A kinder, Gentler Militia" © 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Beaver County Militia "E PLURIBUS CASTOR UNUM" The "Beaver County Militia" is a militia for those that are "non violent", but are militant about being "non violent". And will fight to the death to stay "non violent."We are secretly located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. And, for a non-satirical paper, see Jim Kalb here http://counterrevolution.net/kalb_texts/nwo_amish.html , who has a huge webpg. on traditionalist conservatism. http://counterrevolution.net/trad.html found thanks to: http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/0467.html  -----More satire: https://members.tripod.com/~sonoguy/recon.html ------- "War on Terrorism" Extended to Amish From: Thomas Seay (entheogens@yahoo.com) Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 14:44:32  In an unprecedented move today, the President, while visiting an elementary school in Troy, Ohio, explained to reporters that the "War on Terrorism" would include domestic terrorist groups. When asked for specifics, he responded that the CIA has been closely monitoring groups such as the Aryan Nation, the Revolutionary AntiPatriarchal League(RAL),and the Amish Seperatist Army(ASA). <<These groups need to get their houses in order.  They do not reflect the values of America and should be considered as much part of the axis of evil  as N. Korea, Iran and Iraq.>>     When asked if any actions were planned, he said, <<We're putting groups like the ASA on call. I have asked the National Guard to send 3000 troops to Lancaster County Pennsylvania where they will patrol the area and smoke out any cells the ASA may have operative in that region. We may not get them today or tomorrow. But believe me, we will get them.>>  When asked why the ASA was being singled out, the Commander-In-Chief stated, <<Look at them  [the Amish]. You know that they have ties with the Al-Qaeda network...I mean look at the beards on those guys and the dresses their women wear.>> On an unrelated note, White House spokesman, Ari Fleisher confirmed that Vice-President Dick Cheney was safe in a a bunker in some unspecified location. Fleisher said,"Yes, he will remain there until those jokes about there being a 'Bush' and a 'Dick' in the White House quiet down". ===== "The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living" -Karl Marx ---------- Due to the games Utah gets attention and polygamy.org is a 'tapestry against the araboid excesses of it; luckily this thread goes into polygyny a little too; I sent the humanevolution.com and neoteny.org postulates to Joanne and Kelley and might find out soon if it inspired them (haven't read the following yet; I need to go work on my bike desperately, sprocket is worn, chain creaks, etc). ----- Back to this file over a week later and sure enough hormones are mentioned (but very marginally, by Hakki mostly) -----------  Subject: RE: polygamy From: Hakki Alacakaptan (nucleus@superonline.com) Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 06:09:33 EST || -----Original Message----- || From: joanna bujes || Jeez, where to begin? Men have a stronger sex drive than women? I guess || that's why when I have sex with men, it's all over in, oh, 30 minutes; You shouldn't get them so excited, Joanna :-) But seriously, it's obvious women can fuck men to death and polyandry is the only way to go. So what's with harems? Well once you've taken away womens' inheritance rights, the next step is to merchandise them. If you're poor, you buy yourself one woman - you just stick to buggering boys if you're really really poor - if you're rich, you're allowed up to four. It's about ownership of land, the exploitation of women as sexual, reproductive, and menial slaves, and the harem as a symbol of power much like a garage filled with flash cars. || || I'd venture to guess that polygamy is not about sex but about || power. You'd be right. Ottoman sultans had vast harems but they saw servicing them as a chore. They preferred boys. Love has no place in Sunni Islam (Sufism, Shia, etc are different), so there's no hype about it. Everything boils down to business and sex. The commerce of women that passes for the institution of marriage is strictly regimented with heavy penalties for infringement (stoning, beheading, etc.), but no such restrictions apply to boys. There's no stigma attached to fucking boys, they're tighter, and unable to resist. I suspect if this subject wasn't so loaded a little digging would reveal a major source of the rot in Islamic societies. Hakki ------------ ( You know...the old "pleasure shared is pleasure || doubled (and || doubled again :) )..." Don't men enjoy that? || || Joanna B. -------------- I do and I imagine others do as well. Trouble is, on top endocrine disruptor industrial pollutants, the competitivity and calculation of our working lives increasingly intrudes on and pollutes everything else. Lovemaking then so easily becomes a transaction, where trust and abandon is impossible. Males are as usual more easily affected by this, due to their physical and psychological frailty. Males aren't designed to last, just to produce new genetic code and upload it to females while it's still uncorrupted. ----------- Piet: I personally like the (JHNoyes) theory of succesful old men having purified and cleaned up their batch and therefor deserve to woo the young ones as much as the next in Hakki's sense fresher