Mn-prog-events Mailing List: Progressive Calendar 12.31.05

[David Shove (shove001]

             P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R     12.31.05

1. Zapatista events   12.31 10am/1pm/7pm
2. genderBLU          12.31 8pm

3. Sensible vigil      1.01 12noon
4. Indian uprising     1.01 4pm
5. GPSP CC             1.01 4pm
6. Battle/Algiers/film 1.01 6:30pm

7. Circles/change      1.02 4:30pm

8. Sabo/out of Iraq    1.03 7pm
9. Conspiracies/CTV    1.03 time?
10. Wal-Mart sucks/TV  1.03`9pm

11. Michael Parenti - Government by giveaway
12. Justin Podur    - Interviews Richard Stallman
13. ed              - The shiftless rich (poem)

--------1 of 13--------

From: david_m [at] northcountrycoop.com
Subject: Zapatista events 12.31 10am/1pm/7pm

Danza Mexica Cuauhtemoc invites you to come participate in our annual
Zapatista Celebration!!!!

This year we have 3 activities scheduled for the day. Everyone is welcome.
If you have not come before, please consider coming this year.  It is a
fun way to be with others that are united in this struggle.  This is a
family, community, sober, and politically charged atmosphere.

Saturday, December 31
Danza Azteca, Ceremonia Zapatista
10am
El Nuevo Rodeo - Lake and 27th
This is a azteca dance ceremony.  Please bring flowers and items to honor
the Zapatistas; to be placed on the altar/ofrenda. We will conduct a
ceremony honoring and remembering the Zapatista Uprise and the continued
struggle we are all apart.

Zapatista Snowman making contest!!!!
1pm
Yes that is right, we said, "Snow Making Contest"
Powderhorn Park - Meet in parking lot.
Please bring items for your "snow-zapatista-person" for eyes, nose, scarf,
etc.
We will be sending photos down to Chiapas of the "snow-zapatistas". This
should be a lot of fun so please come ready to show your snow making
skills.

Zapatista Eve Gathering and Celebration
7pm-1am
Cultural Wellness Center, 1527 East Lake Street, corner of lake and
Bloomington

Potluck feast: please bring a dish, beverage, dessert, etc. to share.  If
you have time or know what you will be bringing, please email us back so
we can begin a food list.  Thank you.

After the feast there will be music, games, videos, social dancing and more.

We will read the 6th Declaration and respond to it!!!!!!
This is an important declaration that not all will read the same.  So we
are hoping to talk at large about the declaration so that many more people
will understand what it says, what it is encouraging us to do, and what we
can do about it.

We will also show the video of the Plenary Session of September 16, 2005.
This is a video of the comandantes formal words about the 6th declaration.
Copies will be made available.

We are also going to have a lot of stuff made by the Zapatistas present
for sale.


--------2 of 13--------

From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com>
Subject: genderBLU 12.31 8pm

SEX & CANDY
a genderBLUR New Year's Eve Celebration
December 31, 2005
Patrick's Cabaret, 3010 Minnehaha Ave S, Minneapolis

SPECIALS:
Doors at 7:30 ($0-10 suggested donation, no one turned away for lack of
funds)
Dinner served at 8:00 (Catered by the Seward Café)
Act One at 8:30 p.m. (Curated by Joy MacArthur)
Act Two at 9:45 p.m. (Curated by District 202 youth and staff, and
featuring the talents of District 202 youth)
New Year's Toast at Midnight (with non-alcoholic sparkling beverages)

All Night Long we will be raffling off Smitten Kitten Products, Safer
Sex Supplies, and other Sweet Things

genderBLUR is:
  all ages
  alcohol free
  smoke free
  wheelchair accessible with accessible parking lot
  on bus routes 21 and 7
  on light rail exit Lake St. Midtown station
  dressing rooms available onsite

Scent free policy: so that everyone can be comfortable, please do not wear
perfume or other scented products.
This event made possible by a grant from PFund.
www.genderBLUR.org <http://www.genderblur.org/> 612-823-1152


--------3 of 13--------

From: skarx001 <skarx001 [at] umn.edu>
Subject: Sensible vigil 1.01 12noon

The sensible people for peace hold weekly peace vigils at the intersection
of Snelling and Summit in StPaul, Sunday between noon and 1pm. (This is
across from the Mac campus.) We provide signs protesting current gov.
foreign and domestic policy. We would appreciate others joining our
vigil/protest.


