^^^Living on Less [Sep. 2003 Archive]

Current Journal Page <+> Contact Us If you send us your comments we will (probably) post them. <+> Our Web Sites The Common Wheel Collective Book on Collective Process <+> Journal Archives 2003 | m | j | j | a | s | o | <+> Link to Us <+> Book List <+> Thrifty Tips <+> Radical Thrifty Tips <+> Recommended Web Sites 50 Years is Enough AKPress Anarchist Communitarian Network Anti-Slavery Better Times Brazilian Landless Workers Movement Brecht Forum Catholic Worker Collective Action Notes Committee to Protect Journalists Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador Crimethinc East Bay Food Not Bombs End Page Archives Enough Free Free Now Fundación ESPERANZA Green Socialist Network Indymedia Infoshop Institute for Social Ecology John Gray Just the Facts Kamunist Kranti Kensington Welfare Rights Union Noam Chomsky Archive Ontario Coalition Against Poverty Organic Consumers Association Overcoming Consumerism Oxfam Pacific Environment Path to Freedom Urban Homesteading Peasant Movement of the Philippines People Against Oppression and War Peoples´ Global Action Poor News Network Reclaim the Streets Ruckus Society Shack/Slum Dwellers’ International The View From the Ground We the People Media <+> Odd and Interesting Links <+> Journals and Weblogs Abada Abada Alana's Dear Blog Aldahlia All About George Blankespoor Blogs Bluebird Escape The Cold Days of Chicago Darrel Moen Dru Blood Estimated Prophet Experiment Frog n Blog Fuck Corporate Groceries The Green Man Gujari Girl Hobopoet The Homeless Guy Invisible Adjunct Involuntary Simplicity Keywords Lorenzo's blog Madame Insane Modern Peasant Monumental Mistake Nature is Profligate One Pot Meal Path to Freedom The Professionalization of Zoe Mitchell Rebecca's Pocket Red Polka Rough Living Shauna Curphey Steven Rubio's Online Life Suburban Guerrilla Sustenance.org Treesit Blog Vermont Homeless Journal Virtual Homestead Where Is Raed? Where We're Bound Wood's Lot Working For the Man <+>

^^^ Current Journal Entries: [R] I Don't Want to be Part of Your Revolution if I Have to Go to Parties All the Time <><> [a] Being White <><> [a] Make $25,000 a Year or More? You're Better Off Than Half of U.S. <><> [a] The Nature of "Badness" <><> [R] Eco Fest(s) <><> [a] What Do I Do All Day? <><> [R] Raising Cats <><> [a] Low Budget Parenting <><> [a] Updated the Book List <><> [a] Selling Paintings on eBay <><> [R] And Now For Some Good News <><> [a] Tips for Pinching Big Bucks <><> [R] One Celebrity Mourning I'm Definitely Part Of <><> [a] Pictures of My Garden <><> [R] Heavy Week, Heavy Choices (Solitude or "Solidarity"?) <><> [a] Indentured Servitude <><> [R] The Stench of Ground Zero <><> [a] Ecological Footprint <><> [a] Penny-Pinching Tips <><> <^><^><^><^><^> ^^^ September 28, 2003    I Don't Want to be Part of Your Revolution if I Have to Go to Parties All the Time [Richard] I'm starting to feel really opposed to parties. I don't mean political parties; I mean the kind where a bunch of people hang around together, making a lot of noise and drinking alcoholic beverages. I've noticed a strange phenomenon in my more recent "activist" experiences. I've noticed that there are "organizers" out there who can't distinguish between organizing a political action such as a protest, picket, boycott, etc., and organizing a party. They seem to give the same weight to both; in fact, some seem to give greater priority to organizing the party (as in drinking party, not political party) than they might give to anything we would recognize as a political action or protest. Although, in the best situation, the party can actually be merged with protest (which is probably the only kind of political person’s party that I really like)... From what I understand, this has been the main tactic of Reclaim the Streets and all other proponents of protest as festival. The point was originally to rebel against the seriousness of the same old hard leftist tactics, which often replicate the same old work ethic, especially its emphasis on proof of worth through joyless self-sacrifice. The idea is to point out the revolutionary nature of play, pursuing revolution as a festival. When the festival/party really disrupts everyday life and does so with a clear purpose, I think this sort of works. When I took part in Reclaim the Streets events in New York in 1998 to '99, there were some events that really stood out. The best was a very colorful, non-permitted festival held in the East Village in April of 1999 to protest the proposed selling of the community gardens. In that one, we stopped the traffic in the streets and completely caught everyone's attention while clearly making the point that we were acting on behalf of the gardens. I think it worked really well because the save-the-gardens movement was very eccentric and neo-hippieish to begin with. The garden activists were a perfect match with Reclaim the Streets and the thing worked out beautifully. Somewhat less effective, maybe, was a Buy Nothing Day protest that we did in Times Square on November 26, 1999. It was also supposed to be a protest against the upcoming WTO meetings in Seattle. It was great that we stopped traffic in Times Square, but nobody could figure out what we were doing or why. Unlike with the gardens, we didn't have clearly stated signs or clear cultural signifiers or people dressed up in the right costumes (e.g., in the gardens protest, the point was made pretty obvious by people dressed up as sunflowers and carrots). So, the Times Square protest just sort of resembled an amorphous and disruptive outdoor party. But that's not the worst thing in the world, and besides, people made the point well enough in Seattle four days later. On the other hand, there is a big tendency within this young activist crowd to make more of parties that are really just parties. Often on the NYC Reclaim the Streets e-mail list, there will be big announcements about a rave or get-together of some kind in a trendy place in the Lower East Side or (much more frequently these days) Williamsburg or some other neighborhood in North Brooklyn. Once in a while some kids will take over a piece of public transportation (such as a subway car), which action sort of, vaguely, makes a point about reclaiming public space. And sometimes, a sort of party can happen in which there are video screenings and performances (music with political lyrics or symbolism, spoken word performances, etc.) that make an indoor party a sort of political event. (I've been pretty involved in organizing some of those, and some friends over at Walker Stage in Tribeca (lower-west Manhattan) seem to be pretty involved in putting on those kinds of events.) But those political parties (so to speak) aren't the same as the essentially apolitical parties that I’m thinking of here, which claim some revolutionary aspect but which -- much like their more prevalent precursors in musical festivals and "love ins" in the '60s -- are really just hip, young people's gatherings and not much more than that. Now, not all activists who emphasize having parties actually claim that partying is a revolutionary act. There are some other excuses that are often given for putting so much time into these sorts of things. One, which I hear pretty often, is that parties are good for outreach. Unfortunately, that seems like a pretty lame and silly excuse. When activists have a party, they aren't going to be reaching out to people with any political ideas. The few people who come to an activists' party who aren't already among the heavily converted are generally there because they want to be at a party. Most people at a party aren't going to want to be bothered with political literature and petitions, and most (though not all) people would be embarrassed to pass out petitions or political pamphlets at a party, especially if it's a good, hip, swinging party. Moreover, even at parties where petitions and pamphlets do get passed around, most of the people who encounter them aren't going to remember much about them, because they're too distracted or, simply, drunk. A third excuse for emphasizing parties is that social occasions are important for building communications and solidarity, or even doing nitty-gritty planning, within the already-converted, activist crowd. This idea goes back to the rebellion against the seriousness of traditional lefty politics. I've heard the argument among radical and anarchist activists (especially the younger ones) that activists can do much better planning by foregoing meetings and hanging out together at social events. They also claim that such social events will help to build the radical community. To me, however, those ideas seem completely wrong-headed. For one thing, once you start confusing political planning with socializing, you increase the problem of cliquishness. This is a big problem within the anarchist community. Clique-based planning is awful, because it completely lacks conscious democratic process. You end up with a small crowd doing all of the planning with their buddies, not even aware that they are doing absolutely nothing to reach out to, and include, people beyond their own little circle. This is one of the main reasons for the lack of racial and ethnic diversity that so many young activists anguish over (as well as the lack of diversity in class, age, or general lifestyle, which they don't seem to notice as much). We’ve discussed these problems extensively in our Collective Book on Collective Process. And in that “book,” we also discuss extensively how somewhat more formal political meetings can often still create their own problems in terms of elitism or exclusivity, because not many people are going to catch on so quickly to the rituals of formal consensus or even small-group debate and democracy. Plus, there are numerous ways that informal hierarchies are created when people are rewarded for being able to expertly navigate the unwritten social customs, conventions and general behaviors so often prevalent within meetings of political groups. (And by the way, I should acknowledge asfo_del for most of the wording in that last phrase.) BUT, all of these problems notwithstanding, at least meetings theoretically create an open forum for people to participate and get things done. Theoretically, people can get involved in political planning who have absolutely no desire to hang out with most of their political-meeting "comrades" in