guy --------------- They're designed to die early as the code gets corrupted by constant copying, whereas female genetic code is limited edition and therefore more error-free. They're bit players in the evolution game, to which they're relative latecomers, and their frailty has to do with the fact that they're basically modified females, a kludge IOW. Don't think the revo'll fix that so I still say we need a technical fix: Tantra yoga, genetic engineering, safe drugs - something. Hakki -------------- the problem is, you went into a rant about american men, sexuality, and >>objectification, in an attempt to do what i'm not certain. > >Well, I was trying to suggest how, in an "advanced" culture like ours, the >objectification of women continues....only in other guises. I mean, it's >fairly easy to see how women are abused under Islam; harder to see, when >looking at our own situation. > >Judging from a lot of the links, including yours, I didn't do a very good job. > >Joanna ------------------- i just didn't see a connection between men's supposed inability to see that luminescent glow and how women are oppressed in our culture. and, given that lesbians and bis see the luminescent glow and still objectify women during sex and at other times, i really don't see the connection. i also don't see how men don't have it, this glow. i also don't know any men that don't enjoy gourmet lovemaking all night long. they're the exception to the rule, IME. most men i know feel a tremendous amount of pressure to be allnight long studs. in fact, i think a lot of men feel they have to make you have an orgasm or they're a failure. and not only that, it has to be that holy same time! and, i have to say that, although i understand what you're talking about re the larger objectification issue, i do think men very much enjoy the things you're talking about wrt sex. i've never met one that hasn't in my personal experience, or just talking with them as friends. and, aside from that, don't you ever objectify someone. i was talking about this with a friend the other night. but then i think of the times when i do the same. TMI file! what gets men, i think, is that they want to individualize it and they don't like looking at this in terms of something larger than themselves. they would also, as leftists, like to be patted on the back for some progress---which is annoying as all get out sometimes---but there it is: they want to be recognized for having made some progress, for being better than dad and gramps. i mean, jeez joanna, when i was a little kid, i remember reading it was, on average, 15 minutes. consider the progress we've made in two decades! :))))) men think women withhold sex, as WDK apparently does. but they don't want to ask why we might, in spite of our own desires. Well! how about good old fashioned experience: like being told point blank by male friends and co workers that, if you sleep with him, you're a slut; if you give him your number, you're a bitch. well, damned if you don't; damned if you do. which is what marilyn frye calls oppression. i suppose its the same thing as i was on about a while ago. if i'm a privileged white woman, then i have to listen with an open heart and mind to the crits of how i participate in racism. i shouldn't expect anyone to pat me on the back for being a good leftist anti racist and kick and scream because they didn't stroke me first before saying, "but...." i don't think men should be any different. it's their job to listen with open hearts and minds. that doesn't mean sucking my or your ass, just arguing with us rationally. i'm just astounded that this isn't the first time i've heard this nonsense here. you were talking about how men objectify and then someone comes along and does it, puts the pressure on other men to put notches on their belt in order to prove they're real men. kelley ------------------------- Yes, MT was certainly an unusual fellow for his times -- e.g., from his Letters From the Earth: "... the human being, like the immortals, naturally places sexual intercourse far and away above all other joys -- yet he has left it out of his heaven! The very thought of it excites him; opportunity sets him wild; in this state he will risk life, reputation, everything -- even his queer heaven itself -- to make good that opportunity and ride it to the overwhelming climax. From youth to middle age all men and all women prize copulation above all other pleasures combined, yet it is actually as I have said: it is not in their heaven; prayer takes its place." Carl -------------------------- Thomas, Since you were the only one that was offended by my post, I'll address this to you (and also to those that were silently offended.) Key point: I was responding to a post justifying polygamy in terms of the complete objectification of women. So the real issue here is how various cultures prevent women from seeing themselves/ from being seen as sexual subjects rather than sexual objects. Now, with Islam, as the post specified and as Hakki attested, woman as sexual subject simply does not compute. She is not, in fact, any kind of subject. The situation is more complicated in the US. In the US she can vote, own property, get custody of her children, work, etc. The problem in the US is that the culture as a whole does not recognize the possiblity of the Other. In the US, one is either American, or one wants to be an American, or one is on the way of becoming