A prominent Japanese politician remarked last week that Japan could easily make thousands of nuclear weapons, drawing on the vast plutonium reserves from its civil nuclear power program.
Liberal Party President Ichiro Ozawa made the remarks in a speech delivered in Fukuoka, and said that he had made similar comments to the visiting deputy chief of staff of the Liberation Army of China.
"If China gets too conceited, the Japanese will get hysterical," the provocatively-inclined Ozawa said. It could encourage conservatives more aggressively nationalistic than himself to pursue a nuclear weapons program to counter the Chinese threat.
He later insisted that he had merely intended to warn against excessive Chinese military buildup, and that he himself would view a nuclear arms race between the two Asian powers as "a tragedy for both countries."
Ozawa is a politician who captured the public imagination in the early 1990s, both in Japan and abroad, with his book "Blueprint for a New Japan," that rightly advocated an array of forward looking political and economic policies that a decade and a faltering reformist poster-boy prime minister later, Japan still badly needs to implement.
The incident, however, typifies a self-defeating tendency of some Japanese leaders, who speak menacingly about the consequences of perceived future threats, while leaving the historical fact of past unprovoked Japanese aggression largely silent. Such antics illustrate the surest way to fail in achieving a Japan divested of its former hindrances.
The Chinese People's Daily ran an unusually measured, strong criticism of Ozawa's bluster, dismissing the politician as out of touch with the anti-nuclear sentiment of his own country, a sentiment that translated into electoral-power makes points concerning weapons capability moot. China and Japan's other Asian neighbors, furthermore, could be counted on, diplomatically, to nip a weapons program in the bud.
The merest hint of any possible revival of Japanese militarism plays very poorly from Seoul to Kuala Lumpur, among all the countries Japan depends on for a wealth of trade and human capital. These countries still smolder with indignation over past Japanese aggressions and the continuing Japanese refusal to thoroughly acknowledge those crimes.
Tellingly, the People's Daily article on Ozawa ran beside another article detailing a recent contribution of forty-one photos to the Memorial Hall of the Victims of the Nanjing Massacre, otherwise known as the Rape of Nanjing, and startlingly not known at all among some segments of the Japanese youth, kept ignorant by leaders who turn history textbooks into exercises in revisionism.
The newly donated photos, like the exhibit on the Nanjing Massacre that opened last December at San Francisco's St Mary's Cathedral and then toured other U.S. cities, document exactly what politicians like Ozawa should want the young Japanese to acknowledge and vow clearly never to repeat.
Blueprints bypassing any trace of this past cannot lead to a new Japan, or at least not to the strong and internationally involved Japan that Ozawa, myself, and many others would like.
For the moment, though, we had better not wait for the old guard of the Japanese political elite to have a change of heart. Their shortcomings will likely pass when they themselves pass from power.
Ozawa's comments, however, highlight a more pressing problem: Japan's huge plutonium stockpile. If the political life of the revisionist right in Japan seems long, consider the 24,000-year half-life of plutonium.
Japan's first encounter with this extremely toxic element came in the horrific bombing of Nagasaki on Aug 9, 1945. Unlike the uranium bomb that had been dropped on Hiroshima three days earlier, the Nagasaki bomb was made with plutonium. The 6.2 kilograms used in that bomb, however, pale in comparison to the 30,000-plus kilograms that Japan has accumulated through its plutonium-based civil power production program.
This plutonium could, as Ozawa noted, be used for nuclear weapons. It poses a huge threat to nuclear proliferation, as only a small quantity is necessary to produce a bomb. It is an easy target for terrorist groups, who covet it, stolen or purchased on the black market.
Certainly bureaucratic inertia, more than any sinister or secretive design, keeps the uneconomical and dangerous plutonium program alive, if but barely. Nonetheless, it compromises Japan's status as a key nation in the nonproliferation regime at a crucial moment.
Ozawa and others rightly recognize a Chinese nuclear buildup as undesirable, but the problem demands more than knee-jerk reactionism. Suspicions over the plutonium program already run high, and politicians here are mistaken to think that wielding such suspicions as a deterrent will work.
A better approach is suggested by the former director of the Nuclear Energy Division of the Foreign Ministry, Kumao Kaneko, who has been a leading spokesperson for the move to create a EURATOM equivalent in Asia.
This ASIATOM would likewise function to allay anxieties in the region over the proliferation concerns of the member nations' nuclear materials and facilities involved in civic programs, including of course Japan's. It would aim to include operable inspection and verification machinery to pave the way for the confidence necessary to establish a nuclear-free zone in the area.
Constructive Japanese moves in this direction, coupled with thorough apologies for its destructive past, would assuage Asian anxiety, and substantially elevate Japan's diplomatic voice.
Such a voice, if only leaders braver than Ozawa can assume it, will have the strength to challenge the silence, and offer instead the good sense to support an international system that seeks to prevent another Nanjing or Hiroshima from occurring.
The writer is a Fulbright Fellow at the Institute for Peace Science in Hiroshima.
Last month, the Los Angeles Times published an article about a classified document, the Nuclear Posture Review, leaked from the US Department of Defense. The article states that the US is considering a change to its nuclear policies. The change would involve turning large strategic nuclear weapons, which have been obsolete since the end of the Cold War, into smaller tactical nuclear weapons that could be used in the post-Cold War world.
These weapons would be used to attack military command centers, or caves and underground complexes where biological or chemical weapons are stored. The document also clearly states that these nuclear weapons could be used against seven possible nations. Apart from the countries in the "axis of evil" -- North Korea, Iran and Iraq -- they might also be used against China, Russia, Syria and Libya.
The document further identifies three hot spots where war is thought most likely to break out: the Korean Peninsula, following a North Korean invasion of the South; the Middle East, following an Iraqi attack on Israel or other neighbors; and the Taiwan Strait.
The document created a stir from the moment it became public. Liberal US media such as The New York Times clearly stated their strong disagreement with the position the review adopts, which was not surprising. Taiwan has officially chosen to refrain from commenting on the matter.
Tang also said that he did not want to comment on the report that the US may use nuclear weapons to intervene in a cross-strait conflict since the report came from US media and not through official channels.
Unfortunately, his statements mean that Taiwan opposes the Washington's use of limited tactical nuclear weapons to protect Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion.
It is said that this is not the thinking of President Chen Shui-bian (ôó) and his government and that the National Security Council was surprised by Tang's statements. The council reportedly has criticized him indirectly. There are also rumors that the defense ministry will announce a change in its position.
Some American friends of mine have great problems understanding this issue. If China attacks, Taiwan will surely find itself in grave danger. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the US is obliged to come to our aid militarily. The US has regional tactical nuclear weapons that cannot be used to resist the force of the conventional Chinese army, but instead has to engage in a time-consuming and exhausting conventional war in the Taiwan Strait.
If Washington were to play by these rules, it would be demonstrating that the US government had gone mad. Even if Taiwan's forces had been annihilated by China's, we still wouldn't want the Americans to use these tactical nuclear weapons, but would instead want them to come up with some brilliant military maneuver to defeat the invading People's Liberation Aarmy.
