I thought I'd expand on the list I posted before, adding useful information like addresses, etc. I've added ca.environment to the list because I stress certain types of local organizations and these are my local organizations. (If you wish to respond about a California organization only, please followup only to ca.environment.)
I'll list the groups in the same order as I listed them before. I support and/or am a member of all these groups. Note that all of these organizations will send you publications if you join them. Information is a vital thing to have these days! All prices quoted are for inside the United States.
Greenpeace ~~~~~~~~~~ Tops on my list; they do it all. They work on legislation, do direct actions, and keep supporters informed and help us do our share of activism (letter-writing campaigns, etc.).
Send $20 or more to Greenpeace Action, 1436 U Street NW, Washing- ton, DC 20009. This will give you a year's subscription to their bimonthly magazine, _Greenpeace_. The magazine will keep you updated on issues nationwide, and Greenpeace's activities.
You will also receive letter-writing campaign packets (usually a set of postcards for you to sign and send), and appeals for con- tributions to a number of campaigns. You can decide which to contribute to: whales, rainforests, toxics campaigns, etc.
National Audubon Society ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Not just for birders. A well-established conservation group that is active in wildlife conservation, legislative work, and envir- onmental education (they even have a series on PBS).
Send $30 to the National Audubon Society, Membership Data Center, P.O. Box 5100, Boulder, CO 80321-1000 to be a member. This will get you a subscription to _Audubon_ magazine, which features beautiful nature photography and informative articles. Member- ship entails membership in a local chapter, which will also send you a newsletter.
Members can get further involved as "Audubon Activists" by sending $9 to Audubon Activist, 950 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022. This will get you yet another (more activist-oriented) publica- tion (_Audubon_Activist_), as well as action alerts for things like current legislation.
The Audubon Society also prints some excellent field guides.
(The Sierra Club is, in many respects, a very similar organiation. They have a reputation for being more radical, while the Audubon Society is viewed as more tame, but I think it's really the other way around!)
Greens/The Green Party ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is a political movement which has appeared as a successful political party in several European countries. Their agenda is centered on environmentalism, and entails such things as direct democracy, equality, conflict resolution, etc.
The political system in this country is explicitly rigged in favor of the two major political parties. Trying to build an effective third party will be a gargantuan task, one that nobody has yet succeeded at.
Nonetheless, Green organizations are growing in this country. At this point, it seems that a lot of their effort is going into policies and self organization, but some groups are pretty active. Boston area Greens have been instrumental in recycling legislation and preventing a waste incinerator from being built.
A nationwide contact, the Green Committees on Correspondence, is located in Kansas City, Missouri. Their number is 816/931-9366, and you can probably get in touch with your local Greens through them. (In the San Francisco Bay area, the San Francisco Greens are at 415/255-2940, and the East Bay Green Alliance is at 415/549-1011.)
The creation of such a movement involves a lot of work, and you can "get in on the ground floor" by getting involved now. To keep track of the movement's evolution and activities, you can subscribe to the Green Committees on Correspondence's quarterly magazine, _Green_Letter_ (which is merged with another, called _Greener_Times_). Send a $20 tax-deductable contribution (payable to "Tides Foundation/Greener Times") to Green Let- ter, P.O. Box 14141, San Francisco, CA 94114.
Another fantastic newsletter not formally associated with the Greens, but coming from a Green perspective, is _New_Options_. An indispensible source of information, leaning on finding new approaches to problems (which, incidentally, is what the Greens are all about), and reviewing books about same. Send $25 to New Options, P.O. Box 19324, Washington, DC 20036.
Your Local PIRG (Public Interest Research Group) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Founded on an idea of Ralph Nader's, PIRGs are statewide organi- zations with chapters in most of the larger colleges. Think of them as a network of student activist groups. The groups are run democratically, defining for themselves what they want to work on. They have consistently focused on environmental issues (they also work on consumer issues, housing, etc.).
I have been active in the Massachusetts group, MassPIRG. We've worked on anti-nuclear issues, bottle recycling bills, and haz- ardous waste legislation. Like groups all over the country, we got a lot of this done by putting things on the ballot for the public to vote on. It's really gratifying when you work on such things and they win!
You don't need to be a student to join, but the group is ideal for students. It is possible to get course credit for PIRG activism, and they provide summer jobs: campaigning, canvassing, etc.
I don't have any addresses, but a phone number in the UCBerkeley student newspaper (for a job with CalPIRG) is 415/644-3454. You might do well to drop by your local large campus and look for signs of a PIRG. (If anyone out there can provide more compre- hensive information, by all means post it.)
World Watch Institute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Not an activist group _per_se_, but a vital research group. They are a source of facts and figures that environmentalists and policy makers all over the world rely on. A subscription to their magazine, _World_Watch_, can be had by sending $20 to World Watch Institute, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washing- ton, DC 20036.
Your Local Legislation-Oriented Group ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lots of states have statewide groups that keep track of the state legislature's environmental activities. Greenpeace does this on an international level, and Audubon Activist members get the nationwide lowdown, but it's also important to know what your state is up to. The Earth is pillaged piece by piece.
For Californians, that group is the California League of Conser- vation Voters. You can join for a $20 tax-deductable contribu- tion and get their legislative updates (for $25 you get a chart of the national legislature's voting record). Write to the address nearest you, either 965 Mission Street, Suite #705, San Francisco, CA 94103; or 12234 West Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90064.
(Again, if anyone has addresses for other states' respective org- anizations; by all means, post them.)
Little Neighborhood Groups ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There are some things that have to be done locally. Recycling programs, farmer's markets, getting bicycle lanes put in, pub- lishing a calendar of local environmental events, making sure your public transportation system is as good as it can be, maintaining a library so people can read about the environ- ment, and so on.
I'm fortunate enough to be a member of one of the best of these groups, a group that has served as a model for groups nationwide: The (Berkeley, California) Ecology Center. You can join for $20 ($12 for seniors and low-income people), and there are other classes of membership at $35, $75, and $250. Membership con- tributions are tax-deductible, and are sent to The Ecology Center, 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94702.