any other setting. Or, at least that is how it should be… Unfortunately, lots of these groups also get into situations in which plans ostensibly made, decided on and concluded at a meeting are somehow further discussed and embellished during the big dinner (party) after the meeting, without the knowledge or participation of the members of the group who didn't have the time, energy and/or inclination to get involved in post-meeting socializing. And that is not right at all. I've heard a lot of stuff on how we need to build community outside of formal political structures in order to create the kind of social revolution necessary to make real changes. That's a great idea, but I still think that political/activist community will be built most effectively when people get together to work on activities with particular social-political goals in mind -- whether it's a protest, a mutual aid network, etc. -- especially if they are observing a clear democratic process, or at least some clearly defined democratic principles. As I've said in the Collective Book, maybe at some future time when we're all socially evolved enough to act in a truly egalitarian manner, we won't need so many "formal" guiding principles. But until such a time, you can be sure that whenever there are a lot of people basing their activities on "informal" arrangements such as just hanging around together, there are going to be a lot of snotty, exclusive, and regressive cliques. But back to the issue of the party...that is, not the political party, but the kind where people hang out, make a lot of noise, and drink alcoholic beverages... I never much liked parties anyway. I used to like going to certain kinds of parties when I was younger, but that's because they gave me the opportunity to dance. I used to love to go out dancing, in part because that activity did not require me to communicate (at least not in the traditional sense) with a crowd. And I was good at dancing; I wasn't good at communicating with a crowd. I've always found that I communicate best, and form the best friendships, in individual settings, one to one and one by one. That, actually, might be the best way for many of us to build community and solidarity with others. On the other hand, at a party, you can't really communicate enough if you're not loud enough or drunk enough or sufficiently appreciative of the group dynamic. And I never particularly liked the social dynamics of trying to relate to a group. People seem to assume that those of us who are collectivists or "small c" communists (which would include "left" anarchists) believe a lot in doing things in groups. In my own case, nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that collective process is necessary in order to get things done. Numbers aren't everything (creativity, tactics, enthusiasm, etc., all count for a lot), but numbers do help us to meet the challenge of coming up against the people who consider it in their own self interest to fight for the status quo. And, collectivity is necessary for a society to find ways to guaranty some degree of equality, so that you don't have people enjoying great wealth and freedom, for example, while others slave and starve. But I believe that collectivity isn’t so good unless it can help to insure individuality. The present, capitalist system stifles individuality by forcing people to slave away for the dominant interests and by constantly promoting hegemony and conformity (even if that conformity is masked by consumerist hedonism or other modern and post-modern trends). To me, a different, better kind of system -- one that doesn't depend on alienated labor, cultural co-optation, and hegemony -- would also be one that gives people the room to realize their true individuality. And sometimes realizing one's personal or creative potentials requires one to be alone, far from the crowd. Emma Goldman once said a famous line, “If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution.". That’s all well and good; I can understand that sometimes. But to that statement, I would like to add, I don't want to be part of your revolution if I have to go to parties all the time. @^##^##^##^@^##^##^##^@ ^^^ September 27, 2003         Being White [asfo_del] Recently, Feministe posted a request for essays on being white. These are the questions she posited: 1. what does it mean to be white? what does it mean to be White? 2. how has whiteness affected your worldview? 3. how has whiteness affected your educational experience? 4. how has whiteness affected your experience with authority? 5. how has whiteness affected your experiences with people of other races and ethnicities? Aldahlia wrote such a beautiful essay about this topic that I was moved to try to offer some of my own clumsy thoughts. I generally avoid writing about race because the whole area seems like such a minefield. There is so much potential that what one says could turn out to have been hurtful or thoughtless in retrospect. 1. what does it mean to be white? what does it mean to be White? On this I have no idea. I'm not American, so perhaps the question is not even meant for me. I'm Italian [not Italian-American; I just live in the U.S.]. When I lived in Italy, which was during junior high, I went to an American school. And even though the kids in my school were in many respects lovely and decent, they had a sneering and sarcastic disdain for all things [and people] Italian, a disdain so sure and so convincing that I myself accepted it as fact. I genuinely thought that I was inferior, laughable, and gauche, and that my aim should be to shed whatever characteristics identified me as a part of my own culture. And I did. My American English is absolutely perfect. There is not one trace of an accent in my speech. That may not have anything to do with the topic. But when you ask me about what it is to be White, I think of those blond-headed kids in American football jerseys and bright-white Keds carrying smiley-face keychains [this was the 70's!], a style I could not have emulated, since items like those could only be purchased in the U.S. Kids like them represented such an ideal of perfection that advertising agencies routinely came by our school to scout faces for print and TV ads. Those kids were White. 2. how has whiteness affected your worldview? When I was a kid, I actually believed the conventional Western rhetoric that the more "advanced" nations had a benign responsibility to further civilization by spreading their own worldview. I had fully internalized the credo that Euro-centered culture is clearly superior, but that, at the same time, it is untoward for the privileged to rub the faces of those less cultured in this unspoken truth. I find these notions appalling now, of course. [I guess I shouldn't say "of course," since there are plenty of people who still find that perspective just fine and dandy.] But I wonder if whatever view of the world one learned first doesn't always linger somehow; if there isn't always some lurking residue that looks pityingly and condescendingly on people whose race and circumstances are distant enough from one's own that one can quietly whisper to oneself, with maybe a hint of guilty self-congratulation, [as if our race or our circumstances were our own doing and not the result of chance and fate] "Thank god that I'm not in their shoes." 3. how has whiteness affected your educational experience? In the schools I went to before college, mainly American schools abroad [not just in Italy], there were almost no black students. There were, however, kids from all over the globe. Being prejudiced against any one of them in particular because of nationality seemed absolutely nonsensical. [That they were prejudiced against me because of my nationality was something I didn't question. I just though they were right. That my nationality deserved to be ridiculed.] When I was in the seventh grade, in Italy, one of my closest friends was black but I was not aware of it. She was light-skinned, and the thought of race just never crossed my mind. When I expressed this years later to an African-American woman who worked for a social service agency in Boston's inner-city, she flat-out didn't believe me. She said, "Oh, you know. You know what race somebody is." I don't know if my not knowing my friend's race - being, literally, colorblind - was non-racist or whether it should be read as a callous dismissal of who she really was as a person. 4. how has whiteness affected your experience with authority? That's easy. I live in a poor black neighborhood. The cops are posted on a street two blocks away, every night, on the strip where the local convenience stores are. I've seen cops in unmarked vans stop every person who happened to be walking down the street and question them from the vehicle, occasionally stepping out of the van to intimidate and harass. But I have never thought that they would stop me, and they never have. 5. how has whiteness affected your experiences with people of other races and ethnicities? I'm very guarded and nervous about talking to people anyway, but when it comes to having a conversation with a black person, I'm always afraid I might inadvertently say the wrong thing. Just a couple of days ago, I ran into a black friend of my boyfriend's [to whom my boyfriend, with his guileless and lovable aplomb, routinely announces himself on the phone by saying, "whiteboytoblackboywhiteboytoblackboy...."] who had been plastering and therefore had white powder all over his face. I stumbled all over myself to keep from saying, "Your face is all white." I've written before about how incomprehensible the combination of swagger and hopelessness of the young black men in my neighborhood is to me. At the same time, there is no question that I exploit the privilege that my whiteness and my not belonging to the neighborhood affords me. Some of these guys may very well be serious criminals, yet I feel reasonably safe here because, since I'm not part of their circle, it seems that it's almost as if I don't exist. Then again, maybe they think I'm a cop. ---------------------------------------- White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack ++=++=++=++=++=++ ^^^ September 25, 2003         Make $25,000 a Year or More? You're Better Off Than Half of U.S. [asfo_del] Would it surprise you to know that the median wage in the U.S. is $12 an hour, or, assuming a 40 hour workweek and no time