American. And American means white male. Now for a man to be able to make love to a woman, he has to be able to conceive of the possiblity of the Other. He has to conceive and to experience the Other and to accept the paradox that a meeting between self and other is possible without one being turned into the other. There is absolutely nothing in a culture based on commodity exchange that can support such an experience. So a woman's experience with American men is that of being some kind of prize, some kind of counter in a larger game that is played by men with men: a notch on the bed post, a race that is won, a status symbol that can be publicly displayed. Compare this with the experience of being enjoyed and explored as woman --- compare this with sex as a necessarily reciprocal definition. (Please hold the flames; none of this should be interpreted as a condemnation of homosexuality. I focus on Americans because this is where I live and also because the illusion of freedom is strongest here.) It is not a question of evil men and victimized women. My experience making love to women was shocking and overwhelming. When a woman is in the throes of lovemaking she becomes ---oh...so beautiful, she is translucent, and the effect on the lover is something nearing madness (or as Propertius put it "why is mortal woman so inhumanly beautiful?). So I am siezed by this intoxication, feeling like I could literally lose my sanity, and I ask myself (hours later) how could it be? How could it be that making love to a woman can have this effect (when I am not even hard-wired for it) and how could men experience this ....and continue to treat women the way they do? How could a man experience this and still continue to think and act like a boy? How could a man prefer the experience of woman as passive object to this? How could power make up for this? It is a poisonous culture that prevents this possiblity and defers it to some future paradise. That's all I meant to say. (Thank you Hakki and Chuck G. for the support.) Joanna B. ---------------- I was not offended at all by it. I thought you were generalizing, Joanna, but that does not offend me. My response was done jokingly. I was amazed that that wasn't apparent. -Thomas ---------------- Thanks for bringing this up. The answer to your questions lies in the false assumption that men and women are "hard wired" for mutual sexual bliss. The only hard wiring is for procreation. The pleasure part is just the honey-trap and it's only as good as it needs to be to achieve the desired end. Let me generalize a bit: It's a fact that womens' sexual pleasure is far more intense, total, and enduring than mens' is. This huge rush makes a woman much more energetic and active in lovemaking than a far more fit and athletic man. Women have to restrain themselves in order not to scare their partners into flaccidity. Men, OTOH, rarely enjoy a lasting pleasure and tension that would make protracted lovemaking worthwhile. Their pleasure is brief, so they have a tendency to go for it instead of waiting for their partner. So heterosexual lovemaking is really a compromise at best. Stuff I've read about Inuits, Bantus, and Trobianders suggests this ain't necesarily so for pre-industrial cultures, but the difference isn't purely cultural and has to with environmental factors such as endocrine disruptors as well (sperm counts falling and all that). Also, widespread use of viagra and similar drugs may change the picture. Anyway, the pleasure imbalance is something men and women should recognize and deal with, instead of calling each other names. Hakki -------------------- The pleasure part is just the > honey-trap and it's only as good as it needs to be to achieve the desired > end. -------- This ain't necessarily so. Obviously, sexual relationships and behavior have more effects on human beings than to get some of them pregnant. So they can affect the well-being, survival and growth of their communities. For instance, sexual behavior could enhance affection between members of a community. Given the rather aggressive character of humans, this might be useful to prevent them from killing off one another to the point where communal survival was threatened. ------------- Anyway, the pleasure imbalance is something men and women should recognize > and deal with, instead of calling each other names. ---------- You're assuming here that only one-on-one sexual encounters occur. However, I've read of isolated peoples who practice (or practiced) various forms of sex in groups, which would obviate some of these problems. (_Keep_The_River_On_Your_Right_, for example.) While this sort of thing is probably too radically different from what we are accustomed to not to elicit a inhibiting plethora of negative anecdotes, it's also possible for individuals to modify their responses considerably through a certain amount of practice and training. But the contemporary social world, with its emphasis on conquest and acquisition, militates the other way. -- Gordon ------------- . So heterosexual lovemaking is really a compromise at best. ----------- yeah, but if you've learned how to have multiple orgasms, as a man (since for women, this isn't too difficult), it's precisely about prolonging the initial pleasure, by repeatedly nearing climax and then holding back. then you have to learn how to experience orgasm without ejaculation--too many men equate the two. in any event, even if you don't have