Members get a very good, very informative newsletter. In fact, the newsletter is so good that had I known about it, I would have joined the Ecology Center even when I was living in the Boston area! You can join it if you'd like, but try to locate your local group or groups, y'know?
* * *
The list I posted before mentioned the Nature Conservancy, a group that buys up land and sets it aside to preserve it. I have since been informed that this group hands land over to the government, which to me (and my informant) doesn't sound like a guarantee to preserve it. If you get involved with other groups, you'll probably end up on their mailing list, and you can decide what to do. I've donated to them in the past. (Their add- ress is 1815 Lynn Street, Arlington, VA 22209.)
I don't really want to list groups to avoid, but I wish to mention an article in the March 27, 1989 issue of _The_Nation_ that dis- cusses the political state of certain environmental groups. The concern in the article is that certain groups are being coopted and are compromising with polluters.
Some groups, including the World Wildlife Fund/Conservation Found- ation and the Environmental Defense Fund, are advocating what is called "third-wave environmentalism." The approach is to pro- vide "market-based incentives" to get polluters not to pollute; this unfortunately has led to such things as permission to overpollute in one part of a company if it underpollutes in another of its parts. (Discussion of this approach and its controversy should probably take place under a different subject heading.)
The article points out what it considers indications of coopta- tion: the chair of Waste Management Inc. sits on the National Wildlife Federation's board of directors, for example, and the
...
[Info on a number of Environmental Groups and organizations that operate in an ethical and voluntary manner.]
And then he includes:
>Your Local PIRG (Public Interest Research Group) >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Founded on an idea of Ralph Nader's, PIRGs are statewide organi- > zations with chapters in most of the larger colleges. Think of > them as a network of student activist groups. The groups are > run democratically, defining for themselves what they want to > work on. They have consistently focused on environmental > issues (they also work on consumer issues, housing, etc.). >You don't need to be a student to join, but the group is ideal for > students. It is possible to get course credit for PIRG activism, > and they provide summer jobs: campaigning, canvassing, etc.
He's right it's only if you're student that your forced to join! PIRG's purloin mandatory student fees from all students attending a college and then use that money to finance their public politicking, lobbying, canvasing, and litigation efforts. Unlike the other groups that Jim has mentioned PIRG's do not solicit students for money, they just take it.
It's kind of like being required to join a political party and contribute to it monetarily as a prerequisite to attending college. I am very happy to say that I authored a student referendum that required OSPIRG (Oregon Student Public Interest Group) to collect their funding through a positive check-off voluntary fee at Oregon State University in 1986. Prior to that time they received mandatory fees from every student on campus, and exported over 2/3rd's of that money off campus to pay for non-student lobbying and litigation efforts.
Once OSPIRG realized that it would have to show students what it was doing in order for them to support it's efforts, it left the OSU campus. What was really interesting about this, was that the student members of the campus chapter were willing to accept voluntary funding. It was the parent state-wide organization run by "professionals" that refused. This from an organization run by students?
The rumor at the time was that OSPIRG was afraid that voluntary funding would spread to other campuses in the state. They feared being held accountable by the students (their supposed constituency) for their guaranteed income.
So if a PIRG canvaser comes to your door, say's s/he represents all the students at your local university, and asks for money. Give as you wish. Just remember that the students at that university don't have a choice. At least you do.
-- +------------------------+------------------------------------------------- ---+ | Scott Boyd | View expressed are not intended to malign any of | | ..!uunet!futures!scott | the other groups Jim mentioned. Caveat Emptor. | +------------------------+------------------------------------------------- ---+
Please note that at Rutgers, the State U of NJ, you have the option of deleting the NJPIRG fee from your term bill by checking a box on the bill. Also, at least 50% of voting students must pass a referendum every three years - in which at least 25% of each college must vote - to allow the fee to appear on the term bill at all.
Thus, at Rutgers the NJPIRG funding is optional, and it must show student support to even appear on the term bill at all.
Mark -- Mark Smith, KNJ2LH All Rights Reserved RPO 1604 You may redistribute this article only if those who P.O. Box 5063 receive it may do so freely. New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 msm...@topaz.rutgers.edu
In article <9...@futures.UUCP> sc...@futures.UUCP (Scott Boyd) writes: >He's right it's only if you're student that your forced to join! PIRG's >purloin mandatory student fees from all students attending a college and
--- Over-general claim alert.
>happy to say that I authored a student referendum that required OSPIRG >(Oregon Student Public Interest Group) to collect their funding through a >positive check-off voluntary fee at Oregon State University in 1986.
Well, good for you. I'm happy to inform you that all the way back to 1982 when CAL-PIRG first came to UC Santa Cruz, the fee was optional. i.e. I believe they organized on the campus under those circumstances. --wayne
> He's right[,] it's only if you're student [sic] that your [sic] > forced to join! . . . Unlike the other groups that Jim [sic] > has mentioned[,] PIRG's [sic] do not solicit students for money, > they just take it.
The funding of PIRGs by students has been a controversial topic, but the actual history of this controversy shows that this funding is actually more fair than is the norm for extra- curricular groups that students may not wish to fund.
Most colleges have student extra-curricular groups that students pay for with a fee. PIRGs are extra-curricular groups that focus on activism---like the other groups, its members choose what to spend their energies on.
Schools have clubs for sports like boxing, gun clubs, religious groups, gay groups, women's groups, career-oriented professional groups, school newspapers, school radio stations, and other things. All of these have political aspects to them, and all kinds of groups involve their members in activism of some kind or another, all paid for with fees collected from all of the students. Students in general do not get to choose not to pay the student fee, even if they don't get involved with any of the groups.
PIRG members choose their own agenda, and in the early 1980s a lot of them chose to oppose nuclear energy. This led to a backlash from the industry and its supporters. All of a sudden PIRGs became inappropriate extra-curricular activities to be funded with student fees.
Some PIRGs were purged. One school I went to, the University of Lowell (Massachusetts), simply removed the group at the behest of its board of directors (several of whom had a stake in the Seabrook power plant).