off without pay, $24,960 a year? This factoid is from the Economic Policy Institute, and was reported in the New York Times [Sept 9, 2003]. It does not, as far as I can tell, include people who aren't working, or who receive welfare, disability, or social security. If you were to add to this statistic the incomes of the non-employed, you would get the actual median income in this country. I won't hazard a guess, but it's clearly considerably less than $25,000 a year. I think a lot of people might find this figure surprising because it is certainly not the impression that is conveyed by the media, which breezily sells the assumption that owning a new car, a house in the suburbs [which can easily cost half a million dollars!], and expensive gadgetry like big screen TVs, palm pilots, cell phones, etc. is the affordable norm for the average person, and that those who are struggling to survive are only a regrettable minority operating at the margins of society. Relative poverty is actually the norm. The fact that so many of us have bought the media's inaccurate picture has helped to create the current crisis of indebtedness. We are badgered with the message that we have to live outside our means just to have a normal life, one with the most basic comforts, and this collectively held belief has created a disconnect. We have become a mass of individuals struggling desperately to stretch insufficient financial resources to try to fit them with a lifestyle that we have become convinced we should be able to afford. Most of us don't even want to know how much we spend because looking hard at our overextended finances would be unbearably stressful and depressing. At the same time, we have become a nation of the chronically dissatisfied and resentful. While millions in the U.S. - to say nothing of the rest of the world, where the median income is two dollars a day - live in conditions of dire deprivation, people who are making $60,000 a year and more compare themselves to the fictitious standard of living sold by the media and are crying poverty! While I am not typical of those who live on $7000 a year, since I have a rock-solid safety net in my unerringly generous family [and I am only using myself here as an example, not as a model for others to follow!], I suffer no hardships as a result of my limited finances, in part because I have absolutely no interest in the media's conception of how to live. I dwell in a cute house [which, granted, is falling apart and has a severe roof leak] that I decorated with pretty vintage dishtowels, my own and my sister's needlecrafts, and found or inherited artwork. I have a garden. I have all the food that I want, including fancy Belgian cookies if I feel like treating myself to them. I can read scores of interesting books from the library, although I can't seek out any book in particular since they are not likely to have it. I can walk around [when I'm not too tired] and see scads of interesting stuff [you know, like houses, people, plants, rocks, bits of debris, etc,]. I can take a bus to go almost anywhere I might want to go. I have a computer, which I consider one of my bigger indulgences. I have a TV [two, actually], and although they only get broadcast channels I find them perfectly adequate for mindless entertainment, relaxation, and some degree of news coverage. [There are some great programs on PBS, like Wide Angle and the BBC news.] I can paint for hours for only a few dollars, and maybe even make some money doing it to boot. And of course I have my sweetie, a few friends, and my family, none of whom could be bought at any price. Honestly, what else does one need? There is nothing wrong with being satisfied with the modest comforts that we are able to afford even with a relatively low income. By giving up the disconnect that makes us feel inadequate for not being as rich as the media wants us to think everyone is but us*, we can start to build our own lives out of what really matters: connections to other people, basic needs and comforts, creativity, interest in ideas, and service to others. [I'm sorry to say I do pretty poorly on the last one.] -------------------------- *Not long ago, the Today show presented the following: the results of a survey by a travel magazine on its readers' favorite vacations [favorite destination: Sydney, Australia; favorite hotel: some Beverly Hills hotel whose rooms cost $350 a night], and a feature on new leisure boats available for sale [least expensive boat: a catamaran for $5000; most expensive boat: a yacht for $300,000]. The New York Times travel section stated recently that vacationing on a yacht is no longer just for the rich: a one-week vacation is available on a rented yacht for a mere $4800! |!!|-|!!|-|!!|-|!!| ^^^ September 23, 2003         The Nature of "Badness" [asfo_del] Evil shows itself in many forms. It's unfortunate that the administration has made the word "evil" sound foolish and cartoonish, with references to "the evildoers" and "the axis of evil." And it's true that as a word it almost always sounds too shrill: there's a bit of a frothing-at-the-mouth quality to it. In Italian, there is a much better word, "cattiveria," that, humbly, since it can be roughly translated as "badness," and with the utmost, sobering seriousness, conveys the concept of willful and malicious wrongdoing. There are human rights activists who risk, and in many cases have lost, their lives to stand up to the extreme evil of thugs and dictators who wantonly order and carry out murder and torture. They are rightly help up as examples of courage and selflessness. But then there is small, day-to-day nastiness. Why is it that standing up to bullies and schemers who intentionally hurt and humiliate is not considered a virtue? The conventional wisdom is to let it go, to rise above. That's often good advice: why become bitter over something pointless? But if the wrong that is being perpetrated is not pointless but is causing serious harm and suffering, even if only on an emotional level, then we have a moral and human responsibility to call the perpetrator to task and to make the cruelty stop. But that almost never happens. And if it does, whoever challenges the perpetrator is reprimanded for stirring up trouble instead of being supported for having tried to do something brave and necessary. I have a lot of thoughts about this subject, and some of them are expressed in our Collective Book on Collective Process, but right now I have such a heavy heart that I can't really bring myself to go into a discussion of the nature of social responsibility in the face of wrongdoing. Mike's former wife, from whom he has been separated for almost four years, has suddenly and arbitrarily decreed that he can longer spend time with his 11-year-old son, with whom Mike is extremely close, and who has been, for the last four years, spending exactly half of his nights and days with his dad. Evil shows itself in many forms. <::>::<::>::<::>::<::>::<::> ^^^ September 23, 2003       Eco Fest(s) [Richard] In April of 2003, the Common Wheel Collective worked in collaboration with the Staten Island Greens and Collaborative Projects (a nonprofit arts group) to put on the first Staten Island Eco Fest. The Greens were actually the main organizers, but Collaborative Projects put together a mostly autonomous art show and the Common Wheel Collective played major roles in every aspect of the event, including information distribution ("asfo_del" worked extensively to maintain the Web site, and I filled in when she went out of town), public contact and physical setup (mainly Mike), and bringing in participants, organizing, scheduling, coordinating (I did all that). In my opinion, the Common Wheel Collective did an extensive amount of work to supply a more radical, revolutionary, or socially transformative vision to the event. I, personally, did a lot of work putting together the "radical left" end of the workshops and panels, and in many ways, I was happy with the results. The Eco Fest in April was a very ambitious event in multiple venues. Admittedly, in terms of turnout, publicity, and all those standard measures of popularity, I think everybody could agree that it was a flop. We also had the misfortune of scheduling many of our outdoor events on a day when it poured outside (which meant we had to bring everything indoors, scheduling more things into one small space and squeezing everybody's time). However, we did have some very good workshops and film showings, and on one night we had an outstanding panel that actually stirred up some of the old enthusiasm, feelings of purpose, and (too often fleeting) solidarity that had inspired many of us to get involved in social activism in the first place. Unfortunately, the Eco Fest planning had also been rife with conflict (it was essentially a political event, so...what else would one expect?) and there were big philosophical differences between the "left" and "right" side of the organizing group. There were people in the Staten Island Greens and Collaborative Projects who wanted very much to include large corporations hawking their latest eco-friendly gadgets, and there were people (mostly, but not all, the same group) who felt that a Green event should center on peddling products and services. The battle over inclusion of multinational corporations was particularly bitter, causing infighting, manipulation, heavily challenged votes and sneaky re-votes, etc. However, from my own perspective, the more interesting source of tension was the tug of war between those who wanted us to concentrate on selling all those "Green" products and services and those who definitely wanted something else. Personally, I have nothing per se against promoting some products and services, although I would prefer that we focus on DIY approaches, such as ways that we can make and/or share our own "products and services" rather than simply picking consumer items from the choices presented to us by businesses. However, my main reason for getting involved in the Eco Fest was to bring people in contact with radically different (or revolutionary) approaches to society. To me, it makes no sense to work toward an environmentally sustainable future without fundamentally challenging the very existence of products and services as we've come to know them and the systems through which products and services are exchanged -- i.e., at the very least, we've got to call attention