tcpip | The Cooperative, Religious Liberals, Same-Sex Relationships, Ronald Ray-Gun....

The Cooperative, Religious Liberals, Same-Sex Relationships, Ronald Ray-Gun....

All my major tasks at Borderlands and Student Partnerships Worldwide are now more or less complete, so now I can dedicate myself to publishing and writing again. Which means (drum roll).. the formal foundation of the Mimesis Publishing Cooperative. It is proposed that this is a non-trading cooperative with shares, mainly because that (the government guarenteed rules) the best way to avoid the various hefty fees. We have already had interest from Akademos (delightful name) for cooperative ventures.

Anyway, the Formation Meeting is noon, Saturday July 3 at the Borderlands Cooperative, Augustine Centre, 2 Minona Street Hawthorn.

Had dinner with Jenne and Katie last night, two fellow political and para-religious activists. Jenne (a reform Jew) took over from me as president of the Aboriginal Affairs Policy Committee when I went to East Timor and has been active on indigenous issues for years. Katie (a liberal Quaker), who has recently become a mother, spent her political energies on refugee support, and founded the low-key "Liberals for Refugees" about two or so years ago. It was like the beginning of a joke: "So, this Jew, a Quaker and a Unitarian are having dinner....". All jokes aside however, it was great to see them. We haven't moved in similar circles since my return to Australia and I used to see both of them almost every week.

Speaking of such matters, the Melbourne Unitarian Church held a peace concert last weekend. On my request, the collection of a few hundred dollars was directed to the Tabessi War Widows and Veterans Association in East Timor. It will make quite some difference there. Following the concert, caseopaya and I wandered in and joined the World Environment Day Tasmanian Forests' rally. Whilst the turnout was impressive, I felt that the "carnivale" atmosphere typically present at such gatherings was absent.

The campaign for legal equality for same-sex relationships is bound to get nasty. Catbiscuit has alerted me that the Federal Minister believes that keeping it in the closet is the best option. Meanwhile the Onion (courtesy of Darkstar) is full of its standard goodness: Gay Couple Feel Pressured to Marry.

Meanwhile, back on a serious note: A petition calling Mark Latham to support same-sex relationships. Sign it, cut and paste it. Email it far and wide. Stick it in your journal. http://www.gopetition.com/online/4457.html

The attempt rewrite the history of Ronald Reagan is fairly typical. After all, it is in the vested interests of mass media editors to do so; he was their man. So let us not forget that he converted the United States from the world's biggest creditor nation to the world's biggest debtor nation, that he was a war monger who had a complete and utter disregard for international law, and pathologically sick sense of humour which included "jokes" about the nuclear annihilation of an entire nation.

All that said, it must also be mentioned that Reagan was actually a left-winger until "converted" by some thuggish behaviour towards him by members of the American Communist Party in the 1940s. I am reminded of Peguy's statement: "the social revolution will be moral or it will not be". On that note, Hamish McDonald (who, I must confess I have had the opportunity to meet in East Timor), provides the right reports on the anniversary of Tiananmen Square:
Blood on the Tanks and "We will never fire on the people"

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

the formal foundation of the Mimesis Publishing Cooperative

At last!! Count me in, don't know if I'll write but you know I am more than happy to proof read and help with all that other background stuff.

In the round of post-mortem assessments of Reagan, somebody mentioned a time travel story about Reagan. Concerned by the Reagan presidency, the main character travels back in time to convince Reagan to portray Garcia Lorca (I think) in a movie, irrevocably associating him with the left and preventing him from being picked up by the Republicans years later. I wish I could remember the title.

Which reminds me of another Reagan story. I know you bought the comic "Crisis", as I bought most of your issues before your overseas trip, but I don't know if you got "Diceman", a choose-your-own-adventure comic with no political content until the final issue (#5). This issue featured "You Are Ronald Reagan", a vicious parody written by Pat Mills and drawn by cartoonist Hunt Emerson. I'm sure you'd enjoy it, and can scan it for you if you like.

Hmmm.. That choose you own adventure comic reminds me a great deal of a prophetic essay by J.G. Ballard: Why I Want To Fuck Ronald Reagan".

BTW, I still have a small mountain of comics I'm ready to shift at bargain prices ;-)

I hadn't read that story in years, thanks for the reminder!