The general PIRG response was the negative checkoff system: the PIRG fee showed up as a separate item on the bill that students would have to explicitly check off if they did *not* want to pay for it.
So while students had no choice but to pay for, say, the school newspaper with its rabid pro-Reagan editors, or the campus Young Conservatives club, or the gay social group, or the Bible study group; they were able to choose whether or not to fund the campus PIRG.
This still wasn't good enough for the opposition. It was *they* who screamed bloody murder, claiming that having a negative checkoff system was an official endorsement of PIRG funding, and therefore of PIRG activism. The general response to that was a positive checkoff system.
> I am very happy to say that I authored a student referendum > . . .
I can just see it now: confused OSU students trying to figure out how to answer the question, "Do you want you're fee's to fund PIRG's?"
> Once OSPIRG realized that it would have to show students what it > was doing in order for them to support it's efforts, it left the > OSU campus. What was really interesting about this, was that > the student members of the campus chapter were willing to accept > voluntary funding.
PIRGs were (and are) under attack all over the country. Statewide organizations simply don't have the resources to save every PIRG. Some just don't have enough of the right people in the right places. One MassPIRG representative managed to lose almost every PIRG in Worcester, Massachusetts, by portraying the negative checkoff system as a tax!
But sometimes they can come back. PIRGs today usually have to justify their existence to students, and even then, they thrive. We got one started at ULowell again!
> So if a PIRG canvaser [sic] comes to your door, say's [sic] s/he > represents all the students at your local university, . . .
Excuse me, but you seem to re-entering the realm of fantasy. A PIRG canvasser would come to your door to solicit your support on a specific issue, and would identify the state PIRG as their organization.
> . . . and asks for money. Give as you wish. Just remember that > the students at that university don't have a choice.
More fantasy, of course. Incidentally, the outrageous sums of money that we're talking about here amounts to about $5.00 per student per year (at least, that's what it was in my day).
PIRGs are good groups that give students fantastic experiences in activism, get great things done, and promote forms of direct democracy such as the referendum initiative. They provide summer jobs that give great experience and help you meet some great people. Even when burdened with funding hassles that the typical college group doesn't have to contend with, PIRGs have grown steadily throughout the most apathetic and anti- progressive decade in memory. They deserve your support. ::::.-----.:::::<_Jym_>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::/ | \::::.-----.::::::::::::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer :::::::: ::/ | \::/ o o \::::::: j...@anableps.berkeley.edu :::::::: ::\ /|\ /::\ \___/ /::::::::: Berserkeley, California :::::::: :::\ / | \ /::::`-----'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::`-----':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
In article <JYM.89Nov13003...@anableps.berkeley.edu> j...@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
| |The general PIRG response was the negative checkoff system: the | PIRG fee showed up as a separate item on the bill that students | would have to explicitly check off if they did *not* want to pay | for it. | |So while students had no choice but to pay for, say, the school | newspaper with its rabid pro-Reagan editors, or the campus Young | Conservatives club, or the gay social group, or the Bible study | group; they were able to choose whether or not to fund the | campus PIRG.
So why don't the PIRGs just apply for student government funding like any other student group?
(note: around this campus, one can't get student government funding to use for religious services)
> So why don't the PIRGs just apply for student government funding > like any other student group?
Because student government funding comes from student fees, and when PIRGs were funded that way, the nuclear power industry made a big stink about it.
I feel that PIRGs are just as legitimate as any other group, and should be allowed to be funded like any other group. But I don't call those shots. ::::.-----.:::::<_Jym_>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::/ | \::::.-----.::::::::::::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer :::::::: ::/ | \::/ o o \::::::: j...@anableps.berkeley.edu :::::::: ::\ /|\ /::\ \___/ /::::::::: Berserkeley, California :::::::: :::\ / | \ /::::`-----'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::`-----':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
In article <JYM.89Nov13160...@anableps.berkeley.edu> j...@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
|> So why don't the PIRGs just apply for student government funding |> like any other student group?
|Because student government funding comes from student fees, and | when PIRGs were funded that way, the nuclear power industry made | a big stink about it.
Ha ha. Like the nuclear power industry controls the student government, especially at Berkeley. There are plenty of other groups funded by student governments that a lot of groups would make a big stink about.
|I feel that PIRGs are just as legitimate as any other group, and | should be allowed to be funded like any other group. But I don't | call those shots.
Of course, the real reason that CalPIRG has the funny way of funding on the Berkeley campus is that it gets a lot more money than if were to apply for ASUC money. If 70% of the students pay the $4 (70% is typical for negative check offs like at Berkeley), CalPIRG will take in about $86800 per semester, which come out to be about $173600 per year, or more than the amount the ASUC gives to all student groups not directly under its control put together. Note that the largest amount given by the ASUC to a single student group is about $6000.
In article <9...@futures.UUCP> sc...@futures.UUCP (Scott Boyd) writes:
[ assorted flamage about PIRGs deleted ]
>He's right it's only if you're student that your forced to join! >PIRG's purloin mandatory student fees from all students attending a >college and then use that money to finance their public politicking, >lobbying, canvasing, and litigation efforts. Unlike the other groups >that Jim has mentioned PIRG's do not solicit students for money, they >just take it.
In addition to all the people who posted earlier about schools at which this statement is false, it's false at Brandeis University, at least when the organization was formed there several years ago.
Facts, facts, who needs facts? ------ Greg Lindahl g...@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA.
Scott Boyd wrote an article describing his unhappiness with a local PIRG that required all students to pay fees. Although not challenging his experience, I would like to say that my own has been very different. Far from refusing to have voluntary fees, our PIRG (U of Toronto) had trouble getting established because the University wanted them to have mandatory fees and they refused, saying it was PIRG policy to be supported only by those who choose to support them. The compromise that was worked out is that everyone pays the five bucks with the rest of their fees, but can get them back from the PIRG office, if they so choose. Of course, some people object to having to walk 2 blocks to get the cash, but you can't please everyone.