--------4 of 13--------

From: Chris Spotted Eagle <chris [at] spottedeagle.org>
Subject: Indian uprising 1.01 4pm

KFAI's Indian Uprising for January 1, 2006

KANOGISGI SONG-CARRIER - music CD by Joan Henry.  My elders have said that
our songs must be sung in order to live.  Sung, so that they may live.
Sung, so that all may live.  Contact Noyeh-Ongeh Music,
shewolf-jh [at] wildmail.com.

NATIVE AMERICAN JOKES AND HUMOR, http://home.att.net/~native-jokes/

* * * *
Indian Uprising is a one-half hour Public & Cultural Affairs radio program
for, by, and about Indigenous people & all their relations, broadcast each
Sunday at 4:00 p.m. over KFAI 90.3 FM Minneapolis and 106.7 FM St. Paul.
Current programs are archived online after broadcast at www.kfai.org, for
two weeks.  Click Program Archives and scroll to Indian Uprising.


--------5 of 13--------

From: David Shove <shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu>
Subject: GPSP CC 1.01 4pm

Green Party of St Paul
Coordination Committee (CC) meeting
4pm Sunday, 10.31
Cahoots Coffee House
Selby Av 1/2 block E of Snelling in StPaul


--------6 of 13---------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: Battle/Algiers/film 1.01 6:30pm

Sunday, 1/1, 6:30 pm, free film "The Battle of Algiers," a gripping drama
about the Algerian conflict between nationalist bomb-throwers and
well-equipped occupation army, Twin Cities Friends Meeting, 1725 Grand Ave,
St. Paul.


--------7 of 13--------

From: margo adair <madair [at] toolsforchange.org>
Subject: Circles/change 1.02 4:30pm

January 2nd 4:30-8:30 WORKSHOP to Welcome the New Year with author Margo
Adair in town from Seattle to at Magus Books call 612 379-7669 $60

WORKSHOP to welcome the New Year:
Join Margo JANUARY 2nd  4:30-8:30 at Magus Books
*             Develop your ability to listen deeply
*             Open your imagination
*             Tap intuition & channel healing
*             Work with Energy Circles
*             Bring the power of Spirit into daily life
*             Align with your highest values and visions
*             Set intentions for 2006

$60.    Workshop space limited register early.
612 379-7669  www.magusbooks.com <http://www.magusbooks.com/>
Magus Books, 1309 1/2 SE 4th Street, Minneapolis


January 8th 1:00-5:00 Gathering to explore Circles for Change, a community
building project designed to support people to answer the call of the
times. In a 8 week Circle for Change people share story, food, deep
reflection and dialog, --an appetizing meal for the spirit!  Adair's
organization Tools for Change supports Circles throughout the nation. They
are free. For more information see: www.toolsforchange.org
<http://www.toolsforchange.org/>
To register for Jan.8th  call 1-800 998-6657  or write
<mailto:info [at] toolsforchange.org> info [at] toolsforchange.org
Free gathering (though donations are gratefully accepted). Gathering held at
the corner studio of the St Paul Yoga Center 1160 Selby Avenue (for
directions  <http://www.stpaulyogacenter.com/>
http://www.stpaulyogacenter.com/ )

Details on Margo Adair, her organization and events:

Join Margo at the St. Paul  Yoga Center   January 8th 1:00 to 5:00

Find out about an exciting project: Circles for Change. These Circles are
a space for truth seeking, heart sharing, and vision making.  Designed to
develop community through the sharing of story, food, deep reflection and
dialog, they offer an opportunity to explore ways to respond to the call
of the times. By fostering the creation of strong base communities,
Circles provide an environment of sustenance and inspiration, supporting
people in making their contributions to turning the tide and healing the
future. They are a project of Adair's organization Tools for Change
Institute TFCI supports peer-facilitated Circles throughout the country by
providing a structure which combines Applied Meditation, Appreciative
Inquiry, and Popular Education.

There are 3 series of 8 week Circles: Personal Power, Building Community,
and Acting on your Passions for the World. Circles are free; they are
supported by grants and donations. You can join one; you can start one.
Admission free -- donations gratefully accepted.