I'll get back to you about the comics - still trying to organise my finances a bit better than they are :)

So let us not forget that he converted the United States from the world's biggest creditor nation to the world's biggest debtor nation, that he was a war monger who had a complete and utter disregard for international law, and pathologically sick sense of humour which included "jokes" about the nuclear annihilation of an entire nation.

Nor his six-year silence on AIDS.

Actually, I don't have a problem with somebody cracking jokes about nuclear war; jokes were never supposed to be tasteful. Making them in front of a live microphone, and damn near STARTING a nuclear war as a result, is a very different thing.

Nor his six-year silence on AIDS.

*that's* the bit that really chaps my arse....

Nor his six-year silence on AIDS.

Ah yes, And the Band Played On. Now there was a book to get your blood boiling..

Besides, it was only blacks, hispanics and homosexuals that were dying, wasn't it?

Seems that the Timorese remember him as well.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/06/1086460167973.html?oneclick=true

Besides, it was only blacks, hispanics and homosexuals that were dying, wasn't it?

You can't talk that way about Liberace and Roy Cohn!

Actually, four years.

Someone better get around to editing Wikipedia then...

- - -
Reagan's presidency saw the advent of HIV-AIDS as a widespread epidemic in the US. Although AIDS was first reported in 1981, Reagan did not mention it publicly until 1987. His administration approached the epidemic as a series of local and state issues rather than with a national strategy, and politicians for the Department of Health and Human Services pled behind the scenes for adequate funding.

In deference to the views of the powerful religious right, who saw AIDS as a disease limited to the gay male community and spread by immoral behaviour, Reagan prevented his surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, from speaking out about the epidemic. When in 1986 Reagan finally authorized Koop to issue a report on the epidemic, he expected it to be in line with conservative policies; instead, Koop's Surgeon General's Report on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome greatly emphasized the importance of a comprehensive AIDS education strategy, including widespread distribution of condoms, and rejected mandatory testing. This approach brought Koop into conflict with other administration officials such as William Bennett.

Reagan appointed the Watkins Commission on AIDS in 1987, but its recommendations for increased funding went largely ignored by the Reagan and the subsequent Bush administration.

Many socially conservative commentators see Reagan's approach to AIDS as a common sense approach to a problem of social immorality whose scope was not yet fully appreciated. Many in the gay and lesbian communities and many people with AIDS, on the other hand, see in his policies anything from politically motivated willful blindness in the face of a devastating illness to an atrocious disregard for the value of the lives of people in sexual and racial minorities. The group ACT UP worked, through civil disobedience and direct action, to raise awareness on the issue of AIDS.
- - -

Someone better get around to editing Wikipedia then...

Done. Have altered to "Although AIDS was first reported in 1981, Reagan did not mention it publicly for several more years; while it is commonly stated that he did not do so until 1987, this claim appears to be erroneous, with documented instances in late 1985 and early 1986." (& links at bottom.)

That article is at least partly incorrect (though, apparently, not as badly as I was). It states:

President Reagan's February 6, 1986 State of the Union address included this specific passage where he says the word "AIDS" five times: "We will continue, as a high priority, the fight against Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). An unprecedented research effort is underway to deal with this major epidemic public health threat. The number of AIDS cases is expected to increase. While there are hopes for drugs and vaccines against AIDS, none is immediately at hand. Consequently, efforts should focus on prevention, to inform and to lower risks of further transmission of the AIDS virus. To this end, I am asking the Surgeon General to prepare a report to the American people on AIDS."

However, looking at C-Span, his 1986 State of the Union address took place on February 4th, and contained no such passage.

Going by this, it looks like Murdock had the February 6th date right, but the occasion wrong - those remarks were delivered not in the SotU but a lower-profile followup speech.

I'm not entirely sold on the rest of the article - the bit about how pouring money into AIDS research in 1983 would've been useless because we didn't have antivirals until 1987 is broken at least two ways - but it does look as if I was wrong about the time. Four years, then.

And thanks for the correction. I like to be right :-)

My pleasure :)

It is not as if there are no grounds for serious criticism of Reagan on AIDS. As Andrew Sullivan points out here and, even more damningly, here.

But fair criticism usually has more bite because it can't be discredited by error.