to the ecologically destructive nature of capitalism. Some people in the Staten Island Greens claimed that my outlook wasn't "green" but "red." One member of the Greens (who was also in Collaborative Projects) went so far as to call me a "watermelon" for being "green on the outside, red on the inside." However, to me, the "green" and "red" (at least as this group would define these terms) are inseparable. And while this kind of approach might not be well known to the reformist Greens so prevalent today within the boundaries of the U.S., it certainly has been an element in Greens tradition in many places for decades. For instance, I once had the pleasure of stumbling onto a Web site put together by some Greens in Greece which cited three of my favorite radical thinkers as the group's main influences: Andre Gorz, Ivan Illich, and Murray Bookchin. While some of these thinkers (particulary Bookchin, especially these days) might object to being called "red," it seems clear to me that they have definitely opposed the capitalist system and many of the principles that support it. I only wish that the Greens I encountered here in Staten Island were more acquainted with those people and their works. Actually, it's not so important that people read those particular writers (I'm not partial to basing political organizing on fandom of individual personalities) so much as they have some grasp on the fundamental kinds of changes that Gorz, Illich, Bookchin, etc. have talked about. Unfortunately, I don't think that people who would define "Green" strictly in terms of products and services actually do have such a grasp. Now, briefly, a mention of the latest Eco Fest, the one that happened at the Staten Island Waterfront Festival this past weekend... The Waterfront Festival is a commercial street fair, and the "Eco Fest" tables being planned for this event could not possibly have had the ambition or scope of the original event. I elected not to become too involved in this event because I could see that it would be too much work for me to try to push it in a direction that would be palatable for me (and, besides, I had no desire to unilaterally push it in any direction where the group didn't want to go). Moreover, I had nothing to do with forming this connection between the Waterfront Festival and the Eco Fest, and I didn't think the Eco Fest should be merged with the Waterfront Festival in general. But the factor that really made my mind up about how much I wanted to get involved (or not) was the flyers that the group put together, which specifically advertised the event with the line, "Introduce yourself to environmentally friendly products - services - new and sustainable technologies." This flyer, which the group put out within the past couple of weeks, did a lot to help me decide whether I was going to make any sacrifices -- such as make myself unavailable for temp work, etc. -- in order to be part of the event. And, the answer to that one was, definitely not. As it turned out, I got a shitload of proofreading work for the weekend, working nine-plus hours on the midnight shift on both Saturday and Sunday nights. Because I worked these hours, there was no way I could get involved in the Eco Fest section of the Waterfront Festival, or even visit it. Yet, because I worked these hours, I might just have the ghost of a chance to catch up on my rent and utility bills this month before the lights and phone (and Internet!) go off, and before my landlords start threatening me again, without even putting myself into any more debt. In the past, I've chosen to put off wage work (and suffer the consequences) to fulfill my volunteer commitments to events. I did this to a great extent while working on the Intergalactic Anarchist Convention two years ago. I have skipped wage work extensively (and possibly lost jobs) in order to participate in major protests. And I made myself unavailable for wage work for a number of days in order to plan, and participate in, April's Eco Fest. But sometimes, there comes a time when you have to make choices, set priorities, etc. And considering all the factors this time around, I think I made the right choice by ejecting the mini-Eco Fest ("number 1.5") and earning the money to pay my bills. Of course, I have nothing against the people who worked to put this thing together -- I respect their commitment, hope it turned out well for them, and wish them the best of luck. *_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_* ^^^ September 21, 2003         What Do I Do All Day? [asfo_del] Although I love reading journals that describe all the little hum-drum tidbits of the writer's personal life [provided they're honest enough to be telling], I generally avoid writing here about my own daily life [except for the minutiae of what I spend, of course] because I don't want to be too much of a downer. I'm exhausted virtually every second of my day, so I don't do much. I have terrible trouble sleeping, so I should actually be referring to every second of my night. But, in any case, this is what I've been doing over the past couple days. Saturday morning I did not wake up, exactly, since I had been up all night after getting up at about five p.m. the previous day. Early in the morning, around seven thirty, one of Mike's friends came by with his truck to help haul the materials that Mike and another friend had collected to build a recycled canopy for the Staten Island Greens Eco-Fest booth at this weekend's Waterfront Festival. They built it entirely out of found branches and covered it with a thatch of leaves. It was awesome, I am told. The talk of the festival. Ten feet tall. Since I had to mail a package -- I was sending two paintings I did to my sister because her friend offered to sell them at her antique shop -- and this would be one of the few opportunities when I was up and the post office was open, I set off to the P.O. I walked, which is a little hard on my always-aching legs, but I took the no-steep-hills route. While I was inside the post office I saw Mike ride by in the back of the truck amidst a lot of branches and greenery, shouting peace slogans at passers-by. I decided to walk a little further when I was done with the mailing, to the Waterfront Festival itself, but the boys had dropped off the materials and gone off to get tools to build the thing, so there was nobody there. I walked home. By then, it was about nine thirty. I still couldn't sleep. Mike called to say one of his cohorts would come by to pick up his heavy-duty drill, so I went to get it out of the basement. I had a brief visit with the cohort -- seconds, really. I watched some TV lying in bed. A twenty minute walk each way to the post office nearly did me in. I killed several wasps by tracking them as they flew all around the bedroom and then smashing them with a shoe when they landed on a propitious surface. A few wasps have been infesting our bedroom daily for the past couple months. I haven't figured out how they get in. Last week I got stung in my sleep for the fourth time and my whole hand swelled up, all the way up to my elbow. Every time you get stung, you become more allergic, so each successive sting is worse than the last. I'm still not ready to give in to using pesticides. I fell asleep around noon and woke up at about eight p.m., I think. It's very hard to remember a time that has no real rhyme or reason. I went out to get some Chinese food to go [Szechuan tofu and vegetables, $3.50]. I watched TV in bed for a few hours. I called a friend in Texas and talked on the phone for a while. I worked for most of the night on a painting I had started two days before, and I finished it at around five a.m. It's of an abbey nestled on a hill among cypress trees. Some of the trees and greenery kept coming out wrong: either too blobby or, if I tried to fix them by making them more defined, too spiky. Even making the effort to reach beside me on the bed to rummage for another tube of paint to add a color to the palette is a daunting task, so I'm always tempted to cheat, telling myself that the already-ready-but-wrong color will work just as well. And of course it doesn't. It looks like shit. So I have to paint over it. But not before having tried the wrong color, which is so tantalizingly already mixed on the palette, on several other areas of the painting and ruining those too. Mike called at about two a.m. from the friend's house where all the participants in the Waterfront Festival eco-booth had gathered after the event wrapped up. I encouraged him to just sleep there rather than try to wind his way home at that late hour. I ate some cheese on toast. I watched some more TV in bed while working on the painting. I was on a channel where the picture hardly came in at all. There was an intense movie on about an Irish revolutionary who had broken out of prison in Ireland and was hiding out in New York City, where he met up with some Latin American revolutionaries, by chance, and helped them to assassinate their country's [former?] dictator. It was little hard to follow because I couldn't see much besides the static. Plus I wasn't looking because I was painting. Later on, I tried to read some of my newly-borrowed library books, at least one of which is pretty great so far, but found that I was too worn out to concentrate. I watched a slew of Sunday-morning political commentary shows like The McLaughlin Group, Meet the Press, and Chris Matthews, and was nauseated by the mendacious right-wing rhetoric. Mike came home about eleven a.m. I was still up. I think I fell asleep at about one thirty p.m. I woke up at about six p.m. I missed the Waterfront Festival entirely. When Mike got home from the Fest, I made some rice and beans more-or-less from scratch [I had leftover rice, so I didn't have to prepare that part.]