Gathering held at the corner studio of the St Paul Yoga Center 1160 Selby
Avenue (for directions <http://www.stpaulyogacenter.com/>
http://www.stpaulyogacenter.com/ ) TFCI has a deep appreciation for St
Paul Yoga Center for their generosity and dedication to the community and
for offering their space for this gathering!! For more information see
<http://www.toolsforchange.org/> www.toolsforchange.org Register by
calling 1 800-99tools (1-800 998-6657) or writing
<mailto:info [at] toolsforchange.org> info [at] toolsforchange.org

Margo Adair has been in the forefront of exploring the connections between
consciousness, politics and spirituality for over 25 years, she has been
an anti-oppression trainer, mediator and consultant for two decades. She
pioneered work on privilege. She weaves together political, psychological
and spiritual perspectives towards personal, interpersonal and societal
healing. For the past twenty-five years she has been developing and
teaching Applied Meditation, which works with imagery, intuition and
mindfulness. Margo is the author of Working Inside Out:

 Practical and heartfelt guidance to the magic, mystery and wholeness
inside each of us.  - Christiane Northrup
 Shows how we can harness the natural creative, intuitive and healing
powers within to bring wise action into the world. - Angeles Arrien
 A beacon of hope in trying times,it makes a strong contribution to the
creation of a sustainable civilization. - Joanna Macy
 After you read this book, you'll never feel totally helpless again!  -
Christina Baldwin
 The new edition is even more valuable than the first! - Starhawk
 A great resource for building relationships with mindfulness, connection,
and caring at the center.-Paul Kivel
 For more information see:  <http://www.margoadair.com/>
www.margoadair.com


--------8 of 13--------

From: wamm <wamm [at] mtn.org>
Subject: Sabo/out of Iraq 1.03 7pm

Congressman Martin Sabo Town Meeting on Iraq: Tell Him "Out of Iraq NOW!"
Tuesday, January 3, 7pm. South High School, 3131 19 Av S Minneapolis.

Exercise your civil liberties! Actively participate in the democratic
process!  Let Congressman Sabo know why we need to exit Iraq now. For more
information on why we say, "Out of Iraq Now!" see reports on Iraq and the
article, "Three Years Is Enough" online at <www.worldwidewamm.org> (Scroll
down to find it and/or see the November 2005 issue of the WAMM newsletter,
Worldwide WAMM.) Sponsored by: Progressive Democrats.


--------9 of 13--------

From: leslie reindl <alteravista [at] earthlink.net>
Subject: Conspiracies/CTV 1.03 time?

Here is an announcement of our schedule of Altera Vista programs beginning
today and running through the next month:

December 27 Altera Vista begins a series of four programs on conspiracy
theories - JFK, 9/11, and Wellstone.

These programs were presented by Prof. James Fetzer, McKnight Professor of
Philosophy, University of Minnesota-Duluth, on Nov. 16, 2005 at
UofM-Duluth.  They were taped by John Bussjaeger and edited by Bryan
Olson.  Prof. Fetzer has published more than 20 books on the theoretical
foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive
science, and four books on assasinations and conspiracies: "Assassination
Science" (1998), "Murder in Dealey Plaza" (2000), "The Great Zapruder Film
Hoax" (2003) and "American Assassination: The Strange Death of Senator
Paul Wellstone" (2004).  During the past year he has devoted himself to
what the evidence tells us about events on 9/11.

Minneapolis: [time?]
Dec. 27:  Conspiracy Theories: JFK, 9/11, and Wellstone.  Part 1:  John F.
Kennedy"
Jan. 3, 2006:  Conspiracy Theories. Part 2:  9/11
Jan. 10:  Conspiracy Theories. Part 3: Sen. Paul Wellstone
Jan. 17:  Conspiracy Theories. Part 4:  Comments, questions, answers
Jan. 24:  "Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima: The Connections."  Talk by Dr.
Arjun Makhijani, author, nuclear physicist, and President, Institute of
Energy and Environmental Research, given on Dec. 7, 2005, the 64th
anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

St Paul, Thursdays at 8:30 pm, Ch. 15
Jan. 5, 2006:  "Conspiracy Theories. Part1: John F. Kennedy (see description
under Minneapolis)
Jan. 12:  Conspiracy Theories. Part 2:  9/11
Jan. 19:  Conspiracy Theories. Part 3: Sen. Paul Wellstone
Jan. 26:  Conspiracy Theories. Part 4:  Comments, questions, answers


--------10 of 13--------

From: Richard L. Dechert <ldechert [at] webtv.net>
Subject: Wal-Mart sucks/TV 1.03`9pm [ed head]

On Tuesday 1/3/03 "Frontline: Is Wal-Mart Good for America?" airs at 9pm
on tpt-2, repeats overnight at 3am, and Wednesday at 9pm on tpt-17.  


--------11 of 13--------

Government by Giveaway
By Michael Parenti
December 31, 2005
ZNet Commentary
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2005-12/31parenti.cfm

In December 2005, the reactionaries who are running the government and
ruining the country decided to cut about $42 billion from the human
services budget over the next few years. Most of the cuts will come out of
the hides of the very poorest among us. The victims include persons
afflicted with disabling diseases who already have trouble trying to live
on a monthly federal pittance.

