Hi Jackie recently stated:
>
> Well, would you LOOK at the men come out of the woodwork! How
> UNUSUAL- "Democrats vs. Republicans" - THAT's their REAL interest!
> And you, David, of course, agree with Michael, who agrees with
> Lee? Wood? (whatever!) - stick together, birds!
ah, is this what one might refer to as a flame? Is this
constructive dialogue. I've been waiting for some comments from the
list...but alas, have seen none. Is this because:
a) most list members are sympathetic to Jackie's tone;
b) no one thought it a serious enough argument to comment on;
c) list members are intimidated by this type of flameing posts? (BTW, how
do you spell flameing...my dictionary has not caught-up with the
information highway).
Jackie continues:
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you
> will), but Demos have been the PRIMARY instigator/promoter of these
> laws! At least they are in my area of the world. Repubs don't
> really care if whatever wilderness we have left is abuse/used up or
> not - they probably OWN their own set of mountains, islands, etc.!
I would suggest that this policy of the DEMOS exposes the ultimate bankruptcy
of their environmental politics. While the demos are (debatable) saving
wilderness, environmental issues that affect working people and people of
color, poor, etc are ignored. I'm thinking about lead in the playgrounds
of the inner city, locating toxic dumps in areas that have a high
concentration of minorities,pesticides exposure of farmworkers etc. While
upper middle class liberals
(democrats)are able to hike in their precious wilderness, the working
people, poor, and minorities have to live in polluted environments.
Indeed, every major city in the US has historically been represented by
democrats during the last 30 years (recent elections in NY and LA
nonwithstanding). Still, the inner city is polluted, but good for those
demos, they sure can save 'wilderness'.
Finally, Jackie finishes;
>
> H E L L O?! Sex is interesting (more if you're lucky), but I thought
> we were "ECOFEM's" [even INCLUDING Michael, David, et al], and time's
> wasting - can we talk "ECO???" Is anyone out there with me on this?
>
Yes, absolutely, lets talk ECO. Like the millions of pounds of bombs the US
(with the backing of the then democtatically controlled house and senate)
dropped on Iraq (talk about an environmental problem...the US targeted
such things as water treatment plants, not to mentioned the 10's of
thousands of civilians who were killed by all those 'smart' bombs).
I find it interesting Jackie that you lumped people like Wood Lee and
myself together (based on our testicles I guess) even though our ideas
are very different. I can live with that. How do you live with your
support for the democratic party? Perhaps it is because you have a stake
in this capitalist system...hmmmmmm.
I for one am less interested in
whats between one's legs and more interested in their program for
fighting racism, gender inequities, and ecological destruction. I am VERY
interested to learn about and deal with how I as a man contribute to
gender oppression. And I also realize that this is one of the major problems in
this unjust world. But I DON'T think these problems are going to be
solved by voting democrate (liberal capitalist). I'm very interested in
your critique of my program. Or is it you just don't like the gender I was
BORN into?
Is this a flame? Chirp,chirp:-)
-michael
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