Do we want the Americans to suffer the same kind of heavy losses that they suffered in the Vietnam War? If so, then why should the Americans send soldiers to protect us? We want them to save us, but then we also want them to fight a war that is none of their business with their hands tied. Aren't we asking too much?
These questions from my American friends are all good ones, and I don't know how to answer them.
This, of course, is absolutely not what Tang meant. What he was describing was Taiwan's past nuclear-arms policy.
During the Cold War, the US didn't talk about using tactical nuclear weapons in the Taiwan Strait; what they talked about then was nuclear war that would bring total destruction. Under such circumstances, the defense ministry's "five no's" policy was correct.
Times have changed, however, and both the cross-strait and the global strategic situation are completely different. It is inappropriate for the defense minister to make a statement based on an old policy in response to a new strategic situation.
What's more, as my American friends point out, the leadership in Beijing has always bullied the weak and feared the strong. The unequivocal statements in the Nuclear Posture Review that the US may use tactical nuclear weapons in the Taiwan Strait are meant to warn China unequivocally that the US is deadly serious and that it will not shrink from using maximum power in a cross-strait war. China should harbor no illusions about US' willingness to stand up to it, as it did in the Korean War.
Xu Shiquan (\¥@à), director of the Institute for Taiwan
Xu should stop living old dreams. If there were a war in the Taiwan Strait, the US would use the most advanced regional tactical nuclear weapons. Would China still dare go to war then? My American friends believe they wouldn't and I agree with that view.
A few days ago, the leader of Japan's Liberal Party, Ichiro Ozawa, said that the military threat posed by China is constantly increasing, but that Japan is capable of producing 1,000 nuclear warheads on short notice and has the ability to become a major military power.
Strategic experts in Taiwan also believe that, given the threat from China, it is necessary for Taiwan to develop nuclear arms.
From an idealistic perspec-tive, of course, I oppose war in general and nuclear war in particular. From a realistic perspective, however, if the US developed more advanced nuclear weapons that could be restricted to a theater of war, and if China were to invade Taiwan, I would find it difficult to say no to nuclear arms.
I believe that if the US unequivocally adopts the strategy outlined in the Nuclear Posture Review, the possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan will diminish.
Chiou Chwei-liang is a visiting professor at Tamkang University.
A conservative Japanese political leader has warned Beijing that Japan can arm itself with nuclear weapons overnight if China goes ahead with an excessive military build-up, press reports said on Sunday.
The warning from opposition Liberal Party chief Ichiro Ozawa is likely to provoke sharp reaction from China and the rest of Asia, sensitive to any signs of Japan's military revival.
In a lecture in the provincial city of Fukuoka on Saturday, Ozawa said he had referred to the nuclear option during a recent meeting with an official from the intelligence division of the Chinese Community Party, the reports said.
"China is undergoing an expansion of its military power in a bid to join the ranks of the superpowers," said Ozawa, a renowned advocate of a strong armed forces. "It is trying to become a military power following in the steps of the United States."
Ozawa, 59, a former secretary general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, said he had told the unidentified Chinese visitor: "If you get too inflated, Japanese people will get hysterical."
"It would be easy for us to produce nuclear warheads. We can produce thousands of nuclear warheads overnight. We may have enough plutonium at nuclear power plants for 3,000 or 4,000 rounds."
He added: "I told that person that if we rise to the occasion, we will never be beaten even in terms of military power."
Ozawa, however, emphasised that what he really wanted was a fully democratic China and a society in which "China and Japan can co- exist".
He said the introduction of democracy to China was essential to world peace.
"Any break down of order in China will be no match for that in Afghanistan or Yugoslavia. It will lead to significant global turmoil," he said.
"His position, in which he has tried to hold China in check by bringing up the possibility of nuclear armament, is likely to cause ripples at home and abroad," the conservative daily Sankei Shimbun said.
The influential daily Asahi Shimbun said it anticipated a "backlash from the Chinese government and others".
Japanese Liberal Party President Ichiro Ozawa claimed that Japan could make a large number of nuclear weapons "overnight" to curb China's "excessive expansion".
Japanese media said that Ichiro Ozawa's remarks would evoke a strong response from China and other Asian countries against any moves of Japanese militarism.
According to reports, Ichiro Ozawa Saturday said: "it is easy to make nuclear warheads for Japan, our nuclear power plants have enough plutonium which is enough to make 3000 to 4000 nuclear warheads, Japan can produce thousands of nuclear warheads overnight".
Nuclear weapons are the most sensitive issue in Japan, Japanese people are strongly against it. Since the nuclear accident in Ibaraki Prefecture in 1999, the most serious nuclear leakage accident, Japanese citizens have lost confidence about nuclear industry, they asked governments to reduce or stop nuclear power plant construction.
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said lately with visiting Chinese top legislator Li Peng that Chinese development is not only conducive to Japan, but also other countries. He does not agree with the view that "China's rapid development would pose threat to Japan".
WASHINGTON, DC--According to a Department of Health and Human Services report released Monday, McDonald's meat from antibiotics-injected livestock is now the primary source of antibiotics for U.S. children, particularly for uninsured youths from low-income households.
"Unfortunately, some children still fall through the cracks in our health-care system, but luckily, McDonald's is there to lend a helping hand," Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson said at a press conference announcing the findings. "So even if a child's family has no health insurance and can't afford medicine, virtually anyone can afford a delicious 99-cent Big Mac with pickles, cheese, and a heapin' helpin' of [the antibiotic] quinupristin- dalfopristin."
In HHS tests, 82 percent of children who had not been properly inoculated were still found to have significant levels of antibiotics in their bloodstreams. The antibiotics, the tests concluded, were the result of sustained intake of McDonald's meat.
"Disadvantaged children tend to eat at McDonald's a lot, which is a good thing," Thompson said. "If you think about it, where else are these kids going to get their fluoroquinolone?"
Large-scale meat producers, Thompson noted, routinely add antibiotics to the feed of healthy animals to prevent cross-infection in the crowded, cramped quarters where livestock are typically raised. In the U.S., the average beef steer receives eight times more antibiotics than its human counterpart.
"When your daughter gets strep throat, head straight over to McDonald's and prescribe her a delicious Quarter Pounder or nine-piece Chicken McNuggets," Thompson said. "She'll not only receive the amoxycillin she needs to get better, but also a whole array of growth hormones proven to speed a child's physical development."
"And if your child prefers Burger King or Wendy's," he continued, "that's fine, too. Any of the big fast-food chains can get them healthy."
While all Americans benefit from the 25 million pounds of antibiotics fed to chickens, pigs, and cows each year, children stand to gain the most, U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) said.
Above: A young cow is injected with penicillin at a farm that supplies Burger King.
"Children weigh less than adults, so when they eat a hamburger, they get a proportionally more potent dose of antibiotics," said Lugar, who is among the Senate's strongest proponents of fast-food-based health care. "These antibiotics are vital in the treatment of such common childhood ailments as sore throat, ear infection, and hoof rot."
According to Lugar, waiting in a crowded doctor's office may soon be a thing of the past.
"Every day, food scientists are discovering new antibiotics, growth hormones, and other chemically engineered substances to inject into the nation's beef supply," Lugar said. "And with Americans working longer and longer hours just to make ends meet, people can't afford to waste time sitting around some waiting room until their name is called. Unlike a doctor, our fast-food providers can deliver a full spectrum of antibiotics in minutes--hot, fresh, and with a smile."
In conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services, Burger King will soon release a brochure, "Happy And Healthy The Burger King Way," which outlines a 14-day plan for the treatment of bacterial infections.
In the leaflet, a cartoon cow in a medical coat reminds parents to give their infected children two daily doses of antibiotic-treated meat for 14 days. If the condition does not improve after 10 days, the parent or guardian of the ailing child is instructed to contact a store manager.
"If your child has a sinus infection, he or she can drop by before and after school for a Double Cheeseburger 50cc Meal or a delicious Chicken Tetracycline," Burger King spokeswoman Linda Jacobs said. "As we're fond of saying here at Burger King, 'This won't hurt a bite!'"
Though representatives say they're pleased with the praise it has received, the fast-food industry does not intend to rest on its laurels.
"Repeated use of antibiotics will result in increased resistance to antibiotics in new strains of bacteria," said Carl Pickney, lab researcher for TriCon Global, the fast-food conglomerate that owns KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut. "That's why we need to encourage our meat suppliers to continually raise the levels of antibiotics in their meat, developing newer, stronger antibiotics to replace those that no longer work. We're making good progress, but we've still got a whole lot of meat to modify."
On 3 October 1992, the Irish rock singer Sinead O'Connor was the musical guest on Saturday Night Live. For her first song, Sinead performed the title track from her most recent album, Am I Not Your Girl? with a full backing band. For her second, she went with "War," a song by Bob Marley that had once been banned for its apparent advocacy of violence. In a very risky move, musically speaking, Sinead performed the song a capella. Dressed all in white, surrounded by candles and (as usual) shaven-headed, she was a riveting sight. With NBC-TV's cameras focused in-tight on her, Sinead ended her "War" by crying for another one to begin. "Fight the real enemy!" she called, and, out of nowhere, produced a copy of a photograph of Pope John Paul II, which she ripped into pieces. There was stunned silence, and then the station went to a commercial.
NBC-TV was inundated by complaints (supposedly 4,484 in all) called in by outraged viewers. The producers of Saturday Night Live said that they didn't think Sinead would be invited back to perform on the show. In the meantime, Sinead herself said nothing about what she'd done or why she'd done it. (Simply changing one of Marley's lines so that it referred to "sexual abuse" instead of "racial injustice," as Sinead had done in mid-song, hadn't been sufficient explanation and so the press was filled with lurid denunciations of her.) When she returned to the United States on 16 October 1992 to perform at a birthday concert for Bob Dylan at Madison Square Garden in New York, Sinead was greeted by a weird mixture of cheers and boos. Despite the severely divided response to her presence, she once again sang an a cappella version of "War." Once she was done, she staggered offstage, where she was comforted by Kris Kristofferson. Shortly thereafter, Sinead O'Connor permanently retired from the "pop" entertainment industry.
Eventually, Sinead O'Connor made her peace with the Pope. On 22 September 1997, in an interview with the Italian weekly newspaper Vita, she asked the Holy Father to forgive her. She claimed that her attack on the photo had been "a ridiculous act, the gesture of a girl rebel," which she did "because I was in rebellion against the faith, but I was still within the faith." Quoting St. Augustine, she went on to add, "Anger is the first step towards courage." Another courageous step Sinead took in the late 1990s was to join the congregation of the controversial Irish Bishop Michael Cox, who eventually ordained Sinead as a priest. Lacking a sense of humor, the Vatican has refused to recognize Sinead's membership in the priesthood, which the Pope considers "bizarre." This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but the Pope is right: Sinead's story is a bizarre one.
And NBC? In the informative and relatively even-handed biography of the singer that airs on VH1 as part of the cable TV station's on-going "Behind the Music" series, it's said that, "even to this day," NBC refuses to allow the photo-ripping scene to be re-broadcast by anyone. VH1 itself had to settle with a blurry shot of Sinead in mid-rip that was published by one of New York's tabloid newspapers. You can catch a glimpse, but you can't actually see what Sinead did that night in 1992: you can only hear about it, thanks to the Vatican's clout and NBC's cowardice.
This would seem a good point to talk about censorship. But it isn't -- not yet.
The Comedy Channel shows back episodes of Saturday Night Live several times a day. In early August 2001, I happened to see the episode in which Sinead O'Connor is the musical guest. Everything goes as it should -- dressed all in white, Sinead performs "War" a capella as her second number -- until the end of the song. There is no war cry, no identification of "the real enemy." Sinead doesn't hold up a picture of the Pope, but a picture of a cute little black boy, instead. And then the song is over, and Sinead stands, smiling, holding the picture behind her back, as the crowd applauds and cheers.
It took a while for it to sink in that NBC hadn't simply blacked out or removed the photo-ripping scene. Instead, NBC had gone beyond mere censorship and either had replaced the Pope-ripping sequence with another one (the song as it was performed in rehearsal?) or had digitally altered the broadcast so that there was apparently nothing in "the original" to black out or remove in the first place. Why would anyone want to block or cut out Sinead's impassioned plea for the children? In times of war, don't we tend to forget about the children, especially the cute little black ones? Nice bullshit, but it wasn't Sinead's.
Like the authors of textbooks on Soviet history, who had to keep changing the past so that it would conform with Stalin's latest purges, NBC has created its own Sinead O'Connor and is now passing her off as the original.
The traditional goal of aesthetics is to make one feel, in privation and absence, certain past elements of life that through the mediation of art would escape the confusion of appearances, since appearance is what suffers from the reign of time. The degree of aesthetic success is measured by a beauty inseparable from duration, and tending even to lay claim to eternity. The Situationist goal is immediate participation in a passionate abundance of life, through the variation of fleeting moments resolutely arranged. The success of these moments can only be their passing effect. Situationists consider cultural activity, from the standpoint of totality, as an experimental method for constructing daily life, which can be permanently developed with the extension of leisure and the disappearance of the division of labor (beginning with the division of artistic labor).
2
Art can cease to be a report on sensations and become a direct organization of higher sensations. It is a matter of producing ourselves, and not things that enslave us.
3
Mascolo is right in saying ("Le Communisme") that the reduction of the working day by the regime of the dictatorship of the proletariat is "the most certain assurance that it can give of its revolutionary authenticity." Indeed, "if man is a commodity, if he is treated as a thing, if the general relations of men among themselves are the relations of thing to thing, it is because it is possible to buy his time from him." Mascolo, however, is too quick to conclude that "the time of a man freely employed" is always well spent, and that "the purchase of time is the sole evil." There is no freedom in the employment of time without the possession of modern instruments for the construction of daily life. The use of such instruments will mark the leap of a utopian revolutionary art to an experimental revolutionary art.
4
An international association of Situationists can be seen as a union of workers in an advanced sector of culture, or more precisely as a union of all those who claim the right to a task now impeded by social conditions; hence as an attempt at an organization of professional revolutionaries in culture.