But there is another side to this Scrooge story. There are others among us
who are treated most handsomely by Washington. I am referring, of course,
to Corporate America.

A central function of the corporate capitalist state is to maintain and
advance the capital accumulation process. This it does by (a) taxing the
many to subsidize the few; and (b) privatizing the public wealth,
specifically the land, airwaves, mineral deposits, and other natural
resources that are nominally the property of the American people.

In the 1950s, the Eisenhower administration sought to undo what
conservatives in those days called the "creeping socialism" of the New
Deal. So they handed over to private corporations some $50 billion (or
$200 billion in today's dollars) worth of offshore oil reserves,
government owned synthetic rubber factories, public lands, public
utilities, and atomic installations.

During that time, the federal government also built a multibillion dollar
interstate highway system that provided the infrastructure - and an
enormous indirect subsidy - for the trucking and automotive industries.

The practice of using the public's money and resources to subsidize
private enterprise continues to this day. It is variously estimated that
every year, the federal government doles out hundreds of billions of
dollars in corporate welfare, in the form of tax exclusions, reduced tax
assessments, generous depreciation write-offs and tax credits, price
supports, loan guarantees, payments in kind, research and development
grants, subsidized insurance rates, marketing services, export subsidies,
irrigation and reclamation programs, and research and development grants.

The government leases or sells at a mere fraction of market value billions
of dollars worth of oil, coal, and mineral reserves. It fails to collect
hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties, interest, and penalties. And
it sometimes gives the companies the right to purchase the land title for
a nominal fee.

The government pays out huge sums in unnecessarily high interest rates on
the billions it has borrowed from private creditors (the national debt).
It permits billions in public funds to remain on deposit in private banks
without collecting interest.

It lends out billions at below-market interest rates. It tolerates
overcharging by firms with whom it does business, and provides long term
credits, and tariff protections to large companies. It pays out billions
to reimburse big corporate defense contractors for the costs of their
mergers.

The government gave away the entire broadcasting spectrum valued at $37
billion (in 1989 dollars) - instead of leasing or auctioning it
off-thereby giving the big networks nearly five times the broadcasting
space they previously controlled.

Every year, the federal government loses tens of millions of dollars
charging "ranchers" below cost grazing rates on over twenty million acres
of public lands. These "ranchers" include a number of billionaires, big
oil companies, and insurance conglomerates.

Over the past five decades, at least $100 billion in public subsidies have
gone to the nuclear industry and many billions worth of federally funded
research and development has passed straight into corporate hands without
the government collecting a cent in royalties.

The U.S. Forest Service has built almost 400,000 miles of access roads
through national forests - many times the size of the entire federal
interstate highway system. Used for the logging operations of timber
companies, these roads contribute to massive mud slides that contaminate
water supplies, ruin spawning streams, and kill people.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), spent over $1 billion
in taxpayer money over the past decade to help companies move U.S. jobs to
cheaper labor markets abroad. AID provided low interest loans, tax
exemptions, travel and training funds, and advertising to the corporate
outsourcers. AID also furnished blacklists to help companies weed out
union sympathizers from their work forces in various countries.

In any one year, many billions in subsidies go to agribusiness producers
of feed grain, wheat, cotton, rice, soy, dairy, wool, tobacco, peanuts,
and wine, with relatively little going to small agrarian producers.
Subsidies to big commercial farms encourage wasteful water practices and
increased toxic runoffs into rivers and bays from pesticides, herbicides,
and chemical fertilizers.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that agribusiness
uses legal loopholes to circumvent subsidy limits, thereby collecting more
than $2 billion in unjustified payments each year.

The federal government subsidizes the railroad, shipping, and airline
industries, along with the exporters of iron, steel, textiles, tobacco,
paper, and other products. It doles out huge amounts in grants and tax
incentives to the big petroleum companies to encourage oil exploration.

In the 1970s, several major petroleum companies leased acreage in Alaska
for oil exploration, paying $900 million for public lands that yielded $50
billion.

Numerous medications marketed by the pharmaceutical industry have been
paid for in whole or part by taxpayers - who sometimes then cannot afford
the high prices charged.

Whole new technologies are developed at public expense nuclear energy,
electronics, aeronautics, space communications, mineral exploration,
computer systems, the internet, biomedical genetics, and others only to be
handed over to industry for private gain.