multiple orgasms, the practice of repeatedly nearly climax makes for the kind of prolonged, intense pleasure that you're speaking of. that said, quickies are fun, too. :) kelley --------------- .how could men experience this ....and continue to treat women > the way they do? -------- About one man in ten thousand, here in the dismal real world, actually gets more sex/love from women than he has a use for. That's not any theoretical capacity for sexual gratification, just what actually takes place. About one man in a hundred gets as much as he'd ideally like, and is happy. The other ninety nine percent of us exist in various states ranging from chronic malnutrition through ceaselessly gnawing distraction all the way down to the fifth, or tenth, or thirtieth year of absolute famine. As all enjoy the God-given-to-all opportunity to experience the subtle ramified sensual pleasures enjoyed by the sophisticated gourmet, not to mention the satisfaction which derives from publicly demonstrating mastery of refined table-manners, dear me, how and why do these noxious slobbering people (pointing) eat so greedily, so noisily and repulsively, with both their filthy hands, on those infrequent occasions we toss loaves off the back of the famine relief aid truck? Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net --------------- call me a dim bulb, but ya wanna translate? i mean, maybe i just hang around the wrong crowd but honestly this just seems wrong. frankly, most of joanna's comments about relations between the sexes, i disagree with, but, when some men here get it, bill, maybe there's a reason why you ought to try a little harder to at least read what she wrote. kelley --------------- Carrol complains about Kiernan's incomprehensibility ---- --------------- i think he's saying that all this talk about sex and men is all fine and good except that the majority of men get laid so rarely (since women do not have sex with "nice guys") that it is meaningless. no, i am kidding... i dont understand most of what is posted out here! i am still here only to prove i am one of those men who can stay past the 30 minutes! ;-) --ravi --------------- It seems to me, going from superficial observation, that most people don't like sex all that much, except in a kind of abstract, pornographic way. Power, wealth, social status and the work ethic, dominant in the contemporary societes I know about, all militate strongly against it; the physical drive seems to be conceded to because of its power, but not _liked_, much less enjoyed or gloried in. Instead, sex is used as a tool to take or preserve advantages. Those who love sex for iteslf (or art or drugs or the gods or whatever) to the point of preferring it to power and its friends must lie pretty low to just to survive, and thus they will be hard to find -- like any other treasure. -- Gordon --------------- As regards this thread, I have not seen this much castration since I quit my job as a part-time stable boy in High School...the only difference in that case the horses were forcibly neutered. Here people seem self-motivated to do this to themselves. I have not seen so much kowtowing since I was last in Tibet...and I am seriously starting to doubt if some of you have gotten laid in the past 5 years. Is this the type of groveling one has to do to be a PC SNAG? I am speaking to the men, not Joanna or Kelley BTW. Thomas --------------- yes, if you live in berkeley area, you need to publicly state that you would castrate yourself in order to be considered a real man. or, so i'm told. i don't know what kowtowing you're referring to, btw. could you point out who did. what hakki said was by way of telling joanna not to personalize it. i'd note, of course, that hakki's use of the material is fine, but it might be wise to take a serious look at any material that naturalizes sexual desire, especially in way so as to excuse all manner of behavior that just might not be excusable. e.g., my current beau seems to think that, since he read some "helpful" info once about how men like to do things in order to demonstrate love then this is prima facie a reason why i should accept the fact that he'd prefer to "solve" the problem, rather than just letting me bitch about work or something. kelley --------------- Biology can certainly become an excuse but what is it that makes excuses and recriminations necessary? Do you think it's possible to have soul-sharing sex like Joanna describes under the ego-bruising stare of a judgemental, exacting partner? If you're into S/M, maybe. Otherwise, if things have gotten to the point where demands are made of and excuses contrived for sexual behavior, fughedaboudit, just move on. Hakki --------------- Kelley: well, i wouldn't sleep with the asshole. :) might fuck 'im though. Ha! butt, seriously, i was physically and emotionally battered by a woman lover (when i was a kid), and i've seen plenty of the same sort of violence among lesbians, etc since then. abusive relationships are fairly common among lesbians, because it's about power relations between two people. the notion that women wouldn't engage in abusive or hurtful behavior because of some mysteriously naturalized sexuality is a real problem, if you ask me. i'm not buying whatever joanna was on about. --------------- >If you're into S/M, maybe. Otherwise, if things have >gotten to the point where demands are made of and excuses contrived for >sexual behavior, fughedaboudit, just