5
We are separated in practice from true control over the material powers accumulated by our time. The Communist revolution has not occurred, and we still live within the framework of the decomposition of old cultural superstructures. Henri Lefebvre correctly sees that this contradiction is at the heart of a specifically modern discordance between the progressive individual and the world, and calls the cultural tendency based on this discordance revolutionary-romantic. The defect in LefebvreÕs conception lies in making the simple expression of discordance a sufficient criterion for revolutionary action within the culture. Lefebvre renounces beforehand all experiments toward profound cultural change while remaining satisfied with a content: awareness of the (still too remote) impossible-possible, which can be expressed no matter what form it takes within the framework of decomposition.
6
Those who want to overcome the old established order in all its aspects cannot attach themselves to the disorder of the present, even in the sphere of culture. One must struggle and not go on waiting, in culture as well, for the moving order of the future to make a concrete appearance. It is its possibility, already present in our midst, that devalues all expression in known cultural forms. One must lead all forms of pseudocommunication to their utter destruction, to arrive one day at real and direct communication (in our working hypothesis of higher cultural means: the constructed situation). Victory will be for those who will be able to create disorder without loving it.
7
In the world of cultural decomposition we can test our strength but not employ it. The practical task of overcoming our discordance with the world, i.e., of surmounting the decomposition by some higher constructions, is not romantic. We will be "revolutionary romantics," in LefebvreÕs sense, precisely to the degree of our failure.
We've all been there but don't like to admit it. We've all kicked back in our cubicles and suddenly felt something brew down below. As much as we try to convince ourselves otherwise, the WORK POOP is inevitable. For those who hate pooping at work, following is the 2001 Survival Guide for taking a dump at work. Memorize these definitions and pooping at work will become a pure pleasure.
ESCAPEE. Definition: a fart that slips out while taking a leak at the urinal or forcing a poop in a stall. This is usually accompanied by a sudden wave of panic embarrassment. This is similar to the hot flash you receive when passing an unseen police car and speeding. If you release an escapee, do not acknowledge it. Pretend it did not happen. If you are standing next to the farter in the urinal, pretend you did not hear it. No one likes an escapee, it is uncomfortable for all involved. Making a joke or laughing makes both parties feel uneasy.
JAILBREAK (Used in conjunction with ESCAPEE). Definition: When forcing poop, several farts slip out at a machine gun pace. This is usually a side effect of diarrhea or a hangover. If this should happen, do not panic. Remain in the stall until everyone has left the bathroom so to spare everyone the awkwardness of what just occurred.
COURTESY FLUSH. Definition: The act of flushing the toilet the instant the nose cone of the poop log hits the water and the poop is whisked away to an undisclosed location. This reduces the amount of air time the poop has to stink up the bathroom. This can help you avoid being caught doing the WALK OF SHAME.
WALK OF SHAME. Definition: Walking from the stall, to the sink, to the door after you have just stunk up the bathroom. This can be a very uncomfortable moment if someone walks in and busts you. As with all farts, it is best to pretend that the smell does not exist. Can be avoided with the use of the COURTESY FLUSH.
OUT OF THE CLOSET POOPER. Definition: A colleague who poops at work and damn proud of it. You will often see an Out Of The Closet Pooper enter the bathroom with a newspaper or magazine under their arm. Always look around the office for the Out Of The Closet Pooper before entering the bathroom.
THE POOPING FRIENDS NETWORK (PFN). Definition: A group of coworkers who band together to ensure emergency pooping goes off without incident. This group can help you to monitor the whereabouts of Out Of The Closet Poopers, and identify SAFE HAVENS.
SAFE HAVENS. Definition: A seldom used bathroom somewhere in the building where you can least expect visitors. Try floors that are predominantly of the opposite sex. This will reduce the odds of a pooper of your sex entering the bathroom.
TURD BURGLAR: Definition: A pooper who does not realize that you are in the stall and tries to force the door open. This is one of the most shocking and vulnerable moments that can occur when taking a dump at work. If this occurs, remain in the stall until the Turd Burglar leaves. This way you will avoid all uncomfortable eye contact.
CAMO-COUGH. Definition: A phony cough that alerts all new entrants into the bathroom that you are in a stall. This can be used to cover-up a WATERMELON, or to alert potential Turd Burglars. Very effective when used in conjunction with an ASTAIRE.
ASTAIRE. Definition: A subtle toe-tap that is used to alert potential Turd Burglars that you are occupying a stall. This will remove all doubt that the stall is occupied. If you hear an Astaire, leave the bathroom immediately so the pooper can poop in peace.
WATERMELON. Definition: A turd that creates a loud splash when hitting the toilet water. This is also an embarrassing incident. If you feel a Watermelon coming on, create a diversion. See CAMO-COUGH.
HAVANA OMELET. Definition: A load of diarrhea that creates a series of loud splashes in the toilet water. Often accompanied by an Escapee. Try using a Camo-Cough with an Astaire.
UNCLE TED. Definition: A bathroom user who seems to linger around forever. Could spend extended lengths of time in front of the mirror or sitting on the pot. An Uncle Ted makes it difficult to relax while on the crapper, as you should always wait to drop your load when the bathroom is empty. This benefits you as well as the other bathroom attendees.
FLY BY. Definition: The act of scouting out a bathroom before pooping. Walk in and check for other poopers. If there are others in the bathroom, leave and come back again. Be careful not to become a FREQUENT FLYER. People may become suspicious if they catch you constantly going into the bathroom.
The school system functions well for what it was designed for.
The school system you must remember is a product of our society. A society where there are the rulers(rich capitalists and high government officials recruited from this rich class) and the ruled(us). The purpose of the school system is to pump out obedient and submissive drones that are unquestioning. There will be more unschooling(this distinction will not even be necessary then) if there ever comes the day when we are not ruled and exploited.
The school system functions well for what it was designed for.
The school system you must remember is a product of our society. A society where there are the rulers(rich capitalists and high government officials recruited from this rich class) and the ruled(us). The purpose of the school system is to pump out obedient and submissive drones that are unquestioning. There will be more unschooling(this distinction will not even be necessary then) when finally there comes the day when we are not ruled and exploited.
It is because under the neoliberalist system parents are working alot and when they are finally off of work they cannot put up enough of a fight to tell their kids, "NO!".
Slashdot Mirror
Saturday, April 20, 2002
7 5
Japan's plutonium stockpile alarming
Andrew Monahan
A prominent Japanese politician remarked last week that Japan could easily make thousands of nuclear weapons, drawing on the vast plutonium reserves from its civil nuclear power program.
Liberal Party President Ichiro Ozawa made the remarks in a speech delivered in Fukuoka, and said that he had made similar comments to the visiting deputy chief of staff of the Liberation Army of China.
"If China gets too conceited, the Japanese will get hysterical," the provocatively-inclined Ozawa said. It could encourage conservatives more aggressively nationalistic than himself to pursue a nuclear weapons program to counter the Chinese threat.
He later insisted that he had merely intended to warn against excessive Chinese military buildup, and that he himself would view a nuclear arms race between the two Asian powers as "a tragedy for both countries."
Ozawa is a politician who captured the public imagination in the early 1990s, both in Japan and abroad, with his book "Blueprint for a New Japan," that rightly advocated an array of forward looking political and economic policies that a decade and a faltering reformist poster-boy prime minister later, Japan still badly needs to implement.