Thus, AT&T managed to have the entire satellite communications system put
under its control in 1962 after U.S. taxpayers put up the initial $20
billion to develop it. The costs are socialized; the profits are
privatized.

Under corporate capitalism the ordinary citizen pays twice for most
things: first, as a taxpayer who provides the subsidies and supports, then
as a consumer who buys the high priced commodities and services. Overall,
federal spending represents an enormous upward redistribution of income.

As the Bible says (Matthew 13:12): "To them that have shall be given, and
from them that have not shall be taken even what little they have." If
this is the way we bring God back into public life, then let's hear it for
atheism.

Michael Parenti's recent books include Superpatriotism (City Lights), The
Assassination of Julius Caesar (New Press), and most recently, The Culture
Struggle (Seven Stories Press). For more information visit:
www.michaelparenti.org.

[Given the above, I advocate total and unrelenting war on ruling classes.
They must be stopped, cut back, then outlawed. It should be against the
law to own or control a billion dollars, or any amount large enough to buy
and control government. Ruling classes have always been the most toxic
poisons in the world; they should be fought, then banned, before they kill
us all.  We should reject, as well, all their owned tools (eg politicians,
media) of evil influnce. -ed]


--------12 of 13--------

Justin Podur interviews Richard Stallman
ZMag December 18, 2005
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=13&ItemID=9350

Richard Stallman is one of the founders of the Free Software Movement and
lead developer of the GNU Operating System. His book is 'Free Software,
Free Society'. I caught up with him by phone on December 1/05.

--
JP: Can you first of all explain the "Free Software Movement'.

RMS: The basic idea of the Free Software Movement is that the user of
software deserves certain freedoms. There are four essential freedoms,
which we label freedoms 0 through 3. Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the
software as you wish. Freedom 1 is the freedom to study and change the
source code as you wish. Freedom 2 is the freedom to copy and distribute
the software as you wish. And freedom 3 is the freedom to create and
distribute modified versions as you wish. With these four freedoms, users
have full control of their own computers, and can use their computers to
cooperate in a community. Freedoms 0 and 2 directly benefit all users,
since all users can exercise them. Freedoms 1 and 3, only programmers can
directly exercise, but everyone benefits from them, because everyone can
adopt (or not) the changes that programmers make. Thus, free software
develops under the control of its users. Non-free software, by contrast,
keeps users divided and helpless. It is distributed in a social scheme
designed to divide and subjugate. The developers of non-free software have
power over their users, and they use this power to the detriment of users
in various ways. It is common for non-free software to contain malicious
features, features that exist not because the users want them, but because
the developers want to force them on the users. The aim of the free
software movement is to escape from non-free software.

JP: What was your history with the free software movement?

RMS: I launched the movement in 1983 with a deliberate decision to develop
a complete world of free software. The idea is not just to produce a
scattering of free programs that were nice to use. Rather, the idea is to
systematically build free software so that one can escape completely from
non-free software. Non-free software is basically antisocial, it
subjugates it users, and it should not exist. So what I wanted was to
create a community in which it does not exist. A community where we would
escape from non-free software into freedom. The first collection of
programs you need in order to escape non-free software is an operating
system. With an operating system, you can do a lot of things with your
computer. Without an operating system, even if you have a lot of
applications, you cannot do anything -- you cannot run them without an
operating system. In 1983 all operating systems were proprietary. That
meant that the first step you had to take in using a computer was to give
up your freedom: they required users to sign a contract, a promise not to
share, just to get an executable version that you couldn't look at or
understand. In order to use your computer you had to sign something saying
you would betray your community. Thus, I needed to create a free operating
system. It happened that operating system development was my field, so I
was technically suited for the task. It was also the first job that had to
be done. The operating system we created was compatible with Unix, and was
called GNU. GNU stands for "GNU is Not Unix", and the most important thing
about GNU is that it is not Unix. Unix is a non-free operating system, and
you are not allowed to make a free version of Unix. We developed a free
system that is like Unix, but not Unix. We wrote all the parts of it from
scratch. In 1983, there were hundreds of components to the Unix operating
system. We began the long process of replacing them one by one. Some of
the components took a few days, others took a year or several. By 1992, we
had all of the essential components except one: the kernel. The kernel is
one of the major essential components of the system. In GNU, we began
developing a kernel in 1990. I chose the initial design based on a belief
that it would be a quick design to implement. My choice backfired and it
took much longer than I'd hoped. In 1992, the Linux kernel was liberated.
It had been released in 1991, but on a non-free license. In 1992 the
developer changed the license for the kernel, making it free. That meant
we had a free operating system, which I call "GNU/Linux' or "GNU plus
Linux'. However, when this combination was made, the users got confused,
and began to call the whole thing "Linux'. That is not very nice.