move on. > >Hakki --------------- i'm talking about discourses that naturalize sexuality, discourses in medicine, etc., that we already know have tended to legitimate and reproduce patriarchal relations. e.g, the moron sociobiologists who claimed that rape is natural. the whole Mars/Venus blahfuckedtyblah that has infiltrated popular culture.. these based on naturalized claims about gender. e.g., men like to do things to prove they're a man because it stems from the daze back when our knuckles dragged nearer the ground. so, when you or anyone else trots this material out, maybe we should be suspicious of the research. i agree with what you were saying, the end result of it. i just don't think it's a good idea to attribute these differences to nature, without a serious look at the research. feh. btw, just to keep on a roll, since we have no sense of humor, maybe you ought to consider how such comments "work". men, you only suck after women because you want to get laid. would you tell a white person who agrees with art after he's had a stomp on the list that it's just because whitey wants to be black, is mau mauing, or some similar insult? i realize that you cracked a joke about women fucking assholes, and it was pretty funny, given my own proclivities. you probably didn't deserve to get pounced on. but honestly, as much as i think everyone ought to get laid as much as they desire, insulting men by attributing their motivations to not getting laid just fucking reproduces gender oppression. --------------- Ah yes, the ever popular "pussywhipped" rhetoric. --"My wife and I have equal say in how the money is spent in our family". "Are you whipped, boy?" --"I can't stay and have another drink; I told my wife I'd be home to watch the kids." "Are you whipped, boy?" This has to be one of the most insidious forms of sexism: when a man supports or even tolerates the idea of gender equality and the validity of women's experience, other men call his "manliness" into question. Two consequences: male gender roles of control and autonomy are reinforced, and the social subjugation of women is perpetuated. --And of course, Thomas can disregard this rant because I'm just trolling for dates from the "hip chicks" on the list. Please. Miles ----------- hey! i'm creamin' in my jeans on the other side of the continent! :)))))) kelley --------------- My problem is with the gross generalization on the one hand. If Joanna or whoever has been with men that dont satisfy them in bed, then they can either deal with it somehow or dump the guy. However, I find it rather silly to project their experiences out on to all men. As for the men who seem to be sucking up to this, I can only equate it with some progressive (and not so progressive) whites who, finding themselves in the company of people of color, immediately start patronizing them. That is not a dialogue or a rapport based on equality...it's just a form of condescencion, or in any case, it's fake. The same goes for this instance. If the some of the guys touting this stuff are really having sex that sucks this bad, perhaps you should get out and do a little vigorous exercise, see a sex counselor, read a DH Lawrence novel, drink deer antler tea or something to improve your sex life. In any case, I find it equally silly that you project your experiences out onto all men. -Thomas ------------- who the fuck said they were having bad sex? hakki point blank told joanna that it might not be such a good idea to point fingers. miles, otoh, is pointing out how you're engaging in some pretty tawdry sexism where you can't be bothered to have an argument about the ratioanlity of what men have said, rather, you'd rather dismiss them as men who haven't gotten laid as much as you have. gimme a fucking break. kelley --------------- My problem is with the gross generalization on the one hand. If Joanna or whoever has been with men that dont satisfy them in bed, then they can either deal with it somehow or dump the guy. However, I find it rather silly to project their experiences out on to all men. As for the men who seem to be sucking up to this, I can only equate it with some progressive (and not so progressive) whites who, finding themselves in the company of people of color, immediately start patronizing them. That is not a dialogue or a rapport based on equality...it's just a form of condescencion, or in any case, it's fake. The same goes for this instance. If the some of the guys touting this stuff are really having sex that sucks this bad, perhaps you should get out and do a little vigorous exercise, see a sex counselor, read a DH Lawrence novel, drink deer antler tea or something to improve your sex life. In any case, I find it equally silly that you project your experiences out onto all men. -Thomas ------------------- osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html Yoshie's Columbus crew ----------------- CharlieBrown: The greater danger is in your position. It is that in trying not exaggerate, you overlook a truly new level of tyrannical threat or just a repetition of the level of threat that Nazism was. The Bush KKKism is more like Nazism than Italian Fascism in that Bush is beginning to openly project military conquest of the entire globe with such things as his "axis of evil" concept. Mussolini didn't really project conquering the whole world, but Nazism saw the Third Reich as a military world system. I believe. Also, Bush is a demogogue of a type