. Somewhere in there I logged on to the internet, possibly twice, though I can't really remember. I am finding it difficult even to concentrate on this. I feel [almost daily] as if I've been on a long hike, carrying a backpack filled with bowling balls. All I want to do is lie down and rest, but if I do I can't fall asleep. :::#:::#:::#:::#:::#::: ^^^ September 20, 2003       Raising Cats [Richard] Since I was a child, I have always "owned" and raised cats. The only long period since my early teens when I did not have "my own" cats was from 1991 to 1996, when I spent almost every night at the home of a girlfriend (R.) who had two cats herself. I can't imagine life without a regular feline presence, and there have been times when I couldn't imagine having human friends or family who could be nearly as comforting, companionable, and amusing as "my" cats. I have noticed that probably a disproportionate number of people who've gravitated toward anti-authoritarian or anarchist politics also have had cats. I've wondered sometimes why that is. It's occurred to me that there's some connection between anarchist cat ownership and Sabocat, the famous IWW-connected symbol of workers' self-activity and sabotage. Of course, it's probably the other way around. Something about the qualities of the cat has helped to make it such a symbol. Maybe it's because cats can creep around very subtly, are famously agile (though that aspect might be overrated), seem remarkably independent (although they do develop strong attachments -- they're just sometimes subtle about it) and can be quite brave and ferocious when it's time to do battle. In any event, people do say that cats are anarchistic in nature. Cats cannot be herded the way other animals can and they don't roam in packs like dogs -- although they do develop remarkably complicated social relationships within groups. Additionally, they will often follow their own whims or moods without their human companions/"owners"/"masters" having any say in the matter. In that sense, they are wonderful. And, they are known to be creatures who hide themselves very well, who simply cannot be found so easily, especially when you're looking for them -- although usually, that's just because they are curled up somewhere sleeping, as they absolutely love to sleep (another reason I relate to them so well). Back in my early to mid 20s (during the 1980s), I was sort of a neighborhood cat man. That's because I tried to help out a whole small colony of cats in a backyard that I shared in Brooklyn with G., my first common law wife. G. also liked to look after the cats, and she adored being with cats, but I was the one who really spent time feeding them, entertaining them (while they entertained me) and taking care of them, sometimes even taking some of them to the vet. Unfortunately, since this was also a time of extended unemployment and/or underemployment (somewhat like the present, though maybe not quite as bad), I really couldn't afford to do as much for them as the situation increasingly required. And G. was a student going for a long program in neuropsychology, so she couldn't exactly spare much money, either, trying to keep the cats healthy and safe. Eventually, the yard became very overcrowded with cats and the situation spun completely out of control. There were some cats and kittens who were always hungry, and no matter how much I tried to feed them (buying cases full of the cheapest food), it wasn't enough. The cats were also getting ill. There was an epidemic of respiratory infection among them, and sometimes this was much more severe than the human "common cold" that it resembled, so a few of them died... So, an experience that had started out seeming wonderful and whimsical turned out pretty tragic. I tried to rescue some and give them away, but I really didn't know how to go about doing this right. In my early 20s, I just didn't have the knowhow about finding connections and networking that I learned somewhat later, when I became an activist, and neither I nor anyone else at this time had the Internet. Of course, as anyone will tell you, once you stop feeding a colony of cats altogether, the colony will eventually go elsewhere. And eventually, that's what we had to do...only, we did take a couple of favorites into the house, which two cats brought us four kittens, and for a couple of years, I had the closest thing to my own family that I have ever had. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ A few years later, I wrote a novella -- which I submitted to a writing workshop -- about my experience with the cats and my relationship with G. during that period. At one point within this novella, I focused a great deal on how much the behavior among the cats changed once the conditions of scarcity had set in. I wrote about how much peaceful cooperation seemed to turn into competitive hostility, and I drew up some interesting (though fairly subtle) metaphors between the different conditions that I observed among the felines and different kinds of human society. Unfortunately, my workshopmates didn't seem to get it for the most part. They asked me why I wrote so much about the cats when I should have been writing more about my long-term relationship. But one day, one young woman in the class actually did pick up on something and asked me outright, "What's with all this communism stuff?" Those reactions notwithstanding, I still think it was one of the best stories I have ever written, and I would love to refer back to it now and then, if only I could find the damn thing. When G. and I finally broke up, she sort of took custody of the cats. Fortunately, though, I went right into my relationship with R, the woman who had her own cats, who were also fine felines. Then, later, when R. and I broke up, I adopted my present companion, a then-four-month-old kitten whom I named Chomsky. (This was seven years ago; I might have named him something different now. But a lot of people think it's an adorable name, mostly because they don't know what it refers to.) I have to say that Chomsky has been the most wonderful companion... He's turned out to be the sweetest and friendliest cat who's ever lived with me, as well as the smartest. He's been a stable source of comfort throughout a period in which I've been through a succession of human relationships (not many, but still as a succession) which seemed to end with increasing rapidity and hostility. He's also been a very soothing influence during trying times of poverty and, needless to say, he hasn't been any kind of drain on my finances because a single cat can be raised very cheaply, indeed. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Since this is Living on Less, I suppose I should offer some advice on affordable cat care. I suppose the first piece of advice I would offer is, don't ever waste your money on cat toys. Cats will play with anything...string, socks, belts, sewing threads, cassette tapes... If you would like your cat to be particularly amused, you can probably buy some catnip for fairly cheap, or you can even grow your own. (In my own case, however, none of that is needed, as R. -- who remains a very good friend -- has given me a few of her specially crafted catnip-stuffed pillows, which drive Chomsky wild.) Now, needless to say, cats don't have to be drugged out on this stuff to amuse themselves, but some of them do obviously appreciate it a lot. I would also advise anybody living with cats to avail themselves of huge amount of free information that can be found regarding the health and habits of cats and kittens. I have found, from observing a lot of people, that too many people are far too quick to run to the vet. Especially if you happen to be poor, this is something you don't need to do. Speaking for myself, I didn't take Chomsky to the vet for close to six years, and he turned out to be perfectly healthy. I wouldn't advise anybody to go that long, but don't let vets intimidate you with demands for frequent check-ups and with all kinds of peripheral nonsense. For example, I once went to a vet back in Brooklyn who constantly tried to peddle special flea preventions, shampoos, nail clippers, even brushes, anything she could think of. If I had fallen for her pitches, I might have gone completely broke, but instead, I simply chose another vet. Once you know what you are doing (and what, exactly, your cat is doing, for that matter), you can figure a lot of things out yourself. After just a brief perusal on the Net tonight, I found a couple of fantastic sites on catcare. If you also happen to have feline companions, you might want to check these out: The Daily Cat Feline Rescue.net -- Cat Care :'<:.<:'<:.<:'<:.<:'<:':<. ^^^ September 18, 2003         Low Budget Parenting [asfo_del] Crazy Woman has a great blog entry [Sept. 15] about the not-so-high cost of raising a baby if one just acts sensibly and does for the child from the heart instead of according to the dictums of consumer culture. I don't have any children myself, but my boyfriend has an eleven year old who divides his time about equally between our house and his mother's. We have done as much as we can to give him the message that a full, interesting life can be had without spending a lot of money. In fact, a lot of the most imaginative and enriching activities are available free and even run the risk of being drowned out if one allows expensive mainstream entertainment and conveniences to dominate one's life. [I've already written about the cultural and other events we try to attend, many of which are free.] For instance, we don't have a car. That means L. and his dad do a lot of walking, which of course lets a person experience one's environment much more fully. I can still remember, as a kid, being fascinated by twigs and seed pods and the flowering weeds that grow out of the cracks in the pavement; and I also remember staring desultorily out of the rear window of a car as people and buildings and whole worlds rush by unexplored and unknowable. And the bus, which here on Staten Island can take you pretty much everywhere, has been a great boon to L., who is able, because of the bus, to have the autonomy at eleven years old to go places on his own. [A limited number of places, to be sure, like going between his parents' homes or to school, both of them trips of less than a mile.] Nevertheless, there is no lack of people who look down on us for using the bus and "forcing" the child to go by bus instead of in the comfort of a car. But look at what he has gained: he knows the bus routes, he knows [most of the time...] to always be aware of where he is, and he even knows subway routes in Manhattan, though he doesn't travel those alone. These are invaluable tools for growing up and learning confidence and self-sufficiency, and they are much more enduring than the convenience of being driven around. ||~~||~~||~~||~~|| ^^^ September 17, 2003         Updated the Book List [asfo_del] Updated the book list with reviews of recently read books. <'>-<'>-<'>-<'>-<'> ^^^ September 16, 2003         Selling Paintings on eBay [asfo_del] Yup, I'm using some of my expensively acquired skills [two and a half years of art school before graduating from a university] to try to make some small income for myself by selling landscape paintings on eBay. So far, I've sold one painting for $24 and another one for $18, and I currently have bids on two others for $24 and $26. It only takes me about five hours to make one of these paintings, so if there were sufficient interest from buyers, I could make what for me, given my very frugal lifestyle, would be a fairly significant contribution to my own income. I know that probably sounds slightly absurd. I do realize I would be making, after expenses, about $3 an hour. On the other hand, I have not been able to work at a job because I am chronically exhausted, so this is actually a promising avenue, believe it or not. [If anyone has been reading this journal [uhm...?], they know that I only spend between $500 and $600 each month.]          ::"::"::"::"::"::":: ^^^ September 15, 2003      And Now For Some Good News: WTO Trade Talks Collapse in Mexico: http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/09/14/2545713 Protesters Cheer Collapse of WTO Talks: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20030915/ap_on_bi_ge/wto_protests&e=5&ncid= Developing Countries Pull Out, WTO Talks Collapse: http://www.indymedia.org VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV ^^^ September 15, 2003         Tips for Pinching Big Bucks [asfo_del] Penny-pinching strategies are nothing to sneeze at, since many expenses add up day by day from little things, but I thought I'd also offer up some ideas for saving bigger bucks. What's hard about reducing spending, however, is not necessarily a lack of ideas but the challenge of giving up the things that one has become accustomed to. I don't have an answer for that. However, I did come across an interesting discussion on what the author refers to as our culturally ingrained addiction to consuming: "Miller is a cognitive psychologist with a socio-biology bent and in a nutshell suggests that incessant craving for just a little bit "more" has become biologically programmed into every species on earth, including humans.... Maybe incessant craving isn't biologically wired in---who could test this assertion anyway? It would be enough to demonstrate that _beliefs_ about humans being incessantly driven to consume are culturally prevalent.... But one way or another, the incessant craving to consume is a dominant feature of human life." Having said that, here are some ideas for significantly reducing spending by eliminating some expenses altogether: 1. Cable TV. I know I've harped on this one before. Savings: $480 a year for basic cable. $840 a year for cable with two premium channel packages. $720 a year for digital cable. 2. Optional phone services. call waiting $5.30 a month caller ID $7.99 star 69 $3.50 call intercept $5.95 busy redial $3.50 call forwarding $4.25 inside wire maintenance $3.45 home voice mail $6.23 distinctive ring $5.25 three-way calling $4.25 speed dialing $4.25 telephone protection plan $3.95 Savings: $694.44 a year if one had all of these features and eliminated them. These are some random premium services I took from my local phone company's website. There are many others, of course. 3. Eating out. I'm not suggesting one should eliminate it completely, but using restaurants, even cheap ones, as a main source of food can get very expensive. For example: breakfast: coffee to go $1; bagel or muffin $1 lunch: sandwich $5; beverage $1.50; chips $.50 dinner: takeout $7; beverage $1.50; dessert $2 Daily tab: $19.50; Total for a year: $7118. One can eat at home, and by taking a lunch to work, for about $4.50 a day, or $1643 a year. Savings by eating at home over eating out: $5475 a year. 4. Owning a car. annual vehicle purchase costs (do not include finance charges) $3579/year annual finance charges on vehicle loan(s) $359/year gasoline and motor oil $1279/year annual car insurance expenses $819/year annual maintenance and repair expenses $662/year vehicle rental, leasing, licenses, and other fees $534/year Savings if one did not own a car: $7232 a year. These figures are averages from the 2001 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey. The vehicle purchase costs seem very high to me, but I suppose that if one always buys a brand new car and replaces it every four or five years, that would be about right. The insurance, on the other hand, seems very low. I was quoted a price of $1800 a year for liability alone [which doesn't cover your own car against damage or theft]. Since I haven't had car insurance for several years, I'm considered a new driver, which was given as the reason for the high rate. [And no, I'm not getting a car.] A friend who has had a couple of tickets was quoted $3200 a year, just for liability. Source: The Real Costs of Car Ownership 5. Changing one's housing situation. Housing cannot be eliminated, obviously, but altering one's living situation is worth considering since it's most people's biggest single expense. Without getting too radical [see "Radical Thrifty Tips" on the sidebar], getting a roommate or moving to a cheaper area of town or to a smaller place can make a significant dent in the monthly rent. If one owns a house, moving is not as simple, but one could still take in roommates or boarders. [Having said that, I find roommate situations to be potentially very difficult. Saving money is not worth sacrificing one's emotional well-being.] A smaller apartment or house also saves on the cost of utilities. I know people who live in a large house in the suburbs with central air conditioning; their electricity costs upwards of $200 a month. Our electric bill is usually about $35. How much anyone can save depends on each situation and whether or not a person is able to drastically change it. I came across a wide variety of tips, from becoming a super in a building, which can be nearly rent-free, to moving into a dilapidated house and making a deal with the owner to pay a small amount of rent while making repairs and improvements. If you can afford to buy, consider buying a two-family house; the rent you receive from the other apartment helps pay the mortgage. Or you could move to another part of the country...? This is a table of fair-market rents in the U.S. by state. [You have to scroll down to find it.] When I moved to Texas from Massachusetts years ago, I was amazed at how much cheaper it was. And if you live in New York City, consider Staten Island! [Which is where I live...] <[=]><[=]><[=]><[=]> ^^^ September 14, 2003      One Celebrity Mourning I'm Definitely Part Of [Richard] Yes, this is one celebrity mourning I'm definitely part of. I'm actually surprised he lasted this long (and he was only 71? I thought he was 71 20 years ago, at least from looking at him)...but his death was still surprising and it put a tear in my eye -- though I was already in a, well, black mood to begin with, I admit... Anyway, it was nice to find some of his lyrics on Indymedia...especially a song that just seems so right for Living On Less... Man In Black by Johnny Cash Recorded February 16, 1971 Well, you wonder why I always dress in black, Why you never see bright colors on my back, And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone. Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on. I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down, Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town, I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime, But is there because he's a victim of the times. I wear the black for those who never read, Or listened to the words that Jesus said, About the road to happiness through love and charity, Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me. Well, we're doin' mighty fine, I do suppose, In our streak of lightnin' cars and fancy clothes, But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back, Up front there ought 'a be a Man In Black. I wear it for the sick and lonely old, For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold, I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been, Each week we lose a hundred fine young men. And, I wear it for the thousands who have died, Believen' that the Lord was on their side, I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died, Believen' that we all were on their side. Well, there's things that never will be right I know, And things need changin' everywhere you go, But 'til we start to make a move to make a few things right, You'll never see me wear a suit of white. Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day, And tell the world that everything's OK, But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back, 'Till things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black. ******************************* ^^^ September 13, 2003         Pictures of My Garden [asfo_del] Sorry, I couldn't resist posting some of these before the season is over. The garden in all its splendor... Bell peppers grown from seeds saved from peppers bought at the supermarket. The tomatoes are actually my neighbor's, but I've been tending them. I have one zucchini plant. It has produced a few zucchini, but most have mysteriously turned mushy and withered away when still small. ::"::"::"::"::"::":: ^^^ September 11, 2003    Heavy Week, Heavy Choices (Solitude or "Solidarity"?) [Richard] Wage work has been very slow the past month, and I am once again sinking (further) into debt and poverty. But with no work in sight, I have actually been enjoying another period of extended, peaceful solitude (even though this might just be a way of masking serious depression). In the present situation, I am debating with myself over whether to continue my reclusive meditations or GET INOLVED. The next few days actually kind of demand that I GET INVOLVED. But sometimes it's best for the mental health (as well as temp availability) to avoid the crowds and conflicts. Two years ago, it would have been a different story -- I would have been out there in the middle of everything, riding the post-Battle-in-Seattle, new-movement high that gripped so many of us. Oh, well. But things are also picking up again movement-wise, and there are a lot of things to be done. For September 11, I'll probably join the peaceniks in Union Square Park and/or Washington Square Park for an anti-war 9-11 