From: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:08:54 +0800
To: Vin Suprynowicz <Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com>
Subject: Di and Dodi Run Over A Land Mine
In-Reply-To: <v02130505b034cda7a8cc@[192.9.150.95]>
Message-ID: <340FC8CC.1F50@sk.sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Vin Suprynowicz wrote:
>     The campaign to ban land mines

Vin,
  I have long held to the "80/20 Asshole Theory."
  There are many people in life whose circumstances of birth, heredity, 
environmental influences and social status would, with everything being
equal, be destined to turn out 80% Asshole and 20% Decent Person, or
vice-versa.

  Since we can never really know what the life and circumstances of 
another person has truly encompassed, we can never be certain, upon
meeting someone who is 60% Asshole, whether they were destined to be
80% Asshole, and raised themself, or whether they were destined to be
20% Asshole, and lost major ground, becoming 80% Asshole, instead.

  I understand the perspective from which you write about Princess
Diana, but I cannot help but view her from the perspective of an
upper class young woman who was subjected to the anal-retentive
mind-programming-control of the monarchy and still managed to
raise her children in a wider world than their predecessors had been 
exposed to.
  I consider myself to be an anarchist, libertarian free-thinker and
a man of reason, but I also realize that if I were crowned King of
England tomorrow, that I might be offended if you didn't bow three
times when you entered a room where my divine presence was present.

  I truly believe that the best one can hope for in life is to raise
their children to go beyond the boundaries that limit their parents.
Diana's destiny within the monarchy was to become programmed to fit
into the narrow confines of the role prepared for her. Perhaps if her
Puppet Masters had been more patient, she may have become enslaved
according to the wishes of her superiors, but the fact is that she
was buffeted by trials and tribulations that resulted from her not
going quietly into the dark night that the monarchy had planned for
her.

  Diana used the position that was bestowed upon her to give comfort
and hope to the halt, the lame, and the downtrodden. Did she do it
out of self-serving egoism, or an attempt to gain recognition and 
fame as a humanitarian?
  I don't know, I don't care, and it is really none of my business.
What *is* my business is to view my fellow man/woman and perceive
if they are lifted up or further downtrodden by their interactions
with myself and others. I have seen the faces of the AIDS children
that she touched, when no one else would, and the lepers whom she
shook hands with, when others were afraid to do so, and I have seen
the light that she spread among those whom society had cast aside.

You said:
  "They are, after all, born into a society where a person with the
wrong accent, or skin color, can never hope to do more than dream of
a royal marriage, and dinner at the Ritz."

  You are wrong. Even the peasant and the imprisoned can dream the
dreams that come from the fairy tales that uplift us and give us
hope, however unrealistic it may be. And, even if it is one in a
million, someone will have that dream come true.
  Yes, in reality, the story of Diana, the commoner turned Princess,
was overblown. No, you are doing the downtrodden no favor by trying
to point that out to them.
  Why? Because no one will grasp the golden ring if no one tries. 
No one will rise above their predestined station in life if no one
believes that it is indeed possible to do so.

  Perhaps Diana was a priveleged, rich cunt who had it 'better' than
those whom she condescended to 'bless' with her presence and her
attention. But she touched the untouchables and she lifted those who
had been held down, and those whose lives she touched benefitted 
from her presence, no matter what her motivations or intentions.

  You write that Diana's campaign against the use of land mines is
an unrealistic attempt to negate the cheap and effective defense
of the poorer countries. Perhaps what was needed was for her to
have the input of someone such as yourself who understands the need
for cheap and effective self-defence, so that she could concentrate
her efforts on removing landmines that are no longer needed, and
preventing the dispersal of landmines which are not truly needed 
for self-defence, but are only serving as 'toys for boys' who want
to play soldier.

  As far as I am concerned, you and Diana both have something very
important in common--the world is a better place for your being here.
  We need more Vin's, so that there is someone to remind the bleeding
hearts that weakness and capitulation can cost more lives and loss of
freedom than are gained by seeking an unbalanced 'peace'.
  We need more Diana's, so that there is someone to remind the warriors
that indiscriminate use of weaponry that is not essential may result
in the loss of lives of the innocent, rather than the elimination of
the threat that must be defended against.

  I guess what I am saying is that it no more matter to me whether 
Diana is a fraudulent invention of the media, than it matters to me
whether you are a carpetbagger riding on the coat tails of the
libertarian movement.
  What matters to me is that Diana inspires others to treat the
untouchables as fellow human beings, and that you remind me to
carry a big stick to beat the fuckers with if I find them sneaking
up behind me.

  Besides, anyone who gets whacked out by the monarchy can't be all
that bad... 
{:>}------< (Help! They knocked me down, and cut off my arms!)

Toto
"The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre"
http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix
"WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs"
http://bureau42.base.org/public/webworld
"The Final Frontier"
http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/carljohn