The incident, however, typifies a self-defeating tendency of some Japanese leaders, who speak menacingly about the consequences of perceived future threats, while leaving the historical fact of past unprovoked Japanese aggression largely silent. Such antics illustrate the surest way to fail in achieving a Japan divested of its former hindrances.
The Chinese People's Daily ran an unusually measured, strong criticism of Ozawa's bluster, dismissing the politician as out of touch with the anti-nuclear sentiment of his own country, a sentiment that translated into electoral-power makes points concerning weapons capability moot. China and Japan's other Asian neighbors, furthermore, could be counted on, diplomatically, to nip a weapons program in the bud.
The merest hint of any possible revival of Japanese militarism plays very poorly from Seoul to Kuala Lumpur, among all the countries Japan depends on for a wealth of trade and human capital. These countries still smolder with indignation over past Japanese aggressions and the continuing Japanese refusal to thoroughly acknowledge those crimes.
Tellingly, the People's Daily article on Ozawa ran beside another article detailing a recent contribution of forty-one photos to the Memorial Hall of the Victims of the Nanjing Massacre, otherwise known as the Rape of Nanjing, and startlingly not known at all among some segments of the Japanese youth, kept ignorant by leaders who turn history textbooks into exercises in revisionism.
The newly donated photos, like the exhibit on the Nanjing Massacre that opened last December at San Francisco's St Mary's Cathedral and then toured other U.S. cities, document exactly what politicians like Ozawa should want the young Japanese to acknowledge and vow clearly never to repeat.
Blueprints bypassing any trace of this past cannot lead to a new Japan, or at least not to the strong and internationally involved Japan that Ozawa, myself, and many others would like.
For the moment, though, we had better not wait for the old guard of the Japanese political elite to have a change of heart. Their shortcomings will likely pass when they themselves pass from power.
Ozawa's comments, however, highlight a more pressing problem: Japan's huge plutonium stockpile. If the political life of the revisionist right in Japan seems long, consider the 24,000-year half-life of plutonium.
Japan's first encounter with this extremely toxic element came in the horrific bombing of Nagasaki on Aug 9, 1945. Unlike the uranium bomb that had been dropped on Hiroshima three days earlier, the Nagasaki bomb was made with plutonium. The 6.2 kilograms used in that bomb, however, pale in comparison to the 30,000-plus kilograms that Japan has accumulated through its plutonium-based civil power production program.
This plutonium could, as Ozawa noted, be used for nuclear weapons. It poses a huge threat to nuclear proliferation, as only a small quantity is necessary to produce a bomb. It is an easy target for terrorist groups, who covet it, stolen or purchased on the black market.
Certainly bureaucratic inertia, more than any sinister or secretive design, keeps the uneconomical and dangerous plutonium program alive, if but barely. Nonetheless, it compromises Japan's status as a key nation in the nonproliferation regime at a crucial moment.
Ozawa and others rightly recognize a Chinese nuclear buildup as undesirable, but the problem demands more than knee-jerk reactionism. Suspicions over the plutonium program already run high, and politicians here are mistaken to think that wielding such suspicions as a deterrent will work.
A better approach is suggested by the former director of the Nuclear Energy Division of the Foreign Ministry, Kumao Kaneko, who has been a leading spokesperson for the move to create a EURATOM equivalent in Asia.
This ASIATOM would likewise function to allay anxieties in the region over the proliferation concerns of the member nations' nuclear materials and facilities involved in civic programs, including of course Japan's. It would aim to include operable inspection and verification machinery to pave the way for the confidence necessary to establish a nuclear-free zone in the area.
Constructive Japanese moves in this direction, coupled with thorough apologies for its destructive past, would assuage Asian anxiety, and substantially elevate Japan's diplomatic voice.
Such a voice, if only leaders braver than Ozawa can assume it, will have the strength to challenge the silence, and offer instead the good sense to support an international system that seeks to prevent another Nanjing or Hiroshima from occurring.
The writer is a Fulbright Fellow at the Institute for Peace Science in Hiroshima.
April 17, 2002
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=comment&id=1
Tactical nukes would hinder China
By Chiou Chwei-liang ôG
Last month, the Los Angeles Times published an article about a classified document, the Nuclear Posture Review, leaked from the US Department of Defense. The article states that the US is considering a change to its nuclear policies. The change would involve turning large strategic nuclear weapons, which have been obsolete since the end of the Cold War, into smaller tactical nuclear weapons that could be used in the post-Cold War world.
These weapons would be used to attack military command centers, or caves and underground complexes where biological or chemical weapons are stored. The document also clearly states that these nuclear weapons could be used against seven possible nations. Apart from the countries in the "axis of evil" -- North Korea, Iran and Iraq -- they might also be used against China, Russia, Syria and Libya.
The document further identifies three hot spots where war is thought most likely to break out: the Korean Peninsula, following a North Korean invasion of the South; the Middle East, following an Iraqi attack on Israel or other neighbors; and the Taiwan Strait.
The document created a stir from the moment it became public. Liberal US media such as The New York Times clearly stated their strong disagreement with the position the review adopts, which was not surprising. Taiwan has officially chosen to refrain from commenting on the matter.
Surprisingly, however, Minis-ter of National Defense Tang Yao-ming (öÂ`©ú), during a recent interpellation in the legislature, said that Taiwan continues to maintain its "five nos" policy: no to developing, producing, obtaining, storing or using nuclear weapons. He emphasized that a Taiwan Strait free of nuclear arms is Taipei's objective. The Taiwan Strait issue must be solved by peaceful means and the ministry does not wish it to turn into a conflict involving nuclear arms.
Tang also said that he did not want to comment on the report that the US may use nuclear weapons to intervene in a cross-strait conflict since the report came from US media and not through official channels.
Unfortunately, his statements mean that Taiwan opposes the Washington's use of limited tactical nuclear weapons to protect Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion.
It is said that this is not the thinking of President Chen Shui-bian (ôó) and his government and that the National Security Council was surprised by Tang's statements. The council reportedly has criticized him indirectly. There are also rumors that the defense ministry will announce a change in its position.
Some American friends of mine have great problems understanding this issue. If China attacks, Taiwan will surely find itself in grave danger. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the US is obliged to come to our aid militarily. The US has regional tactical nuclear weapons that cannot be used to resist the force of the conventional Chinese army, but instead has to engage in a time-consuming and exhausting conventional war in the Taiwan Strait.
If Washington were to play by these rules, it would be demonstrating that the US government had gone mad. Even if Taiwan's forces had been annihilated by China's, we still wouldn't want the Americans to use these tactical nuclear weapons, but would instead want them to come up with some brilliant military maneuver to defeat the invading People's Liberation Aarmy.
Do we want the Americans to suffer the same kind of heavy losses that they suffered in the Vietnam War? If so, then why should the Americans send soldiers to protect us? We want them to save us, but then we also want them to fight a war that is none of their business with their hands tied. Aren't we asking too much?
These questions from my American friends are all good ones, and I don't know how to answer them.
This, of course, is absolutely not what Tang meant. What he was describing was Taiwan's past nuclear-arms policy.