commemoration. Tonight (I'm writing this at about 4 am), it would have been very easy to go to the candlelight vigil at Ground Zero. But I didn't find out about that until about 1 am, as information hasn't been as available as it was last year. (There seems to be less commotion about this anniversary this year -- I guess that's a good thing in a way, though I still would like to take part in it, especially the anti-jingoism/anti-war side of it.) We also shouldn't forget that September 11 is the anniversary of the military overthrow of Salvador Allende. Exactly 30 years ago, Chile was almost instantly (and bloodily) transformed from a democracy (with the world's first democratically elected Marxist government) into a fascist military dictatorship that would last 17 years. Now, we all know that this was the work of Pinochet, but we also know now more than ever that Pinochet and his followers never could have done it without the invaluable help of the United States Government and the CIA. A lot of new information about this has recently become available, and I've found some particularly good sources from the UK, such as one excellent page on the anniversary at a site connected to the BBC and another (very good) one from The Guardian. There is also an interesting event scheduled here in New York City on the evening of September 11 at the Brecht Forum, the opening of an exhibit on "Posters & Artwork from Chile's Popular Unity Period." And... We are now at the beginning of the Mobilization in Cancun in protest against the meeting of the World Trade Organization. I've got friends who have gone there (though not as many as who've gone to previous mobilizations) and I hear that a pretty big and lively protest is shaping up, thanks mainly to the people of Mexico. I also hear that there is very heavy police repression being planned... Here in NYC, I might go to a solidarity march and demo that was initiated by United for Peace and Justice. I'm a little wary, however, as marches in New York City related to the WTO (usually in solidarity with bigger events elsewhwere) have often been particularly sad affairs. In November of 1999, I had the misfortune of trying to participate in a group organizing a local protest against the WTO in solidarity with the protests in Seattle. The end result of that committee's efforts was a demo of about 75 people in front of the World Trade Center (of all places) while in Seattle, upwards of 50,000 attended, acted like no protest anyone had seen before (at least not in the U.S.) and made history. (Now, there was a trip that I kicked myself severely for not taking!) Then in the summer of 2001, I got very involved in the organizing committees for a protest being planned in New York City to coincide with the November WTO meetings in Qatar. But after 9-11, many groups and people dropped out and we ended up with a sad, little march, indeed. Though I suppose I really should do my part and will regret it if I don't... Solitude or "solidarity" -- I have to admit, it's a pretty hard choice for me at the moment (which is not exactly something I am proud of)... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ^^^ September 11, 2003         Indentured Servitude [asfo_del] Consumer debt in the U.S. currently stands at $1.774 trillion. The average person in America is drowning in debt, yet politicians and the media keep urging people to spend more. Their logic goes something like this: consumer spending boosts the economy, and a strong economy creates jobs, therefore by spending money you don't have, you may be helping to create a job for yourself that will allow you to then earn the money to pay for all the things you bought when you were broke. That doesn't add up. Sure, the people who benefit from a rise in stock prices - the tiny fraction of the population who own the lion's share of the stocks - will get richer if we turn over a lot of our money to them by spending it, but we, the average citizens, will only get poorer as our modest resources are drained away. Because they are so heavily indebted, U.S. employees have become a workforce of indentured laborers who are in no position to fight for their rights in the workplace. People who desperately need their jobs just to keep up with monthly payments, and who are facing foreclosure or bankruptcy if they don't keep up, are in no position make demands from their employers. This state of affairs yields a nice set of advantages for the wealthy stakeholders in corporate interests: not only does consumer debt generate a nice income for them - from the purchases themselves as well as from the interest and fees - but it also keeps workers meek and compliant, since a person carrying a heavy load of debt can't afford to risk her job. Indentured servitude is an ancient and very effective means of exploitation. This one is a subtle form. Instead of workers owing a debt to a particular employer that keeps them bound to that job for life, and even for generations, since the conditions of the debt are such that the workers will never be able to pay if off, employees here owe their debts more generally, to other companies, or banks, but the effect of keeping the worker dependent on the job and in fear of losing it remains a constant. It's worth noting that honest-to-goodness indentured servitude, a brutal form of slavery, is also very much alive and well in the 21st century. According to Anti-Slavery International, there are at least 20 million bonded laborers in the world. Entire families are kept like cattle on agricultural estates in South Asia, children are trafficked in West Africa, women are exported for domestic and sexual slavery in Europe.... "Human trafficking--the involuntary smuggling of people between countries, often by organized crime--has become a huge concern, especially in Europe and Southeast Asia. Many people, lured by economic opportunities, pay smugglers to slip them across borders but then find themselves sold to sweatshops, brothels or domestic service to pay for their passage; others are kidnapped and smuggled against their will. In certain areas, notably Brazil and West Africa, laborers have been enticed into signing contracts and then taken to remote plantations and prevented from leaving. In parts of South Asia and North Africa, slavery is a millennia-old tradition that has never truly ended." ::"::"::"::"::"::":: ^^^ September 8, 2003      The Stench of Ground Zero [Richard] Excuse me for being a bit cynical, but I have to wonder how many people could really have believed that the air around Ground Zero was safe to breathe a week(?) after the World Trade Center was destroyed. The fumes and stench coming out of Ground Zero were obviously poisonous and toxic for several months. I walked within 10 blocks of Ground Zero on many occasions -- several times a week -- shortly after the towers were destroyed, because there was no avoiding it if I was coming into Manhattan from Staten Island. Very often, if I got a temp job downtown, I came within just a few blocks of Ground Zero (up to the points where the streets were closed off), but even if I didn't have to do that, I had to breathe that fetid air every time I got off the ferry (which is maybe half a mile south of Ground Zero), just to get to a subway. And sometimes, I could even smell the stench from my home in Staten Island, across 8.5 miles of water and another mile of land. I don't think anybody could have been fooled into thinking that the air there was safe to breathe. The air was positively disgusting. People often speculated over what could have made the stench so bad... Was it just the chemicals drifting from all the destroyed computer equipment, the ripped up asbestos, the numerous burnt metals...or was that also mixed in with the stench of thousands of charred and still- decomposing human body parts? (Some people said that the WTC victims were burnt too severely for their bodies to decompose in such a way as to contribute significantly to the foul smells. But there were so many reports of people digging up limbs, fingers, toes, that sort of thing...) Whatever caused the air to get so foul, the local politicians must have known in their gut that the federal government was lying when it reported that it was OK go back and work in that environment. The business leaders must have known it. The people working in the environment definitely knew it... On many occasions, for months after the attack, I saw people wearing scarves, handkerchiefs and bandannas over their faces or even gas masks. I often thought of bringing along one of my own two gas masks (which I had bought at bargain rates from activists after being gassed extensively during the anti-FTAA protests in Quebec City in April of 2001). I never did bring along a gas mask (self-consciousness, I guess), but I gradually learned, one day after the next, how to hold my breath for longer and longer periods of time. Unfortunately, health risks had to be ignored, and people had to live and work in denial (pretending to believe an obvious pack of lies). The reason for this was the same reason that the government lied to us (for a change, haha) in the first place: Because business had to go on. Wall Street had to be reopened. Business leaders had to continue making profits as much as they possibly could. The economy was starting to stink as badly as anything at Ground Zero, and lots of lots of people would lose their jobs anyway...but until they did, they would continue to (knowingly, for the most part) endanger their own health out of fear of losing those jobs. Once again, the health of the people meant nothing when there was money to be made. Now the stinking air of the old burnt towers is a hot political issue. Hillary Clinton is making a big stink out of it. Of course, Hillary Clinton wouldn't be making a stink out of it if she couldn't gain some political advantage... This is the same Hillary Clinton who spinelessly supported Bush's war. (And people were surprised -- what else did they expect? This politician is about as dependable and trustworthy as her husband -- you know the saying...about as far as you can spit (though of course Bush and his fascist cronies couldn't be trusted nearly that far).) There's an amusing article from the Los Angeles Times that I found at the liberal Web site Truthout about how Ground Zero has become a "political football". It's really no surprise and in a way it is something good -- because a lot of