similar to Hitler. Or at least there is an extraordinary demogogic effect at work in, as I say, the "good German" response of the American masses to his extraordinarily bellicose and dangerous prenouncements. Bush's mindless "good and evil" talk is being responded to by people as if they were zombies or cult members. That's a lot of it. The American masses are really responding as if they are in a mass cult, waving flags, having football game gala celebrations of America. What kinda shit is that ? The religious aspect of American nationalism ( I don't mean the Christianity, though Bush did name it correctly a "Crusade" but the religious like nature of the rituals of patriotism) is to the fore. Or rather the fervor of the patriotism is reaching religious levels in terms of rituals, mindless obedience to authority, blind faith. I'm talking these people look like they just flipped back to the 1950's with the red , white and blue, and didn't ! miss a beat. True back to the future stuff. Anyway, Bush is a demogogue, and personality type keyed to the American national culture the way Hitler was a successful demogogue based on his mastery of a certain personality type that was appealing to the German national culture. On the other hand, Bush's grandfather continued to do business with German companies during WWII with the Nazis in full bloom. And actualy Nazis were part of the Republican Party when his father headed it ( Russ Bellant's book). So, Bush has some direct background connections that are comfortable with Nazism. You are quite mistaken that I use terms such as "fascist" or "Nazism" in an overbroad and not defined and specific way, as if I were a freshman in one of your classes. In fact, I use a more rigorous and specific definition than most others. I follow Dimitrov. Do you use that specific of a defintion ? I doubt it. I'm usually more rigorous than the student or her liberal arts professor in examining fascism. -------------------- Chip Berlet: Charles, you can cling to the Dimitrov definition, but then your arrogant and snide derision about freshmen and liberal arts is way out of line, because it is you who are ignoring what contemporary liberal arts students are being taught. Try reading the Oxford Readers on Fascism or Nazism, as someone else has suggested. The Dimitrov analysis was wrong when formulated, and it is pathetic now in light of the last 50 years of better research into fascism and nazism. There are many forms of authoritarian repression other than fascism. It is important not to lump them all together because the proper response depends on the proper analysis. This is especially important right now because there is a wing of fascism--as a social movement--that wants to join forces with the left against corporate globalization and government repression. This is happening around the world. Your analysis feeds leftists into an alliance with actual fascists against common corporate and government enemies. But the left needs to walk a different course that repudiates corporate globalization AND government repression AND nationalistic fascist social movements. I suppose in the 30's you would have been urging an alliance with the Strasser faction against corporate greed and government repression. Smash the corrupt authoritarian regime and the plutocrats, right Charles? Worked so well as a strategy last time around. And as the person who wrote the introduction to the Bellant book "Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party" and was one of two copy editors, I can assure you that as the original publisher, nobody at Political Research Associates ever thought that the book would be construed to claim that the Bush administration was fascist. Our view was that the book showed that the Republican Party was willing to work with former Nazi collaborators and current fascists in their political campaign network because of a shared anti-communism. Your characterization of the book is just plain wrong. -Chip Berlet Senior Analyst Political Research Associates ---------< skipping about 8 posts >------------ Okay (ignoring a great deal of insulting tripe). My argument goes like this. The Nazis put into place legislative police state powers first, and then proceeded to carry out their program as the rule of law and governance. I maintain it is the establishment of broad police powers of governmental institutions and their sweeping legal authority itself that puts the US at the threshold of Germany in the 1930s. There is no legal means to stop the US government from rounding up any, some, or all non-citizens and putting them in indefinite detention and or processing them through secret kangaroo courts then executing them. Nothing, get it? Citizens are subject to unlimited surveillance, investigation, arrest, held incommunicado in detention, and tried in secret, if they are identified (by pronouncement, without evidence) as supporting or involved in some overly broad category of unspecified crimes, termed terrorist activities. These powers are granted under the patriot act, to the US Attorney General, officials of the Justice Department and federal law enforcement agencies to use at their discretion. Many of these powers have been placed beyond judicial oversight or review. Even if an effective, well constructed series of court cases are generated, these would mostly likely end up before a Supreme Court that has already discredited itself. The court would mostly likely rule to support the very executive, the court itself installed by default. This isn't a question of being alarmist, engaging in loose rhetoric, making fallacious arguments, doing poorly researched sociology or ignoring the oppressions of an unbridled capitalism. These are laws and formal political realities. I am not claiming we live in a police state. I am saying absolutely we live in a police state, period. It's already accomplished fact. Now, the argument against this view of affairs is to say, well yes, technically, since the 2001 patriot act, we live a police state, but nobody in government is going to carry that out to extremes. But what does this argument really amount to? We do not live in a police state because those in power lack the will to use the police state powers they have given themselves? Or more broadly, that various sociological conditions have not been met, even if many of the objective legal structures are in place? Regardless of what it is called there are some theoretical or academic issues that it seems to me need examination. In particular there is an implicit division between the formal social, political, and economic institutions that create the objective framework of society, and the more loosely defined or narrative characterizations that compose their study as sociology. This division is what I think is the basis of this disagreement. You want to keep the categories of fascism and nazism restricted to their narrative sociological and cultural features, and yet you have not taken into account the more formal or legal features that are their necessary concomitants as expression of state. In a sense this situation is similar to the division between de facto segregation and legally enforced segregation. The concrete results might be appear similar, but there is, despite appearance, a fundamental difference. It is as if we had legally enforceable segregation with a segregationist government in power, but for the moment everybody on the street was just ignoring it---so there is no segregation on the ground. In this imaginary example, since the concrete social conditions of segregation are absent, in terms of a social narrative it could not be characterized as a segregationist society. And yet, viewed as the structure of law, such a society should be termed segregationist. So in parallel, I think we now have the formal apparatus of a police state, that is for the moment behaving as a de facto republic. Chuck Grimes -------------here is a post orgaspasm by Kelly over the hot gunnyshoe: let's see, the only man i've ever dated who actually read things I wrote, including boring old academic papers i wrote, who not only read them but wanted to engage me in a discussion about what i'd written, he'd probably carry around two guns when the mood struck him. he'd especially like to provoke liberal fuckwits like Eric just to see them twirl outta control. this not SNAG and not bad boy also calls when he says he going to call. oh, he has his moments. and so do i. no one's perfect. and that's one of the best parts: we're old enough, i guess, not to expect perfection. he discusses things with me, rationally and honestly, though the sparks fly over politics at times. i can actually know more than he does about some things and he respects that. that's pretty amazing because most of the academic and professional type guys i know have a real problem dealing with the fact that i have a mind of my own. but, no, turns this guy on. i'm told by guy friends that this turns men on--kinda like mae west. but i've yet to meet one that can sustain that passion for two years. this gun slinging nave has read tons over the past two years in order to understand my passions. When he found out I was a Marxist, he started reading Marx in order to understand what it was about and get over his biases. oh, he struggles mightily to understand, but he tries sincerely. we argue a lot. but it's respectful, most of the time. if anyone's a little prone to getting frustrated and crosses the line, it's me. He's ordered and read countless books, everything from Doug Henwood to Luce Irigaray to Frank Hearn, a former beloved prof of mine. Tomorrow, he's getting a copy of the OED on CD, something we can share and delight over, because he'd love the OED just as much as he'd love getting a power tool to work on his '81 Corvette with the 427 he built himself and i'll never hear the fucking end of.. Oh, and for Christmas i got him themed gifts to encourage his interest in cooking. boy, some o' you buoyz sure stroke them chef's knives and sharpeners with an odd fascination. We read erotica to one another AND whatever "intellectual" that strikes our fancy: We finished _The Worldly Philosophers_ this fall and are now on _The People's History_. guy's got a high school degree, but it doesn't embarrass him to be with someone with far more education. doesn't challenge some fragile ego, you see. oh, as the programmer told me the other day: kell, it's always about getting laid. so shut up. well, mabye so. I'm afraid this guy might think of himself as the nice, shy, retiring type, but you'd characterize him as a bad boy. he happens to "like" guns. get over it. really, i'd rather hear about your french girlfriend who had a thang for assholes. kelley -------- http://www.amiannoyingornot.com/quiz.asp have fun. yeah yeah yeah, someday i'll do the LOB poltical scatterplot, really. kelley -------------------------