During the Cold War, the US didn't talk about using tactical nuclear weapons in the Taiwan Strait; what they talked about then was nuclear war that would bring total destruction. Under such circumstances, the defense ministry's "five no's" policy was correct.
Times have changed, however, and both the cross-strait and the global strategic situation are completely different. It is inappropriate for the defense minister to make a statement based on an old policy in response to a new strategic situation.
What's more, as my American friends point out, the leadership in Beijing has always bullied the weak and feared the strong. The unequivocal statements in the Nuclear Posture Review that the US may use tactical nuclear weapons in the Taiwan Strait are meant to warn China unequivocally that the US is deadly serious and that it will not shrink from using maximum power in a cross-strait war. China should harbor no illusions about US' willingness to stand up to it, as it did in the Korean War.
Xu Shiquan (\¥@à), director of the Institute for Taiwan
Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (êÀ|ì¾Ç|¥xÆWãs©Ò), recently made a preposterous statement to the effect that a recent series of actions considered anti-Chinese by Bei-jing amounted to serious interference in China's domestic affairs. He added that the US should not forget that China once went to war with the US on the Korean peninsula for similar reasons.
Xu should stop living old dreams. If there were a war in the Taiwan Strait, the US would use the most advanced regional tactical nuclear weapons. Would China still dare go to war then? My American friends believe they wouldn't and I agree with that view.
A few days ago, the leader of Japan's Liberal Party, Ichiro Ozawa, said that the military threat posed by China is constantly increasing, but that Japan is capable of producing 1,000 nuclear warheads on short notice and has the ability to become a major military power.
Strategic experts in Taiwan also believe that, given the threat from China, it is necessary for Taiwan to develop nuclear arms.
From an idealistic perspec-tive, of course, I oppose war in general and nuclear war in particular. From a realistic perspective, however, if the US developed more advanced nuclear weapons that could be restricted to a theater of war, and if China were to invade Taiwan, I would find it difficult to say no to nuclear arms.
I believe that if the US unequivocally adopts the strategy outlined in the Nuclear Posture Review, the possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan will diminish.
Chiou Chwei-liang is a visiting professor at Tamkang University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
They fucking hate me because I am not clueless.
Japanese politician warns China of Tokyo's nuclear option
A conservative Japanese political leader has warned Beijing that Japan can arm itself with nuclear weapons overnight if China goes ahead with an excessive military build-up, press reports said on Sunday.
The warning from opposition Liberal Party chief Ichiro Ozawa is likely to provoke sharp reaction from China and the rest of Asia, sensitive to any signs of Japan's military revival.
In a lecture in the provincial city of Fukuoka on Saturday, Ozawa said he had referred to the nuclear option during a recent meeting with an official from the intelligence division of the Chinese Community Party, the reports said.
"China is undergoing an expansion of its military power in a bid to join the ranks of the superpowers," said Ozawa, a renowned advocate of a strong armed forces. "It is trying to become a military power following in the steps of the United States."
Ozawa, 59, a former secretary general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, said he had told the unidentified Chinese visitor: "If you get too inflated, Japanese people will get hysterical."
"It would be easy for us to produce nuclear warheads. We can produce thousands of nuclear warheads overnight. We may have enough plutonium at nuclear power plants for 3,000 or 4,000 rounds."
He added: "I told that person that if we rise to the occasion, we will never be beaten even in terms of military power."
Ozawa, however, emphasised that what he really wanted was a fully democratic China and a society in which "China and Japan can co- exist".
He said the introduction of democracy to China was essential to world peace.
"Any break down of order in China will be no match for that in Afghanistan or Yugoslavia. It will lead to significant global turmoil," he said.
"His position, in which he has tried to hold China in check by bringing up the possibility of nuclear armament, is likely to cause ripples at home and abroad," the conservative daily Sankei Shimbun said.
The influential daily Asahi Shimbun said it anticipated a "backlash from the Chinese government and others".
Japanese Politician Claimed Japan Could Make Massive Nuclear Weapons to Curb China
Japanese Liberal Party President Ichiro Ozawa claimed that Japan could make a large number of nuclear weapons "overnight" to curb China's "excessive expansion".
Japanese media said that Ichiro Ozawa's remarks would evoke a strong response from China and other Asian countries against any moves of Japanese militarism.
According to reports, Ichiro Ozawa Saturday said: "it is easy to make nuclear warheads for Japan, our nuclear power plants have enough plutonium which is enough to make 3000 to 4000 nuclear warheads, Japan can produce thousands of nuclear warheads overnight".
Nuclear weapons are the most sensitive issue in Japan, Japanese people are strongly against it. Since the nuclear accident in Ibaraki Prefecture in 1999, the most serious nuclear leakage accident, Japanese citizens have lost confidence about nuclear industry, they asked governments to reduce or stop nuclear power plant construction.
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said lately with visiting Chinese top legislator Li Peng that Chinese development is not only conducive to Japan, but also other countries. He does not agree with the view that "China's rapid development would pose threat to Japan".
WASHINGTON, DC--According to a Department of Health and Human Services report released Monday, McDonald's meat from antibiotics-injected livestock is now the primary source of antibiotics for U.S. children, particularly for uninsured youths from low-income households.
"Unfortunately, some children still fall through the cracks in our health-care system, but luckily, McDonald's is there to lend a helping hand," Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson said at a press conference announcing the findings. "So even if a child's family has no health insurance and can't afford medicine, virtually anyone can afford a delicious 99-cent Big Mac with pickles, cheese, and a heapin' helpin' of [the antibiotic] quinupristin- dalfopristin."
In HHS tests, 82 percent of children who had not been properly inoculated were still found to have significant levels of antibiotics in their bloodstreams. The antibiotics, the tests concluded, were the result of sustained intake of McDonald's meat.
"Disadvantaged children tend to eat at McDonald's a lot, which is a good thing," Thompson said. "If you think about it, where else are these kids going to get their fluoroquinolone?"
Large-scale meat producers, Thompson noted, routinely add antibiotics to the feed of healthy animals to prevent cross-infection in the crowded, cramped quarters where livestock are typically raised. In the U.S., the average beef steer receives eight times more antibiotics than its human counterpart.
"When your daughter gets strep throat, head straight over to McDonald's and prescribe her a delicious Quarter Pounder or nine-piece Chicken McNuggets," Thompson said. "She'll not only receive the amoxycillin she needs to get better, but also a whole array of growth hormones proven to speed a child's physical development."
"And if your child prefers Burger King or Wendy's," he continued, "that's fine, too. Any of the big fast-food chains can get them healthy."
While all Americans benefit from the 25 million pounds of antibiotics fed to chickens, pigs, and cows each year, children stand to gain the most, U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) said.
Above: A young cow is injected with penicillin at a farm that supplies Burger King.
"Children weigh less than adults, so when they eat a hamburger, they get a proportionally more potent dose of antibiotics," said Lugar, who is among the Senate's strongest proponents of fast-food-based health care. "These antibiotics are vital in the treatment of such common childhood ailments as sore throat, ear infection, and hoof rot."
According to Lugar, waiting in a crowded doctor's office may soon be a thing of the past.
"Every day, food scientists are discovering new antibiotics, growth hormones, and other chemically engineered substances to inject into the nation's beef supply," Lugar said. "And with Americans working longer and longer hours just to make ends meet, people can't afford to waste time sitting around some waiting room until their name is called. Unlike a doctor, our fast-food providers can deliver a full spectrum of antibiotics in minutes--hot, fresh, and with a smile."
In conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services, Burger King will soon release a brochure, "Happy And Healthy The Burger King Way," which outlines a 14-day plan for the treatment of bacterial infections.
In the leaflet, a cartoon cow in a medical coat reminds parents to give their infected children two daily doses of antibiotic-treated meat for 14 days. If the condition does not improve after 10 days, the parent or guardian of the ailing child is instructed to contact a store manager.
"If your child has a sinus infection, he or she can drop by before and after school for a Double Cheeseburger 50cc Meal or a delicious Chicken Tetracycline," Burger King spokeswoman Linda Jacobs said. "As we're fond of saying here at Burger King, 'This won't hurt a bite!'"
Though representatives say they're pleased with the praise it has received, the fast-food industry does not intend to rest on its laurels.
"Repeated use of antibiotics will result in increased resistance to antibiotics in new strains of bacteria," said Carl Pickney, lab researcher for TriCon Global, the fast-food conglomerate that owns KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut. "That's why we need to encourage our meat suppliers to continually raise the levels of antibiotics in their meat, developing newer, stronger antibiotics to replace those that no longer work. We're making good progress, but we've still got a whole lot of meat to modify."
Copy and pasted from TheOnion
Except that for every piece of paper written by an anarchist, 1000 are written on the subject by non-anarchists spouting vitriol.
On 3 October 1992, the Irish rock singer Sinead O'Connor was the musical guest on Saturday Night Live. For her first song, Sinead performed the title track from her most recent album, Am I Not Your Girl? with a full backing band. For her second, she went with "War," a song by Bob Marley that had once been banned for its apparent advocacy of violence. In a very risky move, musically speaking, Sinead performed the song a capella. Dressed all in white, surrounded by candles and (as usual) shaven-headed, she was a riveting sight. With NBC-TV's cameras focused in-tight on her, Sinead ended her "War" by crying for another one to begin. "Fight the real enemy!" she called, and, out of nowhere, produced a copy of a photograph of Pope John Paul II, which she ripped into pieces. There was stunned silence, and then the station went to a commercial.
NBC-TV was inundated by complaints (supposedly 4,484 in all) called in by outraged viewers. The producers of Saturday Night Live said that they didn't think Sinead would be invited back to perform on the show. In the meantime, Sinead herself said nothing about what she'd done or why she'd done it. (Simply changing one of Marley's lines so that it referred to "sexual abuse" instead of "racial injustice," as Sinead had done in mid-song, hadn't been sufficient explanation and so the press was filled with lurid denunciations of her.) When she returned to the United States on 16 October 1992 to perform at a birthday concert for Bob Dylan at Madison Square Garden in New York, Sinead was greeted by a weird mixture of cheers and boos. Despite the severely divided response to her presence, she once again sang an a cappella version of "War." Once she was done, she staggered offstage, where she was comforted by Kris Kristofferson. Shortly thereafter, Sinead O'Connor permanently retired from the "pop" entertainment industry.
Eventually, Sinead O'Connor made her peace with the Pope. On 22 September 1997, in an interview with the Italian weekly newspaper Vita, she asked the Holy Father to forgive her. She claimed that her attack on the photo had been "a ridiculous act, the gesture of a girl rebel," which she did "because I was in rebellion against the faith, but I was still within the faith." Quoting St. Augustine, she went on to add, "Anger is the first step towards courage." Another courageous step Sinead took in the late 1990s was to join the congregation of the controversial Irish Bishop Michael Cox, who eventually ordained Sinead as a priest. Lacking a sense of humor, the Vatican has refused to recognize Sinead's membership in the priesthood, which the Pope considers "bizarre." This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but the Pope is right: Sinead's story is a bizarre one.
And NBC? In the informative and relatively even-handed biography of the singer that airs on VH1 as part of the cable TV station's on-going "Behind the Music" series, it's said that, "even to this day," NBC refuses to allow the photo-ripping scene to be re-broadcast by anyone. VH1 itself had to settle with a blurry shot of Sinead in mid-rip that was published by one of New York's tabloid newspapers. You can catch a glimpse, but you can't actually see what Sinead did that night in 1992: you can only hear about it, thanks to the Vatican's clout and NBC's cowardice.
This would seem a good point to talk about censorship. But it isn't -- not yet.
The Comedy Channel shows back episodes of Saturday Night Live several times a day. In early August 2001, I happened to see the episode in which Sinead O'Connor is the musical guest. Everything goes as it should -- dressed all in white, Sinead performs "War" a capella as her second number -- until the end of the song. There is no war cry, no identification of "the real enemy." Sinead doesn't hold up a picture of the Pope, but a picture of a cute little black boy, instead. And then the song is over, and Sinead stands, smiling, holding the picture behind her back, as the crowd applauds and cheers.
It took a while for it to sink in that NBC hadn't simply blacked out or removed the photo-ripping scene. Instead, NBC had gone beyond mere censorship and either had replaced the Pope-ripping sequence with another one (the song as it was performed in rehearsal?) or had digitally altered the broadcast so that there was apparently nothing in "the original" to black out or remove in the first place. Why would anyone want to block or cut out Sinead's impassioned plea for the children? In times of war, don't we tend to forget about the children, especially the cute little black ones? Nice bullshit, but it wasn't Sinead's.
Like the authors of textbooks on Soviet history, who had to keep changing the past so that it would conform with Stalin's latest purges, NBC has created its own Sinead O'Connor and is now passing her off as the original.
Pasted fromNotBored
1
The traditional goal of aesthetics is to make one feel, in privation and absence, certain past elements of life that through the mediation of art would escape the confusion of appearances, since appearance is what suffers from the reign of time. The degree of aesthetic success is measured by a beauty inseparable from duration, and tending even to lay claim to eternity. The Situationist goal is immediate participation in a passionate abundance of life, through the variation of fleeting moments resolutely arranged. The success of these moments can only be their passing effect. Situationists consider cultural activity, from the standpoint of totality, as an experimental method for constructing daily life, which can be permanently developed with the extension of leisure and the disappearance of the division of labor (beginning with the division of artistic labor).
2
Art can cease to be a report on sensations and become a direct organization of higher sensations. It is a matter of producing ourselves, and not things that enslave us.
3
Mascolo is right in saying ("Le Communisme") that the reduction of the working day by the regime of the dictatorship of the proletariat is "the most certain assurance that it can give of its revolutionary authenticity." Indeed, "if man is a commodity, if he is treated as a thing, if the general relations of men among themselves are the relations of thing to thing, it is because it is possible to buy his time from him." Mascolo, however, is too quick to conclude that "the time of a man freely employed" is always well spent, and that "the purchase of time is the sole evil." There is no freedom in the employment of time without the possession of modern instruments for the construction of daily life. The use of such instruments will mark the leap of a utopian revolutionary art to an experimental revolutionary art.
4
An international association of Situationists can be seen as a union of workers in an advanced sector of culture, or more precisely as a union of all those who claim the right to a task now impeded by social conditions; hence as an attempt at an organization of professional revolutionaries in culture.