issues are coming out that people might have been very hush-hush about only a year ago. For instance, there's the issue of the likelihood that the Republicans will try to make good political use out of having their presidential convention so close to Ground Zero -- which is exactly why they scheduled the convention for NYC in the first place. Even mainstream Democrats are being pretty overt now about criticizing this obvious ploy. Of course, it serves their own political purposes, helping along the Democrats in a likely highly contested electoral contest between that moderate faction of the Capitalist Business Republicrat Party and the ultra-reactionary wing. But it's nice that the point is being made. And, hopefully, lots of people will join the protests against the Republican National Convention that are going to take off as well. (I'm certainly planning to participate in some capacity at this point.) It would be pretty nice if the Republicans actually regretted picking this politically expedient location for their next presidential convention (unlikely, but it's always nice to dream). And, of course, there are the political battles over what's going to be done with Ground Zero itself. There have been protests from families of the victims who say that they want the "footprints" of the towers to be saved as a memorial. They are also protesting plans to build shops and other commercial enterprises all over the site. I think I agree, especially, with the latter protesting complaint... It would be nice if Ground Zero could be used in a way that could really benefit people in the downtown community -- as housing, community centers, etc. -- something more constructive than what it was before. The temporary destruction of those neighborhoods around Ground Zero was pretty devastating to me... The bottom of Manhattan was my own favorite walking grounds, especially at night (which it has become again, to some extent). In a way, more than any place in Staten Island, I've felt as though this sort of has been my neighborhood (maybe I developed some unwanted Manhattan snobbery after living in Manhattan for over 12 years and living close enough to it all my life -- but I liked taking the ferry into this neighborhood as much as possible, notwithstanding this being the home of Wall Street and all that horrible capitalist stuff). And Tribeca was a neighborhood that I lived in for several years back in the late '80s and early '90s, during happier and more stable times. It was heart-wrenching when they finally opened up the southern part of Tribeca (where I'd once lived) and I saw how people were trying to recover their small shops and homes. My old neighborhood really had been demolished for a short time. But I can't say that I miss the World Trade Center much. The extent of destruction and death that occurred was unbelievably horrible. But we shouldn't let the horror of that atrocity blind us to the fact that the World Trade Center itself was pretty atrocious in architectural and cultural terms. I would bet that most people who ride into Manhattan on the ferry, especially at night, have thought to themselves at one time or another how much better the skyline looks now. People hated those ugly buildings ever since they first went up. I remember, as a child, hearing people say everywhere what a contrast this ugly monstrosity made compared to the beautiful skyscrapers of the past, like the Empire State Building or the Chrysler Building (though those buildings certainly housed plenty of evil businesses as well). And the interior of the Trade Center was as ugly as the exterior: Big, hideous malls that didn't even seem as though they were part of New York City. After the awful destruction that took place, it would be nice to start over and build something in that place that really could serve the community on every level, from being more aesthetically pleasing and less obviously imposing, to being more people-oriented, not reeking so much of corporate money and arrogance. But you can be sure that business interests and the politicians who serve them will fight as much as possible to build up something quite possibly as soullessly commercial as the buildings that existed there before. Though I can't say whether or how much they'll succeed in that endeavor, considering the emotionally charged interests elsewhere -- this political football game might actually start to get kind of interesting... ***[][]***[][]***[][]*** ^^^ September 6, 2003          Ecological Footprint [asfo_del] I took an online quiz that calculates your ecological footprint. This is a self-test that determines how much strain on the earth's resources is caused by the test-taker's particular lifestyle. The questions are fairly general so the result is not terribly accurate [there's a more detailed version available but it's only for Excel, alas...], but it does serve to give an overall idea of how hard you [I] may be on our poor old planet. I've read elsewhere that the average American consumes and pollutes so heavily that it would take 12 planet earths to sustain the global population if everyone did likewise. Other sources put the figure at about five planets. Regardless, it's still way too much. I myself don't consume an awful lot, but it's still too much. I don't have a car and rarely ride in one. I live in a teeny house. I buy as little as possible. According to the quiz, however, even my pretty restricted life style is excessive. It would take 1.4 planets to sustain us all if everyone lived like me. And that's not including the needs of other species! These were the results with my [reasonably...] truthful answers: "FOOD: 3.2 ACRES [i.e. my food consumption requires 3.2 acres to sustain it] MOBILITY: 0.2 ACRES SHELTER: 1.7 ACRES GOODS/SERVICES: 1.2 ACRES TOTAL FOOTPRINT: 6 ACRES IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON. WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON. IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.4 PLANETS." This result is hardly surprising considering it's about three a.m. right now and I have the light and the computer on. And I just finished eating some donuts which came to me fully baked [fried, actually; donuts are fried...], glazed, and packaged, who knows from how far away. The test does not measure these minutiae, however. As an experiment, I went back and changed some of my answers to see what the quiz designers consider the major factors that determine an eco-footprint. I was surprised to discover that living in a big house has a greater environmental impact than driving a car. When I said I drove 200-300 miles a week [instead of riding fewer than 10 miles a week, as I actually do], my footprint measurement went up to 15 acres, requiring 3.3 planets to support the likes of me. But if Mike and I lived in a 2000 square foot house [instead of our current 400 sq. ft. mansion], my eco-footprint would go up to 24 acres, requiring 5.3 planets, even if I never drove or rode in a car! As much as I struggle with the small stuff, like deciding if it's worth lugging home bags of wet laundry to hang up on the line or insisting on cloth instead of paper napkins and wondering if I should really spend the extra bucks to buy biodegradable or organic [I don't buy organic produce: it is so damned expensive!], I think it's useful to realize that it's the big stuff that makes the most difference. Unfortunately, the big stuff is also the hardest to change. How many people would actually move out of their house because it is too big to be ecologically sustainable? [And am I going to start purchasing almost all of my food from local sources?] --------------------------------- Ecological footprint quiz Another Ecological footprint quiz Background on ecological footprint <>-#-<>-#-<>-#-<>-#-<>-#-<> ^^^ September 3, 2003          Penny-Pinching Tips [asfo_del] Although I don't actually follow much of it, since it so often deals in the minutiae of running an aspiring-to-be-perfect household, which is a precept that I don't follow, I love penny-pinching advice. Some of it is fascinating because it's so ingenious, and then sometimes it creates a window into another person's world and her preoccupations: save the crumbs that remain in bread bags to use for stuffing; use newspapers to buff your car or wash windows; staple gum wrappers together to make a little note pad.... These are a few of my favorites from Frugal Living: Sometimes clothes can get by with a good airing out instead of being washed. This will save wear and tear on the clothes as well as water, detergent and electricity to wash them. Drinking water with meals instead of juices, tea or soda not only saves money spent on drinks, it can save on medical bills, too [because it's healthier]. Wear socks to bed! There's nothing more snuggly than having warm feet on a cold winter's night. Don't throw out an old coat or jacket, even when it's ragged. Use the good parts to make potholders or pads for hot pots (just hem), or cut insoles for shoes or boots. Cut plastic bagsinto strips and crochet, knit, weave, or needlepoint a door mat for wet days, or a tub or shower mat. -------------------------- Here are some of my own penny-pinching tips: Although all the local merchants know me as the lady who doesn't want a bag with her purchases, I end up with some bags anyway. I use small paper bags as potholders and regular plastic bags for garbage. I almost never use a clothes dryer. I just bag up the damp clothes straight out of the washer at the laundromat and take them home to line-dry. I rarely clean the house, so I spend very little on cleaning supplies. Although I do use paper towels pretty often, I use cloth napkins at the table, dish towels to dry the dishes, and a sponge to clean up spills. I save the twist-ties that come with bread and the rubber bands that come with broccoli and use them to re-close half-empty food packages. For instance, I re-wrap cheese in the same plastic it came in and fasten it with a rubber band, and I cinch partially used pasta bags closed with a twist-tie. I save sour-cream containers and soup containers from the Chinese restaurant [which I only go to very rarely] to use as Tupperware. I sew up holes in my underwear and socks. I cut my own hair. I don't use make-up, skin-care products or hair products. I wear clothes until they are worn out, sometimes keeping them for 15 years or longer. :::||:::||:::||:::||::: [Continue to August Archive]