This PIRG seems to do some good work, although I haven't personally done any work with them. They've done a lot of on-campus educational work on refugees and immigrants, have a radio show on the campus station, do a lot of stuff on food, both on and off-campus, etc. It seems to depend on the interests of the students involved in any particular year. At any rate, I just wanted to say that although there may be some bad PIRGs out there, I feel like I get $5 worth of community activism out of mine.
In article <JYM.89Nov10021...@anableps.berkeley.edu> j...@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>I thought I'd expand on the list I posted before, adding useful > information like addresses, etc. I've added ca.environment to
> I support and/or am a member of all these groups. Note that all > of these organizations will send you publications if you join > them. Information is a vital thing to have these days! All > prices quoted are for inside the United States.
I'll add the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). 257 Park Ave. South New York, NY 10010., with offices in DC, Oakland, CA., Boulder, CO Raleigh, NC., and Richmond, VA. EDF targets a variety of world wide environmental issues and lobbey's various governments and the world bank for environmental concerns. Memberships start at $20.00, $10.00 for student/senior citizens. I am a member of EDF. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Duane Mattern (216)433-8186 (matt...@ncoast.uucp) | | Sverdrup Technology, Inc. at NASA Lewis Research Center| | 21000 Brookpark Rd, M/S 77-1 Cleveland, Ohio 44135 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <JYM.89Nov13160...@anableps.berkeley.edu> j...@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes: >> So why don't the PIRGs just apply for student government funding >> like any other student group?
>Because student government funding comes from student fees, and > when PIRGs were funded that way, the nuclear power industry made > a big stink about it.
>I feel that PIRGs are just as legitimate as any other group, and > should be allowed to be funded like any other group. But I don't > call those shots.
Conservative groups heavily funded by the ASUC? HA! what a joke! get your head out of your tush!
As near as I know the California Review did get some money, but nowhere near as much as the Gay/Lesbian/Bisex Alliance, MEChA, or the "Womyn's" Liberation Front...
j...@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes: >The funding of PIRGs by students has been a controversial topic, > but the actual history of this controversy shows that this > funding is actually more fair than is the norm for extra- > curricular groups that students may not wish to fund.
Except that PIRGs are not *just* extra-curricular groups.
>Most colleges have student extra-curricular groups that students > pay for with a fee. PIRGs are extra-curricular groups that focus > on activism---like the other groups, its members choose what to > spend their energies on.
PIRGs focus on exporting student fees to support a predefined political agenda, issued at the national and state level. Local chapters are window dressing that export between 2/3 and 3/4 of the money collected for use by the professionally run state agency.
>Schools have clubs for sports like boxing, gun clubs, religious > groups, gay groups, women's groups, career-oriented professional > groups, school newspapers, school radio stations, and other > things. All of these have political aspects to them, and all > kinds of groups involve their members in activism of some kind > or another, all paid for with fees collected from all of the > students. Students in general do not get to choose not to > pay the student fee, even if they don't get involved with > any of the groups.
The above groups contribute to the on-campus "marketplace of ideas." The amount of funding these groups receive is controlled by student government and is far lower on an individual basis than the money a PIRG obtains. PIRGs by operating outside of the standard fees process take more money from a campus than all other groups combined.
In addition, other groups don't send the money they receive off-campus. PIRGs usually provide little to the campus itself, except things like rental handbooks, and surveys on where to get the best pizza in town. Items that are usually provided by the campus newspaper or student services office. Most of the PIRGs energy is spent off-campus, pushing issues that many students may not support.
>PIRG members choose their own agenda, and in the early 1980s a lot > of them chose to oppose nuclear energy. This led to a backlash > from the industry and its supporters. All of a sudden PIRGs > became inappropriate extra-curricular activities to be funded > with student fees.
PIRGs were also involved in issues like: Abortion, Drug Legalization, Public Utility Regulation, Food Preservation issues, the Nuclear Freeze Movement, Rent Control, the 1984 Presidential campaign of Gary Hart, and numerous other items. PIRGs promote a smorgasboard of issues. Similar to the platforms of political parties. These items are selected at the state (and sometimes national) level, not by the students at large of the university.
PIRGs pursue controversial issues. Issues that no population of students as a whole would agree on. Yet PIRGs claim that they represent the will of the students compelled to pay.
>The general PIRG response was the negative checkoff system: the > PIRG fee showed up as a separate item on the bill that students > would have to explicitly check off if they did *not* want to pay > for it.
Negative check-off schemes have been fought by Ralph Nader and other consumer advocates on many fronts. He has argued that negative check-offs are coercive and dishonest. These schemes pray upon the ignorance of the subjects, and work particularly well on transient populations like students. There are always new incoming subjects who don't know that they have to either explicitly cross out a line item or check a NO box on their registration form to avoid paying.
>I can just see it now: confused OSU students trying to figure out > how to answer the question, "Do you want you're fee's to fund > PIRG's?"
No, I'm afraid not. A special election was held to decide the issue. OSPIRG spent a good portion of their mandatory fee income fighting the referendum. It was publically debated for over 2 months before the election. The students' voted for a positive, fully voluntary check-off for OSPIRG.
Two months later, the students of OSU also voted to amend the student government constitution, so that groups like PIRGs could only be funded by a fully voluntary, positive optional check-off fee in the future.
It appears that the reason that PIRGs won't accept voluntary funding is because then they would be directly accountable to their student constituencies. Students would have an active personal choice about funding the PIRG based upon its recent actions. PIRGs fear this more than anything else.
> Some just don't have enough of the right people in the right > places. One MassPIRG representative managed to lose almost > every PIRG in Worcester, Massachusetts, by portraying the > negative checkoff system as a tax!
But the statement that "the PIRG fee is a tax" is straight out of the PIRG Bible: "Action For A Change", (C) 1971. This sounds like an instance where the PIRG was actually somewhat truthful about their funding.
>But sometimes they can come back. PIRGs today usually have to > justify their existence to students, and even then, they thrive.
They should have always have had to justify their existence.
> We got one started at ULowell again!
Great! I just hope that it is being funded by a fully voluntary positive check-off fee. But I bet it isn't.