5
We are separated in practice from true control over the material powers accumulated by our time. The Communist revolution has not occurred, and we still live within the framework of the decomposition of old cultural superstructures. Henri Lefebvre correctly sees that this contradiction is at the heart of a specifically modern discordance between the progressive individual and the world, and calls the cultural tendency based on this discordance revolutionary-romantic. The defect in LefebvreÕs conception lies in making the simple expression of discordance a sufficient criterion for revolutionary action within the culture. Lefebvre renounces beforehand all experiments toward profound cultural change while remaining satisfied with a content: awareness of the (still too remote) impossible-possible, which can be expressed no matter what form it takes within the framework of decomposition.
6
Those who want to overcome the old established order in all its aspects cannot attach themselves to the disorder of the present, even in the sphere of culture. One must struggle and not go on waiting, in culture as well, for the moving order of the future to make a concrete appearance. It is its possibility, already present in our midst, that devalues all expression in known cultural forms. One must lead all forms of pseudocommunication to their utter destruction, to arrive one day at real and direct communication (in our working hypothesis of higher cultural means: the constructed situation). Victory will be for those who will be able to create disorder without loving it.
7
In the world of cultural decomposition we can test our strength but not employ it. The practical task of overcoming our discordance with the world, i.e., of surmounting the decomposition by some higher constructions, is not romantic. We will be "revolutionary romantics," in LefebvreÕs sense, precisely to the degree of our failure.
comeoncomeonthatsongsucks!
Yes, you can not be a total drone and teach yourself.
"How To Poop At Work"
We've all been there but don't like to admit it. We've all kicked back in our cubicles and suddenly felt something brew down below. As much as we try to convince ourselves otherwise, the WORK POOP is inevitable. For those who hate pooping at work, following is the 2001 Survival Guide for taking a dump at work. Memorize these definitions and pooping at work will become a pure pleasure.
ESCAPEE.
Definition: a fart that slips out while taking a leak at the urinal or forcing a poop in a stall. This is usually accompanied by a sudden wave of panic embarrassment. This is similar to the hot flash you receive when passing an unseen police car and speeding. If you release an escapee, do not acknowledge it. Pretend it did not happen. If you are standing next to the farter in the urinal, pretend you did not hear it. No one likes an escapee, it is uncomfortable for all involved. Making a joke or laughing makes both parties feel uneasy.
JAILBREAK (Used in conjunction with ESCAPEE).
Definition: When forcing poop, several farts slip out at a machine gun pace. This is usually a side effect of diarrhea or a hangover. If this should happen, do not panic. Remain in the stall until everyone has left the bathroom so to spare everyone the awkwardness of what just occurred.
COURTESY FLUSH.
Definition: The act of flushing the toilet the instant the nose cone of the poop log hits the water and the poop is whisked away to an undisclosed location. This reduces the amount of air time the poop has to stink up the bathroom. This can help you avoid being caught doing the WALK OF SHAME.
WALK OF SHAME.
Definition: Walking from the stall, to the sink, to the door after you have just stunk up the bathroom. This can be a very uncomfortable moment if someone walks in and busts you. As with all farts, it is best to pretend that the smell does not exist. Can be avoided with the use of the COURTESY FLUSH.
OUT OF THE CLOSET POOPER.
Definition: A colleague who poops at work and damn proud of it. You will often see an Out Of The Closet Pooper enter the bathroom with a newspaper or magazine under their arm. Always look around the office for the Out Of The Closet Pooper before entering the bathroom.
THE POOPING FRIENDS NETWORK (PFN).
Definition: A group of coworkers who band together to ensure emergency pooping goes off without incident. This group can help you to monitor the whereabouts of Out Of The Closet Poopers, and identify SAFE HAVENS.
SAFE HAVENS.
Definition: A seldom used bathroom somewhere in the building where you can least expect visitors. Try floors that are predominantly of the opposite sex. This will reduce the odds of a pooper of your sex entering the bathroom.
TURD BURGLAR:
Definition: A pooper who does not realize that you are in the stall and tries to force the door open. This is one of the most shocking and vulnerable moments that can occur when taking a dump at work. If this occurs, remain in the stall until the Turd Burglar leaves. This way you will avoid all uncomfortable eye contact.
CAMO-COUGH.
Definition: A phony cough that alerts all new entrants into the bathroom that you are in a stall. This can be used to cover-up a WATERMELON, or to alert potential Turd Burglars. Very effective when used in conjunction with an ASTAIRE.
ASTAIRE.
Definition: A subtle toe-tap that is used to alert potential Turd Burglars that you are occupying a stall. This will remove all doubt that the stall is occupied. If you hear an Astaire, leave the bathroom immediately so the pooper can poop in peace.
WATERMELON.
Definition: A turd that creates a loud splash when hitting the toilet water. This is also an embarrassing incident. If you feel a Watermelon coming on, create a diversion. See CAMO-COUGH.
HAVANA OMELET.
Definition: A load of diarrhea that creates a series of loud splashes in the toilet water. Often accompanied by an Escapee. Try using a Camo-Cough with an Astaire.
UNCLE TED.
Definition: A bathroom user who seems to linger around forever. Could spend extended lengths of time in front of the mirror or sitting on the pot. An Uncle Ted makes it difficult to relax while on the crapper, as you should always wait to drop your load when the bathroom is empty. This benefits you as well as the other bathroom attendees.
FLY BY.
Definition: The act of scouting out a bathroom before pooping. Walk in and check for other poopers. If there are others in the bathroom, leave and come back again. Be careful not to become a FREQUENT FLYER. People may become suspicious if they catch you constantly going into the bathroom.
Alot of the people with huge thresholds are mindless warez archivers. Who download warez for the hunt and not for actual use.
Hit preview and read your post next time.
If the people who voted this up knew Howard Zinn was an anarchist, and that this post was anarchistic propaganda they would have modded it down.
The school system functions well for what it was designed for.
The school system you must remember is a product of our society. A society where there are the rulers(rich capitalists and high government officials recruited from this rich class) and the ruled(us). The purpose of the school system is to pump out obedient and submissive drones that are unquestioning. There will be more unschooling(this distinction will not even be necessary then) if there ever comes the day when we are not ruled and exploited.
The school system functions well for what it was designed for.
The school system you must remember is a product of our society. A society where there are the rulers(rich capitalists and high government officials recruited from this rich class) and the ruled(us). The purpose of the school system is to pump out obedient and submissive drones that are unquestioning. There will be more unschooling(this distinction will not even be necessary then) when finally there comes the day when we are not ruled and exploited.
Aussies are the ones who say limey. Idiot.
It is because under the neoliberalist system parents are working alot and when they are finally off of work they cannot put up enough of a fight to tell their kids, "NO!".
Hmm... big corporations are pro big corporation. What an aberration.
Shucks, ain't be a word! Cumon' down South and cee.
What the fuck does God have to do with morality?
What makes America great is that there is not a third world dictator that our government does not support!
Yes those fucking anti-colonialists. The niggers are all below us. How dare anyone tell us colonialism is wrong!
I will wait till I can run KDE under Emacs.