First of all, it isn't nice because there are thousands of people involved
in the GNU project who deserve a share of the credit. We started the
project, and did the biggest part of the work, so we deserve to get equal
mention. (Some people believe that the kernel alone is more important than
the rest of the operating system. This belief appears to result from an
attempt to construct a justification for the "Linux" misnomer.) But there
is more at stake than just credit: the GNU Project was a campaign for
freedom, and Linux was not. The developer of Linux had other motives,
motives that were more personal. That does not diminish the value of his
contribution. His motives were not bad. He developed the system in order
to amuse himself and learn. Amusing oneself is good -- programming is
great fun. Wanting to learn is also good. But Linux was not designed with
the goal of liberating cyberspace, and the motives for Linux would not
have given us the whole GNU/Linux system. Today tens of millions of users
are using an operating system that was developed so they could have
freedom -- but they don't know this, because they think the system is
Linux and that it was developed by a student "just for fun'.

JP: So the GNU+Linux system is not an accident.

RMS: You cannot rely on accidents to defend freedom. Accidents can
sometimes help, but you need people who are aware and determined to do
this. Because it was not designed specifically for freedom, it is no
coincidence that the first license to Linux was non-free. In fact I don't
know why he changed it.

JP: Does the difference between the GNU project and Linux relate to the
difference between "free software' and "open source'?

RMS: As GNU+Linux came to be used by thousands, and then hundreds of
thousands, and then millions, they started to talk to each other: Look at
how powerful, reliable, convenient, cheap, and fun this system is. Most
people talking about it, though, never mentioned that it was about
freedom. They never thought about it that way. And so our work spread to
more people than our ideas did. Linus Torvalds, the developer of Linux,
never agreed with our ideas. He was not a proponent of the ethical aspects
of our ideas or a critic of the antisocial nature of non-free software. He
just claimed that our software was technically superior to particular
competitors. That claim happened to be true: in the 1990s, someone did a
controlled experiment to measure the reliability of software, feeding
random input sequences into different programs (Unix systems and GNU
systems), and found GNU to be the most reliable. He repeated the tests
years later, and GNU was still the most reliable. The ideas of Torvalds
led by 1996 to a division in the community on goals. One group was for
freedom, the other for powerful and reliable software. There were regular
public arguments. In 1998 the other camp chose the term "open source' to
describe their position. "Open source' is not a movement, in my view. It
is, perhaps, a collection of ideas, or a campaign.

JP: Since we will be talking about this more, perhaps now is a good time
to define "movement'.

RMS: I don't have a definition ready, I'll have to think of one. Let us
define it as a collection of people working to promote an ideal. Or maybe,
an ideal, together with an activity to promote it.

JP: So, "open source' is missing the ideal part?

RMS: They recommend a development methodology and claim that the model
will produce superior software. If so, to us, it's a bonus. Freedom often
allows one to achieve convenience. I appreciate having more powerful
software, and if freedom helps that, good. But for us in the free software
movement that is secondary.

JP: And in fact one should be willing to sacrifice some power and
convenience of the software for freedom.

RMS: Absolutely.

THE POLITICS OF FREE SOFTWARE

JP: Many of ZNet's readers see themselves as part of some movement --
anti-poverty, or anti-war, or for some other form of social change. Can
you say something about why such folks ought to pay attention and relate
to the free software movement?

RMS: If you are against the globalization of business power, you should be
for free software.

JP: -- But it isn't the global aspect of business power, is it? If it were
local business power, that wouldn't be acceptable?

RMS: -- People who say they are against globalization are really against
the globalization of business power. They are not actually against
globalization as such, because there are other kinds of globalization, the
globalization of cooperation and sharing knowledge, which they are not
against. Free software replaces business power with cooperation and the
sharing of knowledge. Globalizing a bad thing makes it worse. Business
power is bad, so globalizing it is worse. But globalizing a good thing is
usually good. Cooperation and sharing of knowledge are good, and when they
happen globally, they are even better. The kind of globalization there are
demonstrations against is the globalization of business power. And free
software is a part of that movement. It is the expression of the
opposition to domination of software users by software developers.

JP: How would you respond to those who suggest that free software
activists lack a sense of proportion? Given the vast scale and suffering
of war, invasions, occupations, poverty, doesn't the freedom to use
computers pale to insignificance?