Aren't there a lot of grounds to criticise Reagan on?? I mean, can you take an actor who's most famous role was playing opposite a monkey seriously?? :) (I won't go into the clairvoyants and stuff - don't know enough myself LOL)

I guess it depends on whether you can distinguish prejudice from analysis.

Exactly why is actor a silly profession for anything? Particularly politics. After all, audience holding skills are important.

And, perhaps someone who is willing to play opposite a monkey doesn't take himself too seriously. Not such a bad thing in a President, really.

That sort of stuff seems just a form of snobbery nd an excuse not to engage tougher issues.

It's a modern intelligentsia version at sneering at the early Labor politicians because they were workers.

It's a modern intelligentsia version at sneering at the early Labor politicians because they were workers.

And probably did a better job than some of their modern day counterparts (either Labor or Liberal)!

I guess all politicians are actors of sorts, just one's that try and keep the people interested in what they do, rather than entertained (though there is that element to)

Maybe I'm just to jaded and cynical

Attlee once defined democracy as government by discussion. That requires a certain ability to get people to pay attention.

And a certain healthy scepticism is important.

Although I am reminded of the Socratic viewpoint on the matter. He would approach the issue with his normal child-like simplicity: "Who would you go to fix a pair a pair of shoes?" "A shoemaker, O Socrates", "And who would you go to to purchase a fish?" "A fishmonger, O Socrates", "And who would you go to to steer a ship?" "A sailor, O Socrates".

"And who you would go with to govern the State?"

At that point invariably people fell quiet.

His own answer was somewhat contradictory. On one hand he suggested that because the state was interested in the good, therefore you should choose the most good people. On the other hand (in his Apologia) he claimed that an honest person would have a very short life in public office.

That said, although I do mock Reagan for a lot of reasons, there is no doubt about his knowledge of political affairs. Even during his acting career he was very much involved. What I do claim - and this is a criticism I have of a lot of politicians - is that their loyalties were to their institutions (the Republican Party, the United States etc), rather than to the principles of justice and freedom.

And that to me seems to be the greatest danger in the world.

IIRC Reagan did US propoganda adverts/films for WW2 as well

Burke had some serious thoughts about this.

The President of the United States is required to be loyal to the US. It's in his oath of office. If he's not, he should resign.

Institutions are what makes societies work. They are what all social progress is built on.

The trick is to get them to operate in particular ways.

Similarly, in representative politics, 'good men must combine or else fall, lonely failures in pointless struggle' or words to that effect.

This does not empty public life of moral choices. But it is part of the unavoidable web of constraints.

I agree with you entirely with your comments on institutions, the unity of the good and moral choices, although I must also confess a great deal of sympathy for the anarchist and "early Marx" wish (a la some Enlightenment philosophers) that people act with a "natural good".

But with regard to the US, there are specific and general loyalties. One can be loyal to the institution and advance the particular interests of that institution (i.e., the US nation-state) or the general principles on which it was founded (i.e.., the Declaration of Independence).

I doubt that I'll ever have problems with the following words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

natural good

Not as a reliable rule they don't. Hence the paradox of politics -- we need the state to protect us from social predators, but the state itself is the most dangerous of social predators.

general and specific

Yes, there are principles and they continue to affect American policy (you can't really understand the full import of the American visceral rejection of the ICC without them).

But principles are there to serve real people. The interests of the people of the US have real claims on the Presidency. It is not an either- or, it is a matter of marriage and trade-offs.

The next issue of "Bad Subjects" will be dedicated to Ronnie Reagan...

Dear Slaveries issue contributors,

This is a note to let you know that Bad Subjects will be delaying publication of the Slaveries issue for two weeks, from June 14 to June 28. This decision by the Collective will enable Bad Subjects to publish a special Ronald Reagan issue on June 14. The general sense of the editors is that the current memory-fest in the United States needs counter-address.

When the Slaveries issue HTML edition is ready, we'll send each of you appropriate URLs and ask you to proofread your essay along with us. Also, when the issue goes live we'll send you a brief e-mail announcement for distribution to your own e-mail lists.

The Slaveries issue looks very good, and both Cynthia Hoffman and I thank you for contributing.