>> So if a PIRG canvaser [sic] comes to your door, say's [sic] s/he >> represents all the students at your local university, . . . >Excuse me, but you seem to re-entering the realm of fantasy. A > PIRG canvasser would come to your door to solicit your support on > a specific issue, and would identify the state PIRG as their > organization.
No. The specific issue would be the door opener, so you would talk to 'em. Then they would tell how they represented the local university students on this issue, and ask you for money. They *might* also mention the state-wide scope of the organization to provide credibility. Canvasers are salespeople. They will do what it takes to make a sale as they get a cut of the money they collect.
In most cases, the name of the State organization is the same as the chapters, so that it is difficult for anyone to tell the difference. (This brings up issues about the multiple entities PIRGs operate under that would make a separate huge article.)
>> . . . and asks for money. Give as you wish. Just remember that >> the students at that university don't have a choice. >More fantasy, of course. Incidentally, the outrageous sums of > money that we're talking about here amounts to about $5.00 per > student per year (at least, that's what it was in my day).
How many students at a university? How many universities in a state? The amount of money is usually between $500,000 to $3,000,000 a year. When revenue from canvasing is added these numbers can easily quadruple.
>PIRGs are good groups that give students fantastic experiences in > activism, get great things done, and promote forms of direct > democracy such as the referendum initiative. They provide > summer jobs that give great experience and help you meet some > great people.
Yes, you can get experience in activism and summer jobs, as long as you agree with the PIRG. You could get similar experience by working for a political party, candidate, or on an initiative campaign. Work for Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, a Church group, or any of a number of organizations. Don't cheat your fellow students.
PIRGs do not like democracy when that means to fund the PIRG via non-coercive means. OSPIRG spent 6 months fighting two student referendums *after* they had passed. It attempted to invalidate both to regain mandatory funding. "Democracy" is the call when they win, "Entitlement" is the call when they lose.
Activism is a wonderful way to get things done and be heard. Activism is powerful when groups of committed volunteers pursue action using their own resources and enroll others in their specific cause. PIRGs do not do this. They obtain money from opposed, uncommitted, and unknowing students first, then quietly move the majority of that money off-campus for their own use, while offering a few local campus services. If you don't believe this check the accounting books of your local PIRG.
> Even when burdened with funding hassles that > the typical college group doesn't have to contend with, PIRGs > have grown steadily throughout the most apathetic and anti- > progressive decade in memory. They deserve your support.
PIRGs fund themselves outside of the channels of *real* student groups on purpose. They do not use the regular student group funding process, because then they would be accountable to student government, and thus the students. PIRGs that have come under student government control have had their funds cut drastically.
If PIRGs were funded in a fully voluntary manner, there would be little debate about them. That PIRGs feel that they are entitled to purloin and export student fees off-campus, either through mandatory fees or other coercive, unethical funding strategies, is why their funding is an issue.
The PIRG movement has shrunk considerably through the 80's, due to the actions of students, student governments, state legislatures, and federal courts. These actions are in reaction to the various coercive funding schemes that PIRGs continue to pursue.
Students should fight coercive PIRG funding schemes, so that all students may personally, individually, choose to support these political action groups. Students who value the PIRG can choose the pay for it, and students who do not value the PIRG will not pay for it via trickery.
Those students who do choose to reform a PIRG should expect a truly dirty fight. PIRGs have no integrity when it comes to funding.
In article <JYM.89Nov13003...@anableps.berkeley.edu> j...@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>PIRGs are good groups that give students fantastic experiences in > activism, get great things done, and promote forms of direct > ...
Well, Jym, I agree that they do fantastic things. May they continue to grow and prosper. Unfortunately, I had a bad experience with them. I was looking for some progressive work to do (I'd never done any activist work before... just talked a lot, so I thought it was time). I was living in Somerville, MA at the time, so I got hooked up with the Boston office. Everyone seemed so young and idealistic to me (I was 23, most were 18 or 19), full of energy and drive, willing to go right along with whatever MassPIRG told them to do. Now, I'm rather independent-minded (rebellious, some would say), so, though I agreed with the work MassPIRG did, their zealousness scared me a bit.
Anyway, I canvassed with them for a couple of days (gruelling days driving around to canvas sites), but didn't meet my quota. I didn't feel comfortable trying to convince people of things that I was "told" to convince them. It felt like too much of a hard sell to me. I know, somebody's gotta get out there and tell people the facts, but it seemed I was being handed a clipboard and told "here's the rap, here's some info, now go out there and get money". I believed in the "product" -- so to speak -- but it still seemed rather brainless to me. And there was just so much "You work for MassPIRG! Rah! Rah!" to it, I couldn't take it. I talked with the canvas director, and got into an argument with her... she got me in a defensive position, saying "I don't think you've got what it _takes_ to work here!" Grr... dirty trick. Anyway, I tried one more day, and gave up, 'cause I couldn't get myself to like it.
Later on, a friend of mine who'd signed up for it also quit, for similar reasons. Another friend, who I think got to be canvas director at one time, quit after she got burnt out on the whole internal politics thing. It seems to have a lot of burn-out stories.
It had the potential to be a fun place for me, but I guess I just lack that youthful spirit these days. They even encouraged the "this is a fun place to meet people to fool around with" aspect of it (no problem there)... they had this week-long camp for people who'd been working there a certain amount of time... sort of an R&R camp. One of it's drawing features, according to a speech made by a MassPIRG person, was "there's lots of boys and girls there, and you never know what interesting things happen there during the night" (something like that, followed by giggles in the crowd). Sort of like the "we work hard, we play hard" attitude. Didn't suit me... too bad. I would have liked to have adopted that attitude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Tim Bessie What do women want? (ames!amdcad!diablo!timb) Mens wants to know!
> PIRGs focus on exporting student fees to support a predefined > political agenda, issued at the national and state level.
What a load of bollocks excrement. PIRGs do coordinate statewide activities, which only makes sense if you're working on statewide referendum initiatives. They are not, in any sense, predefined. They are selected by PIRG members and voted on by same.
> [Other extra-curricular groups I've listed] contribute to the > on-campus "marketplace of ideas."
And PIRGs don't? What a load of bovine feces. Students who go out and mount campaigns have a lot more to offer in this regard than students who go out and put bulletholes into targets.
> Most of the PIRGs [sic] energy is spent off-campus, pushing > issues that many students may not support.
A common theme of yours, but the implication that this makes PIRGs different from other groups is a load of cow manure. The bowling club goes off-campus to the bowling alley. Oh horrors! The future nuclear engineers club pushes issues I don't support, but I paid for them anyhow.
Also, let's bear in mind that there really is a real world out there, and that the campus is part of it. When PIRGs work off- campus to stop toxic waste dumping, everybody on campus will benefit. When PIRGs pass "lemon laws," the many students who buy used cars benefit. Let's see the chess club match that, even as they stay on campus! ::::.-----.:::::<_Jym_>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::/ | \::::.-----.::::::::::::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer :::::::: ::/ | \::/ o o \::::::: j...@anableps.berkeley.edu :::::::: ::\ /|\ /::\ \___/ /::::::::: Berserkeley, California :::::::: :::\ / | \ /::::`-----':::::::::::: Dilute! Dilute! O.K.! :::::::: ::::`-----':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Canvassing is difficult work, whether it be for PIRGs or another group. I've canvassed for a number of groups, never very well, and always at the behest of someone who told me they, unlike others, could teach me to do it right.
I did get a little better at it. It has a lot to do with self- confidence, just like sales; as I got more self-confident, I got better. But I don't think I got self-confident enough to do it really well.
The MassPIRGs I've been involved with were definitely more "rah rah" than the other groups. Sometimes it's inspiring, sometimes it's annoying.
And yes, there is the "fooling around" aspect. It's nice to work on something worthwhile with a group of people who are pretty hip and tend to be nonsexist, and some great love affairs can spring from that. (*Sigh!*) ::::.-----.:::::<_Jym_>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::/ | \::::.-----.::::::::::::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer :::::::: ::/ | \::/ o o \::::::: j...@anableps.berkeley.edu :::::::: ::\ /|\ /::\ \___/ /::::::::: Berserkeley, California :::::::: :::\ / | \ /::::`-----':::::::::::: Dilute! Dilute! O.K.! :::::::: ::::`-----':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
In article <JYM.89Nov21090...@anableps.berkeley.edu> j...@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes: > [ re: canvassing ] >I did get a little better at it. It has a lot to do with self- > confidence, just like sales; as I got more self-confident, I got > better. But I don't think I got self-confident enough to do it > really well.
I just volunteered for the GE Boycott people and helped run a table on Friday. Quite a high that lasted all day; I felt like I was walking on air. You do need to pump yourself up so that people can't knock you down. I can see how it could be addicting. I could also see how it could take away any remnants of humility a activist-minded college student might have.
>The MassPIRGs I've been involved with were definitely more "rah > rah" than the other groups. Sometimes it's inspiring, sometimes > it's annoying.
"Rah Rah"-ness has never inspired me, even for a good cause. Dunno why... guess it's just my rebellious nature. I rebel against rebels, too.
>And yes, there is the "fooling around" aspect. It's nice to work > on something worthwhile with a group of people who are pretty > hip and tend to be nonsexist, and some great love affairs can > spring from that. (*Sigh!*)
Though I can't speak from experience (since I didn't stay long), it seemed to me there were still a lot of things I would call "sexist" happening... I noticed that the prettiest, most docile _girls_ (I use this word purposefully) were the ones sleeping with the canvas managers; I also noticed that plenty of people let "hip" get to their heads, as in "I'm so hip to be a bisexual, politically active, socially aware 19-year-old who wears the hippest clothes, and if you have any doubts about my lifestyle you can go fuck yourself!" I think, tho', a lot of my annoyance with this attitude (this is the extreme side) comes from my jealously of it, more than anything else. With a lot of rebellious anger, you can pretty much banish a lot of self-doubt, something that I have difficulty doing. I also have a problem with questioning of lifestyle and attitude being some sort of taboo in these circles. In my book a truly questioning person questions themselves constantly. Again, it may be my own difficulty settleing down with an image of myself that makes me feel this way.
- Tim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Tim Bessie What do women want? (ames!amdcad!diablo!timb) Mens wants to know!
Yow, I hear you. Enforced hip is no more liberating than enforced squareness. If the hip people can't laugh at themselves, they risk becoming a new generation as power freaks.
And as Abbie Hoffman once said, once they get into power it'll be haircuts for everyone! ::::.-----.:::::<_Jym_>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::/ | \::::.-----.::::::::::::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer :::::::: ::/ | \::/ o o \::::::: j...@anableps.berkeley.edu :::::::: ::\ /|\ /::\ \___/ /::::::::: Berserkeley, California :::::::: :::\ / | \ /::::`-----':::::::::::: Dilute! Dilute! O.K.! :::::::: ::::`-----':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>> Managers at GE get jobs in the federal government and shape >> policy. Lo and behold, policy ends up meaning big business >> for GE. > But regardless of what firm gets the H-bomb business, the Feds > will still ask for H-bombs to be built.
Well, if one assumes that enough explosive power to kill everyone in the world X times is necessary, or that a Star Wars system to save us from 10% of incoming missiles is worth working on, then you might have a point. If one believes otherwise, though, one might think that something other than The National Defense (TM) is motivating such decisions.
>> Boycott the government? > Work on reducing the taxes you pay them. Quit doing business > with them where possible. . . .
One of the classic tax-resistance strategies is not to make enough money to pay taxes, or to take payment "under the table" or through the barter system.
I've been an activist for a good many years now, and about half of that time I managed to make too little money to have to pay taxes. These days I've got computer work that puts me squarely into the middle class.
There are advantages and disadvantages. Most social change activists, after all, are from the middle class. Lower-income classes have to devote more time to survival, and higher-income classes tend to be in support of the _status_quo_.
I used to get my possessions (clothes, furniture, living tools, etc.) from trash dumpsters. I liked doing that: it's a form of recycling, and one doesn't end up supporting businesses whose policies one doesn't support. This is not a route many are willing to go, though (and as homelessness rose, I did not want to compete with people worse off than I was).
A more common practice amongst lower-income people is to buy cheap goods. This often means supporting the oppression of other people whose labor is cheap, and paying for synthetics that are bad for one's health and the environment. With the higher income I have now, I have a greater choice of things to buy.
This also applies to food. The cheaper foods are highly pro- cessed, full of artificial ingredients, and come from agribiz crops that are petrochemically fertilized and treated with pesticides. Again, bad for one's health and the environment. Again, I can now afford to support organic farmers and such.
(Of course, the dirt cheap approach to this is to start a garden. But you need to find a nontoxic patch of land, particularly difficult in the poor part of a city.)
In my poorer days hunger was a constant companion. You get less done as an activist if you're not eating right, or enough. I would burn out a lot.
In poorer days I had more time to be an activist; these days I have more money to put into activism.
All in all, I think I'm more effective at a middle-class income, despite my contributions (via taxes) to the country's war efforts . . . but I'm not entirely sure. If I could figure out how to live as an effective activist at a lower income, I'd do it.
> My definitions of social justice: those who refuse to work > deserve to go hungry.
Your definition lacks a discernment of the difference between work and the type of employment available in our society. Of course, to make such a discernment one would have to recognize the social injustices of our society. But your definition makes that impossible. ::::.-----.:::::<_Jym_>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::/ | \::::.-----.::::::::::::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer :::::::: ::/ | \::/ o o \::::::: j...@anableps.berkeley.edu :::::::: ::\ /|\ /::\ \___/ /::::::::: Berserkeley, California :::::::: :::\ / | \ /::::`-----':::::::::::: Dilute! Dilute! O.K.! :::::::: ::::`-----':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
In the referenced article j...@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
> >> Boycott the government? > > Work on reducing the taxes you pay them. Quit doing business > > with them where possible. . . .
> One of the classic tax-resistance strategies is not to make enough > money to pay taxes, or to take payment "under the table" or > through the barter system.
> I've been an activist for a good many years now, and about half of > that time I managed to make too little money to have to pay > taxes. These days I've got computer work that puts me squarely > into the middle class.
Besides my patent disbelief that rendering oneself poor enough to escape the bottom bracket of income taxes is a "classic tax-resistance strategy", I wonder why it is necessary to go through such gyrations to avoid dealing with the government when there are so much better ways of doing so -- and more importantly, they are ways that help change the system.
Merely avoiding taxes -- regardless whether it's by voluntary poverty, use of tax shelter investments, or by "taking payment under the table" (i.e., illegal tax evasion) -- is insufficient to change anything. In the case of slipping under the bottom tax bracket, it's merely freeloading -- think of all the government services that Mr. Dyer consumed without paying for them. Perhaps now that he is solvent, we who paid for all those services for him might expect a refund?
If one is really concerned about government wastage, looks for ways to *make government smaller* and *reduce government influence in peoples' lives*. Work for lower taxes. Work for reductions in government expenditures (remember, defense is only half the Federal budget -- there are hundreds of billions of dollars of pork barrel projects, welfare-state income transfers, and "off budget" pyramid schemes like Social Security out there too!). Work to eliminate brain damage like paying farmers not to grow crops. Work to decrease runaway borrowing by voting down bond measures. Work for privatization of services. Work for user-fee-based and pay-as-you-go services to replace tax-funded services.
-- Michael C. Berch (new address!) m...@presto.ig.com / ames!bionet!mcb
In article <Dec.2.22.06.58.1989.16...@presto.IG.COM> m...@presto.IG.COM (Michael C. Berch) writes: + If one is really concerned about government wastage, looks for ways to + *make government smaller* and *reduce government influence in peoples' + lives*. Work for lower taxes. Work for reductions in government + expenditures (remember, defense is only half the Federal budget -- ^^^^--wrong; see below. + there are hundreds of billions of dollars of pork barrel projects, + welfare-state income transfers, and "off budget" pyramid schemes like + Social Security out there too!. Work to eliminate brain damage like + paying farmers not to grow crops. Work to decrease runaway borrowing + by voting down bond measures. Work for privatization of services. + Work for user-fee-based and pay-as-you-go services to replace + tax-funded services.
These are all excellent sentiments, but I want to correct two factual errors: first, defense is *not* half of the Federal budget. The number is much closer to one-third. (350 Billion out of over 1 Trillion, if memory serves.) Still far too high, of course. Second, while Social InSecurity *is* a pyramid scheme, it is *not* "off-budget". Off-limits, perhaps, at least according to your (and my) CongressCritter, but not off-budget.
-- Robert Bickford {apple,pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!rab r...@well.sf.ca.us /-------------------------------------\ | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian | \-------------------------------------/
In article <Dec.2.22.06.58.1989.16...@presto.IG.COM> m...@presto.IG.COM (Michael C. Berch) writes:
>In the case of slipping under the bottom tax bracket, it's merely >freeloading -- think of all the government services that Mr. Dyer >consumed without paying for them. Perhaps now that he is solvent, we >who paid for all those services for him might expect a refund?
Oh, so now we're all obligated to have a job to pay for all the government services that maybe we don't want or need. Besides, how do you know that he did use any?
Oh, I forgot, we all get the benifit of multi-trillions of dollars pumped into "defense" assets. What is someone to do if a) they think said trillions aren't spent effectively, b) most of the money goes into someones pocket who does not have our national security in mind, c) spending ourselves into debt this way in no way enhances security and in fact damages it, or d) the entire military-industrial complex is illegal and/or immoral and should not be supported?
Although I'd like a smaller federal government with reasonable taxation, it would be enough to be able to specify where my money goes. Tell me where on my tax form (or any form) I can tell them not to spend any more of my money on such foolishness, and as long as they aren't going to give my money back, I'd tell them to at least to try to do something for education, health care, space exploration, almost anything else.
In article <3...@zds-ux.UUCP> ge...@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) writes: > In article <Dec.2.22.06.58.1989.16...@presto.IG.COM> m...@presto.IG.COM (Michael C. Berch) writes: > >In the case of slipping under the bottom tax bracket, it's merely > >freeloading -- think of all the government services that Mr. Dyer > >consumed without paying for them. Perhaps now that he is solvent, we > >who paid for all those services for him might expect a refund?
> Oh, so now we're all obligated to have a job to pay for all the government > services that maybe we don't want or need. Besides, how do you know that > he did use any?
Aha, now the shoe is on the other foot. Does Mr. Gleason concede, then, that it is desirable to have a system in which one need only pay for the government services which one wants? Absolutely fine by me, but people who take up such a position are usually accused of being Dangerous Libertarians...
-- Michael C. Berch m...@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb
j...@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes: >> PIRGs focus on exporting student fees to support a predefined >> political agenda, issued at the national and state level. >What a load of bollocks excrement. PIRGs do coordinate statewide > activities, which only makes sense if you're working on statewide > referendum initiatives. They are not, in any sense, predefined. > They are selected by PIRG members and voted on by same.
Look, you and I can continue this public debate, I have an answer for every one of your PIRG "party line" responses. I've read the PIRG promotion rap sheets too. It won't get us anywhere. But at least the net can watch and decide for themselves.
Students at each college must pierce the veil of misinformation themselves. They will then either choose to fight for their rights or be apathetic and let the PIRGs take their fees.
The issues are not pre-defined??? Then how come they are all the same from state to state and are simultaneously executed? If PIRGs are so independent why are they all called PIRG<something> or <something>PIRG? Only the most naive person would believe that there is no coordinated effort.
>> [Other extra-curricular groups I've listed] contribute to the >> on-campus "marketplace of ideas." >And PIRGs don't? What a load of bovine feces. Students who go > out and mount campaigns have a lot more to offer in this regard > than students who go out and put bulletholes into targets.
That's a value judgement on your part. You'll get lots of agreement that the use of firearms is bad. So What? Some students may find that knowing how to use and care for firearms is more valuable than doing what you or I want. That's their choice, not yours. They also might spend 1/350 of the budget of a single campus PIRG chapter pursuing that activity.
>> Most of the PIRGs [sic] energy is spent off-campus, pushing >> issues that many students may not support. >A common theme of yours, but the implication that this makes PIRGs > different from other groups is a load of cow manure. The bowling > club goes off-campus to the bowling alley. Oh horrors! The > future nuclear engineers club pushes issues I don't support, > but I paid for them anyhow.
Is the primary purpose of the bowling team or future nuclear engineers club to push political issues? Is the bowling club's charter to promote the building of bowling alleys all over the state. Are future nuclear engineers using student fees to hire attorneys and lobby state legislatures for more nuclear weapons and power plants? I think not.
I note that you never mention that PIRGs *do not* operate under the fiscal control of student government like your other example groups. Why? A recent post in soc.college explains: +----------------- |Of course, the real reason that CalPIRG has the funny way of funding |on the Berkeley campus is that it gets a lot more money than if were |to apply for ASUC money. If 70% of the students pay the $4 (70% |is typical for negative check offs like at Berkeley), CalPIRG will |take in about $86800 per semester, which come out to be about |$173600 per year, or more than the amount the ASUC gives to all |student groups not directly under its control put together. Note |that the largest amount given by the ASUC to a single student group |is about $6000. +-----------------
>Also, let's bear in mind that there really is a real world out > there, and that the campus is part of it.
In the real world Political Action Groups raise money by asking for it.
>When PIRGs work off-campus to stop toxic waste dumping, everybody on > campus will benefit. When PIRGs pass "lemon laws," the many students > who buy used cars benefit. Let's see the chess club match that, > even as they stay on campus!
Ah yes. "We know better than the person who is paying" argument. I will not argue about these 2 issues. I agree with them. But they do not provide justification that a PIRG deserves (or is entitled to) an unencumbered hand in every students' pocket. PIRGs do not just pursue warm fuzzy, Mom, and Apple Pie issues on which we can all agree. When they do, they are very public about it. When they pursue controversial issues they do a lot to hide their actions.
You have picked 2 specific issues, and ignored all the others. Big deal. By this logic, you can justify anything. For instance: Tax cuts are good for everyone. Ron Raygun, a member of the Republican party, engineered a tax cut in the early 80's. Therefore everyone should pay $$$ to the Republican party, regardless of what else they do. By the way, you can volunteer to work for them anytime you want on a variety of issues.
By what right do you feel that you or a PIRG have the right to choose for someone else what happens with their personal resources in a political arena?
-- +----------------------+----------------------------+---------------------- ---+ | Scott Boyd | "Still searching for an | Some Organization, | | sc...@futures.UU.NET | appropriate silly quote" | Somewhere, Somehow | +----------------------+----------------------------+---------------------- ---+
In article <14...@well.UUCP> r...@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) writes: > [...] I want to correct two factual > errors: first, defense is *not* half of the Federal budget. The number is > much closer to one-third. (350 Billion out of over 1 Trillion, if memory > serves.) Still far too high, of course. Second, while Social InSecurity > *is* a pyramid scheme, it is *not* "off-budget". Off-limits, perhaps, at > least according to your (and my) CongressCritter, but not off-budget.
Righto on the defense budget, and thanks. I had the figure 40% in my mind, and rounded up so that no one could jack me up, but on looking up the latest available (FY 1988) the figure is more like 28%, even less than a third.
As for SS, that was a partial blooper on my part: my understanding is that (after the 1985 "reform" that purported to eliminate off-budget funds) the OASDI trust funds only went back off-budget in 1987 or '88. I read this in a footnote, and combined with another footnote incorrectly concluded that all SS trust funds were again off-budget.
And while SS may be "off-limits" for cuts and phase-out, it unfortunately is not off-limits for congressional depredation: the new funding scheme which produces a current surplus in the trust funds requires that the entire surplus be lent to the government (i.e., invested in T-bills). Dandy, but sooner or later (the actuarial estimate is 2020 or so) those bonds will have to be cashed in to pay benefits to the retiring baby boomers. Where will the funds be found to redeem the bonds? The answer is left as an exercise to the reader.
-- Michael C. Berch m...@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb
|