RMS: Maybe our views have been misrepresented. It is impossible for one
person to be involved in all issues. It shouldn't be surprising that a
programmer would be involved where his skills and talents are most
effective. If I thought free software was the only or most important
issue, I can see how people might think that that lacks proportion. But I
do not think it is the only or most important issue. I just believe this
is where I can do the most good. A problem arises when people who might be
sympathetic to our ethical position, but focus on other issues, fall into
the habit of helping to pressure others into using non-free software. It
falls to me to tell them they are doing so, that they with their own
actions are giving certain large companies more power. When you send
someone a ".doc' file, a "Word' file, or an audio or video file in
RealPlayer or Quicktime format, you are actually pressuring someone to
give up their freedom. Perhaps because I constantly have to bring this up,
people believe I don't have a sense of proportion. Sometimes people take
for granted that I will participate in those activities with them. Thus,
when I webcast a speech, I have to ask which format it is going to be
webcast in. I am not going to go along with a webcast of my speech about
freedom that you have to give up your freedom in order to hear or watch.
Once I put my coat over a camera before giving my speech, when I learned
it was webcasting in RealPlayer format.

JP: Gandhi, in his "Hind Swaraj', which was originally a series of
newspaper articles, asked himself and answered a similar question. He was
talking about how India had to get rid not only of British control, but of
all of the bad attributes of "western civilization'. He asked himself:
"How can one argue against western civilization using a printing press and
writing in English'? His answer was that sometimes you have to use poison
to kill poison.

RMS: But knowing English doesn't subjugate -- you didn't have to give up
any freedom in India to know English. And I imagine that in India, with so
many different languages, there was no better language he could use to
communicate.

JP: When you say there was no better language than English, are you
suggesting that it becomes an ethical issue when there is an alternative,
but not before?

RMS: It becomes an ethical issue when there is a restriction. The use of
English might be good or bad for India, but knowing it doesn't take away
your freedom. India regained independence but didn't get rid of English;
in fact, I learned recently that there are people in India today whose
first language is English and don't speak other languages. By contrast, to
put RealPlayer on your computer, you actually have to give up some of your
freedom.

JP: Should ZNet use free software?

RMS: The alternative is herding people into giving up their freedom, which
is acting contrary to the spirit and purpose of Z. Most people have not
recognized that there is an ethical choice involved in the use of
software, because most people have only seen proprietary software and have
not begun to consider alternative social arrangements. Z Mag is accustomed
to looking at the justice of social arrangements, and could help others
consider the social arrangements about software.

JP: But is there still an ethical issue if there is no alternative? If,
say, there is no free software way of doing a particular job, for ZNet for
example?

RMS: One can live without doing those jobs.

JP: What criteria? How can one decide such a thing?

RMS: If you absolutely must do a particular job then you should contribute
to the creation of a free replacement. If you are not a programmer, you
can still find a way to contribute--such as by donating money so others
can develop it.

JP: So can you see no circumstances in which using non-free software would
be the lesser of evils?

RMS: There are some special circumstances. To develop GNU, I used Unix.
But first, I thought about whether it would be ethical to do that. I
concluded it was legitimate to use Unix to develop GNU, because GNU's
purpose was to help everyone else stop using Unix sooner. We weren't
merely using Unix to do some worthwhile job, we were using it to end the
specific evil that we were participating in.

JP: So for ZNet, you wouldn't advocate something that involved losing
readers, scaling back operations ?

RMS: You wouldn't have to. There is a University in Brazil that decided to
switch entirely to free software, but they could not find free software to
do certain necessary jobs, so they hired programmers to develop the free
software. (This cost a part of the money they saved on license fees.) ZNet
could do that, too. If you participate in development of the free
replacement for a program, then you can excuse temporarily continuing to
run it. In the case of ZNet, I doubt you would need any free software that
doesn't exist. Web sites and magazines already run with free software
exclusively. You could probably switch very easily.

CAPITALISM AND STRATEGY

JP: I have read other interviews with you in which you said you are not
anti-capitalist. I think a definition of capitalism might help here.

RMS: Capitalism is organizing society mainly around business that people
are free to do within certain rules.

JP: Business?

RMS: I don't have a definition of business ready. I think we know what
business means.

JP: -- But "anti-capitalists' use a different definition. They see
capitalism as markets, private property, and, fundamentally, class
hierarchy and class division. Do you see class as fundamental to
capitalism?

