[PLUG] PLUG meeting

[Jeme A Brelin]

On 6 Dec 2002, AthlonRob wrote:
> Perhaps *you* can read on the bus - but I cannot.  Well, I can, but
> only if Karl is sitting next to me.  ;-)

I used to get motion sickness, but I got over it.  Practice, practice,
practice.

It's caused by a disconnect between the expected motion of vision and the
perceived motion of the inner ear.  Eventually, the two become reconciled.

> I don't spend all day talking on the cell phone, either... it costs
> money.

...and causes brain cancer.  I'm not advocating the smellphone, I'm just
saying that you can do things on the bus or train that you can't do while
driving (unless you're perfectly happy endangering the lives of others or
are arrogant enough to believe that you are infallible and it's worth the
risk to complete strangers).

> Ahhh.... well... I don't like the freaks, so instead of avoiding them,
> I should immerse myself in them?  Interesting strategy. After I learn
> to love the freaks, maybe I'll head over to Iraq and hug Saddam (I'm
> sure we could settle all this stuff if everybody just hugged each
> other).

It's called "Love thy neighbor".  I know it's dangerous.  Hell, I heard
about a guy that got nailed to a tree for telling people about it.

I know the comment about hugging was facetious, but I think that if people
here in this country took a moment to consider the actual plight of arab
people (particularly arab peasants), they would have a completely
different attitude toward U.S. military involvement in the middle east.

But that's a whole different kettle of buttons.

> > I'm not sure how a person can joke about their destructive habits, but I'm
> > the sort of person that thinks of criticism as an opportunity for
> > improvement.
> 
> Well, I haven't felt any destruction from driving either vehicle...

But you HAVE felt the destruction.  You just haven't realized that driving
was part of the cause.  Lower wages, higher working hours, poor schools,
an apathetic public; in essence, the destruction of civil society.  All of
those things are caused by fragmentation and suburbanized society and
largely because of the car-culture (or car anti-culture, as it may be).

> and as long as I'm in my private steel container, do I care if it
> effects others?  ;-)

That's the kind of joking I meant.  I don't understand how a person can do
that.

> In all honestly, I do understand where you're coming from, but I'm
> bent a little in the anti-tree-hugger direction... stupid
> environmental laws have cost me and my family money.

Is it possible that some things are more important than money?

It's not entirely an environmental problem, though.  It's a social
problem, too.

> > First, I think you might have to re-evaluate your definition of "needs" if
> > you are truly concerned with adopting more sustainable practices in life.
> 
> Fine: meets my wants.  :-)
> 
> And no, I'm really not concerned with adopting more
> environmental-friendly ways of life.

I didn't write "more environmental-friendly"; I wrote "more sustainable".  
Environmental protection is just one small facet.

[As an aside, I think that if people cared more about the people in their
world and the importance of caring itself, care for the environment would
be an effortless side-benefit in exactly the same way that destruction of
the environment is an effortless side-effect of isolation and community
destruction.  Nobody would have to go out of their way at all.]

> > Second, a private motor vehicle that uses less gas does almost nothing
> > progressive.  Decreasing emissions per trip sounds like a step in the
> > right direction, but it's a little like a person who is racing toward
> > Canada at 100mph and trying to get to Mexico by slowing to twenty.  
> > You're still going in the wrong direction.
> 
> Ah, ok, I'll stick with the suburban.  :-)

If you're going to drive, drive what you will.  Heck, maybe nobody's going
to face the problem of renewable energy until all the non-renewable stuff
is gone, so perhaps using it all up as quickly as possible is actually
helping.

But I do hope you realize that people (among other things) are going to
have to use this world after you're gone.  The past saved some for you,
now you save some for the future.

The Iriquois had a law that said, "Make every decision based on its impact
on the seventh generation even if it requires skin as thick as the bark of
a pine."  In other words, even if it's really fucking hard, do what
benefits the future before you do what benefits yourself.

> > > Money is definitely a concern, though, so it can't be too expensive.  
> > 
> > You have no idea how expensive your cars are.  First, your roads are
> > maintained through the wear and tear of hundreds of thousands of private
> > vehicle trips mostly through the state general fund.  Second, the cost of
> > your refined petroleum products is reduced drastically by pressures
> > exerted through the world's largest and most sophisticated terrorist
> > organization (I'm referring, of course, to the Pentagon system).  Third,
> 
> I like the way you sneak in your anti-American sentaments like that.  
> Really, I do.

It's interesting that terms like "anti-American" only come up in
totalitarian societies.  There was such a thing as "anti-German" in the
1930s and "anti-Soviet" in the middle part of the last century.  But think
about what that means.  What is an "anti-Italian" or an
"anti-Canadian"?  It is absolutely absurd to think that one ideology is
embodied in or exemplified by the concept of "American".

But I do wonder what's "anti-American" about my comment.  It is a
statement of opposition to terrorism which is certainly the stance of the
vast majority of Americans at this time.

The U.S. Code defines terrorism as "any use of violence or threat of the
use of violence to advance political, ideological, or religious agenda".  
I think that fits the purpose and method of the military (and,
interestingly, the police) perfectly well.  I'd be interested to hear a
counter-argument.

> See, the way you phrased it, let me classify you in a flash.  :-)

Perhaps you can try to read the words and understand their meaning instead
of classifying and applying preconstructed filters to your understanding.

I think this might be related to your problem with "freaks on the bus".

> > the very cost of your vehicle is subsidized through corporate welfare and
> > inhumane "trade" agreements.  And last but not least by far, the cost of
> > cleaning up the waste from your vehicle from production, through its
> > useful life and maintenance, to its final resting place are covered, once
> > again, by the public as a whole.  If you were presented with the ACTUAL
> > cost of exclusive use and operation of a motor vehicle, you'd probably
> > say, "I can't afford to drive", too.
> 
> Ok... I'll stop driving and watch out for the black helicopters... or
> do you have a safehouse somewhere running a security system based
> around Debian???

Right.  It's about kooks and pigeon-holing now.  You can ignore the
argument and start joking about stereotypes, but I think the people on
this list are intelligent enough to see through that dim charade.

The public is paying for your car at a far greater cost per mile than
public transit and the general public doesn't even get to use it.

You don't pay the full cost of your car and you just ignore the real cost
because it's inconvenient.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org