Cheers,

Joe

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Lockard
Assistant Professor
209 Durham Languages and Literatures Bldg.
English Department
POB 870302
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-0302
Tel: (480) 727-6096
Fax: (480) 965-3451
E-mail: Joe.Lockard@asu.edu
http://www.asu.edu/english/who/lockard.htm

Interested to know more about Mimesis Publishing Cooperative and the kind of publications it will focus on, or will that be determined at the formation meeting?

In general I prefer a model of self-publication with the benefits of a collective name and administration. It has been pointed out to me however that at the very least someone needs to check material for possibly defamatory material. So it looks like publications would have to be approved by the committee of management.

Mimesis is the ancient Greek word for "representation", so I would hope for an an emphasis on "realism". Initially I though that non-fiction only works would be appropriate, but I have been swayed that may not be the case.

Akademos, and Jacques Boulet, the director of Borderlands, seem to think that academic-orientated publications would do particularly well, and I tend to agree. Apparently there is a German publishing house which specializes in publishing PhD theses - I quite like that idea ;-)

Once upon a time, I helped establish the Mimesis Association, which was roleplaying and simulation games, which a particular "historical fantasy" bent. I certainly imagine that could remain a cash-cow for the organization.

I guess I've raised more questions than I've answered. ;-) What are your ideas on the subject?

Sorry for delay to answer this. But I have a good excuse. I have been to Perth and back.

Maybe an academic-orientated publication can work. A collection of sample chapters of PhD thesis? so that the interested reader can go to the thesis proper for further reading?

Apart from that, I think if you are forming a collective, maybe the interests that engage particular members could form the basis of publishing activities...?

Anyway I enjoy checking out the photo's you posted at one of your recent journal entries. I'm very keen to investigate further the content of your talks!

If I was in Australia, I'd come out and hang out and protest or march or have a Peace BBQ.

Have you had any Canadian political news trickle your way? The freakin' conservatives are scaring the crap out of me. If they get in, oh boy, I'll be one pissed off little chicken if they start undoing social rights.

The really ailing liberal party is doing a smackdown on the conservative leader because of abortion rights.

One of the conservative members likened abortion to the beheading in iraq. That's right, my friend who had one because of health issues is no better than a terrorist who tortures and beheads someone. That issue never hit close to home until recently.

They're also dodging around the issue of gay rights, gay marriage. Recently, hate-speech against homosexuals was deemed to be a hate crime. It's a law. The right rigth wingers are super upset. One COnservative member said if they get in they'd try to get that out. The conervative leader did some fancy backpedalling saying the views of that party member don't reflect the views of he party, btu he won't give a definitive answer on any of the social hot button issues.

I'm voting based on social policy, rather than financial policy. People forget how badly the conservatives screwed things up in the 80s. The liberal scandals, while inexcusable and scathing, don't feel quite as bad to me. And I'm not naive enough to think that any one party will not break election promises. They all do.

I used to be centrist, with some very slight right leaniings. I got firmly kicked to the left about 6 or 7 years ago. According to the political compass, I'm a social anarchist. Go me. XD

I don't get much Canadian news - apart from a surprisingly large number of Canadian friends I have on livejournal (including several former Australians), and news from someone whose name you may be familiar with: Professor Peter Boyce (that's Emiritus Professor now).

Whilst someone who also firmly falls on the left-libertarian/social anarchist view of the world (well, duh), I must also confess that I am not belligerent towards right-wingers. I understand conservatism as both a political strategy and as a personal disposition. However, the views that some of the people in that article are espousing are not conservative - they are reactionary and use pre-modern justifications as a basis for legal norms (e.g., Biblical opposition to abortion or same-sex marriages).

What I don't understand is how they justify that a sectional viewpoint should become a universal legal norm. But therein lies one of the main problems with democracy - that it is the rule of the majority, and not the rule of equals.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The Cooperative, Religious Liberals, Same-Sex Relationships, Ronald Ray-Gun....

no subject

Reagan the lefty

Re: Reagan the lefty

Re: Reagan the lefty

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Correction

Re: Correction

Re: Correction

Re: Correction

Re: Correction

Re: Correction

Re: Correction

Re: Correction

Re: Correction

Socrates!

Re: Socrates!

Re: Socrates!

Re: Socrates!

Re: Socrates!

News Flash!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject