Abraham, president of the Americans
Cryogenics Society, told an audience in Washington, D. C., that several
high-ranking Roman Catholic Church leaders support human embryo cloning,
despite the Church's public stance against such research. According to
Ben-Abraham, those Church leaders hope to reproduce Jesus Christ from
DNA fibers found on the Shroud of Turin. [George Washington University
Hatchet, 11-11-93]
* In Seattle in May, attorneys for 409-lb. death-row inmate Mitchell
Rupe argued that his July 11 execution by hanging would be cruel and
unusual punishment because he would be instantly decapitated due to the
pressure of his weight on the rope. [North West Florida Daily
News-Seattle Times, 5-14-94]
* In Pittsburgh in March, Donita Jo Artis, 24, told prosecutors and the
judge, after being denied custody of her three-year-old son and
sentenced to prison for beating him until he was blind, deaf, and unable
to walk: "You guys are so unfair." [USA Today, 4-1-94]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Ode to Ozone
CANADA GREEN PARTY F.Y.I.
The following was taken from Project Censored "THE TOP 25 CENSORED NEWS
STORIES OF 1990" and THE GULF WAR: TRUTH WAS THE FIRST CASUALTY
by Carl Jensen.
This book is published annually and if you wish to get a copy send $10
U.S. to:
CENSORED PUBLICATIONS
Sonoma State University
Rohnert Park, California 94928
NASA AND THE OZONE LAYER
SOURCE: EARTH ISLAND JOURNAL, 3OO Broadway, Suite 28, San Francisco, CA 94133
DATE: Fall 1990
TITLE: "Soviets Say Shuttles Rip Ozone Layer"
AUTHOR: Gar Smith
SOURCE: SSU STAR, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA 94928
DATE: 5/8/9O
TITLE: "Doc Caldicott Prescribes Medicine'
AUTHOR: Mindi Levine
SOURCE: SAN FRANClSCO CHRONlCLE, 901 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 931O3
DATE: 8/21/9O
TITLE: "Group Says Space Shuttle Damages Earth's Ozone"
AUTHOR: David Sylvester
COMMENTS: Gar Smith, editor of Earth Island Journal, said he was surprised by
the limited coverage given to this story considering the variety of other
problems with NASA's space programs that were being reported during the same
period. "It is worth noting that this story appeared in the European press
over a year before I discovered a reference to it in the London- based South
Magazine." Smith also said that he faxed a press release, citing this story
among others, to daily newspapers, radio and television stations in the San
Francisco Bay Area, as well as to AP, UPl, Reuters, Time Magazine, etc., and
there was no interest in the story. (However, he noted that another writer,
Lenny Siegel, had been working on the story independently and had produced a
l2-page report that was the basis for a story in the San Francisco Chronicle
and an article in Mother Jones magazine.) Smith concludes "The story still has
not penetrated the mainstream press. On December 6, (1990), the AP carried a
story on NASA's plans for '27 Shuttle Flights Set for Next 3 Years' that
carried no mention of the environmental impacts of such flights for the
integrity of the ozone layer."
NASA SPACE SHUTTLES DESTROY THE OZONE SHIELD
"Every time the space shuttle is launched, 250 tons of hydrochloric acid is
released into the air. With each launch, .25% of the ozone is destroyed. So
far, the space shuttle has destroyed 10% of the ozone."
Dr. Helen Caldicott, world renown physician and environmentalist stuns
audiences when she makes that statement in her talks across the country.
A brief article, in a small-circulation environmental publication,
supports Dr. Caldicott charges.
Two Soviet rocket scientists have warned that the solid fuel rocket
boosters used on the space shuttle release 187 tons of ozone destroying
chlorine molecules into the atmosphere with every launch.
Valery Burdakov, co-designer of the Russian "Energiya" rocket engine, also
noted that each shuttle launch produces seven tons of nitrogen (another ozone
depleter), 387 tons of carbon dioxide (a major contributor to the "greenhouse
effect") and 177 tons of aluminum oxide (thought to be linked to Alzheimer's
Disease) before reaching an altitude of 31 miles.
Burdakov also notes that the history of ozone depletion correlates closely
with the increase of chlorine discharged by solid fuel rockets since 1981.
Soviet rockets employ a fuel combination that is 2000 times less damaging than
the shuttle's but which still destroys 1500 tons of ozone per launch.
According to Burdakov and his colleague, Vyacheslav Filin, a single shuttle
launch can destroy as much as 10 million tons of ozone. This means that some
300 shuttle flights could completely destroy the Earth's protective ozone
shield.
All other solid fuel rockets also contribute to ozone destruction. Near the
top of the list are the U.S. Delta rocket (which destroys eight million tons
per launch), the U.S. Titan, and the French Ariane V.
In an article published originally in South, Burdakov warned that, at
present rates of increase, rockets will soon be pouring 100,000 tons of
chlorine and nitrogen into the atmosphere annually. Burdakov has called for
international controls and a phase out of solid fuel rocket technology as well
as a ban on supersonic aircraft flights into the stratosphere.
The extraordinary charges by the Russian scientists were supported by
research done by the Military Toxics Network, headquartered in San Francisco.
Working with the Russian figures and data obtained from NASA, the Network
concluded that significant damage was being done to the ozone layer by the
space shuttle launches.
SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: DIRK VANWINKLE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
'When I just babble on and on... when I just babble on and on...'
- Fracture
Listening to the radio, in my little basement suite. Nothing to do, but
think. That's what I'm doing right now. The Smith's are playing in the
background while some new radio D.J. is figuring out his shit. And I wonder
about the world and what's going to happen. I wonder about the children.
I wonder seriously what it's going to be like for them when they are adults.
Is the world going to be total shit? Or is it all going to somehow work out?
I can't answer these questions and really can't think of anyone who can.
I've been listening to news programs the government would probably prefer I
didn't hear. I've been reading text files the government probably doesn't
want me to read. Why do I think that? Because information in the hands of
the general populace is dangerous to the people who make the rules. Damaging
information that could damage the the way things are run. All run for the
rich and powerful. Isn't that what it's always about after all? Money? You
can't deny it and neither can I. The EVIL capitalist society revolves
around money. That's right, I call it evil. When was the last time you were
thinking of something to do, and low and behold, you can't think of anything.
Why? Because you have no money. Well, maybe you don't think of that, but I
do. I have no money. I can't get a job. That's a lie. I can get a job, but
it's only ever temporary. The politicians need their income too. Don't fool
yourself into thinking they're actually doing their jobs because they want
to work for the good of society. Maybe at first they do, but they figure it
out. They can't change the system any more than you and I can. So what do
they do? Nothing. They are there now, all they have to do is make it look
like they are doing something so that they can keep their constituents happy
so that they can get re-elected. So that they can collect a pension. It's 4
o'clock in the morning. The D.J. is running down his play list. He needs a
name for his show. 666-6666, that's the number he wants you to call to give
him some ideas. Back to the music, back to thinking. Back to this. What is
this? I don't know. When I was a kid (I can actually remember some of it)
things were different. I don't even see the change so much as I feel it.
It's different, and it's not better. The world is slowly sinking into
chaos. Big corporations and banks run the world now, more than ever. They
will soon rule the world. It's only time that stands in their way. People
won't do anything until it's too late and then they'll wonder "How did this
happen?" They'll be scratching their heads and they still won't do anything.
And they won't be free. Not like they are free today. You better enjoy what
you have now, you may not have it tomorrow. Maybe when the day comes that
countries are possessed by the banks, and ruled by them, maybe when that day
comes, the people will rise up and say, "no, this isn't right, we've worked
for what we have, you just can't take it away" and there will be fighting.
But guess what? The people don't have anything to fight with. It's all been
engineered already. Governments have already taken away anything people had
to fight with. The people are defenseless to the Army of the Banks. Chaos.
Not for the banks, it will be all orderly for them. All numbers for them.
Chaos for the people. People struggling to find out where their country went.
This is where I come back to the children. What is in store for them? I
wouldn't want to be them, not knowing freedom in adulthood. Previous
generations have destroyed the world. For the "Generation X" crowd and
beyond, there is nothing. They will try and tell you different, but it's
gone. Our parents took it away, or rather, let it be taken away from us.
Previous generations destroyed the world under the capitalist flag. The flag
of money. Everything for money. And now, no money for the "Generation X"
crowd and beyond. It all belongs to the Banks and the wealthy. Forever out
of everyone else's grasp. All under the flag of money. A state of wealth for
the wealthy, a state of no money for everyone else. This is what will happen,
or at least what I think will happen (actually, IS happening, right now) and
we are forever lost. Unless we do something. But of course no one will.
Someone will take care of it, right? Who, me? No way, you're going to save
us all. Yeah, that's it. Oh, in case you were wondering, the radio show's
new name is 'Vascular Surgery for Dummies'
Peace...Ya Right
*** Beastman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ This is a wee bit outdated, but I spent at least 15 minutes writing it,
so I decided to leave it in anyways. ]
The Woodstock '94 Experience
Hell no, I'm not going. I don't have thousands of $$$ to go to a music
festival to see bands that I don't even like. But I was wondering... What
kind of person would be going to this? What kind of person would buy into
this pathetic rehashing of the past? Well, to figure this out, I guess we
have to look to the festival itself. So lets look, dammit.
First of all, none of this is fact. I watched Turning Point when I was
half asleep, and this is what I got out of it.
You are not allowed to bring your own food to Woodstock '94. I'm sure
this is for security reasons, we wouldn't want anyone being beaten to death
with a peanut butter sandwhich now would we? Of course there is always the
chance that the sponsors of it would like to make as much money as they can
at their food concessions. Nahhhh, they wouldn't do THAT.
You are not allowed to bring anything metal (that can be used as a
weapon, Ie. Tent Pegs) to Woodstock '94.
You are not allowed to bring any alcohol or drugs to Woodstock '94.
You are not allowed ...
You are not allowed ...
You are not allowed ...
Etc..
So I have a sharp enough picture of what kind of person is going (or has
already gone, actually, since by the time this is out Woodstock '94 will be
over) to Woodstock '94. Obviously the same kind of people who went to the
first Woodstock concert, right? Those anti-establishment fun and love
loving hippie types, of course! Someone told me the that Pepsico has now
officially purchased the words Hippie and, Anti-Establishment. This just
in... Woodstock '94 festival deemed to be complete corporate sell-out and
quick money making scheme.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So when they clone Jesus Christ from DNA, what is the Christian Science
Monitor going to say?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
End Of More Than One #2