RMS: No. We have had a lot of social mobility, class mobility, in the
United States. Fixed classes--which I do not like--are not a necessary
aspect of capitalism. However, I don't believe that you can use social
mobility as an excuse for poverty. If someone who is very poor has a 5%
chance of getting rich, that does not justify denying that person food,
shelter, clothing, medical care, or education. I believe in the welfare
state.

JP: But you are not for equality of outcomes?

RMS: No, I'm not for equality of outcomes. I want to prevent horrible
outcomes. But aside from keeping people safe from excruciating outcomes, I
believe some inequality is unavoidable.

JP: Inequality based on how much effort people put forth?

RMS: Yes, but also luck.

JP: You don't want society to reward luck, though.

RMS: Luck is just another word for chance. It is unavoidable that chance
has an effect on your life. But poverty is avoidable. It is horrible for
people to suffer hunger, death for lack of medical care, to work 12 hours
a day just to survive. (Well, I work 12 hours a day, but that's unpaid
activism, not a job -- so it's ok.)

JP: You get the chance to exercise your talents, which is rewarding. Do
you think society should reward people for their innate talents?

RMS: Not directly, but people can use their talents to do things. I don't
have a problem with someone using their talents to become successful, I
just don't think the highest calling is success. Things like freedom and
the expansion of knowledge are beyond success, beyond the personal.
Personal success is not wrong, but it is limited in importance, and once
you have enough of it it is a shame to keep striving for that, instead of
for truth, beauty, or justice. I'm a Liberal, in US terms (not Canadian
terms). I'm against fascism.

JP: A definition would help here too.

RMS: Fascism is a system of government that sucks up to business and has
no respect for human rights. So the Bush regime is an example, but there
are lots of others. In fact, it seems we are moving towards more fascism
globally.

JP: It is interesting that you used the term "escape' at the beginning of
the interview. Most people who think about "movements' think in terms of
building an opposition, changing public opinion, and forcing concessions
from the powerful.

RMS: What we are doing is direct action. I did not think I could get
anywhere convincing the software companies to make free software if I did
political activities, and in any case I did not have any talent or skills
for it. So I just started writing software. I said, if those companies
won't respect our freedom, we'll develop our own software that does.

JP: But if we are talking about governments and fascism, what do you do
when they simply make your software illegal?

RMS: Well, then you are shafted. That is what has happened. Certain kinds
of free software are illegal.

JP: What is an example?

RMS: Software to play DVDs. There is a program called DECSS still
circulating underground. But not only has the US outlawed it, but the US
is pressuring other countries to adopt the same censorship. Canada was
considering it, I'm not sure how the case turned out. The European Union
adopted a directive and now countries are implementing it with laws that
are actually harsher than the directive.

JP: How do you deal with that?

RMS: We are trying to oppose it in the countries that have not passed it
and, eventually, we hope to get it abolished and liberate the countries
that have. We cannot do that by direct action, but developing the software
can still be done underground. I think that, in the US, developing it and
not distributing it is not illegal.

FREE SOFTWARE MOVEMENT ISSUES

JP: Let's conclude with some of the other issues the free software
movement is dealing with.

RMS: The main issues are hardware with secret specifications, software
patents, and treacherous computing. On hardware with secret
specifications: it is hard to write free software for hardware whose
specifications are secret. In the 1970s the computer company would hand
you a manual with information about every level of interface, from the
electrical signals to the software, so you could properly use their
products. But for the past 10-15 years, there has been hardware whose
specs are secret. Proprietary software developers can get the specs if
they sign a non-disclosure agreement; the public cannot. So we are forced
to experiment and reverse-engineer, which takes time, or pressure the
companies, which sometimes works. The worst example is in 3-D graphics, in
which most chip specs are secret. One company has published its specs, and
drivers have been written for another without help. But the company
"NVidious" (that's what I call it) has not been co-operative, and I think
people should not buy computers with its chips.

An illustration of software patents is excerpted from my op-ed from the UK
Guardian: A novel and a modern complex programme have certain points in
common: each is large and implements many ideas. Suppose patent law had
been applied to novels in the 1800s; suppose states such as France had
permitted the patenting of literary ideas. How would this have affected
Hugo's writing? How would the effects of literary patents compare with the
effects of literary copyright? Consider the novel Les Miserables, written
by Hugo. Because he wrote it, the copyright belonged only to him. He did
not have to fear that some stranger could sue him for copyright
infringement and win. That was impossible, because copyright covers only
the details of a work of authorship, and only restricts copying. Hugo had
not copied Les Miserables, so he was not in danger. Patents work
differently. They cover ideas - each patent is a monopoly on practising
some idea, which is described in the patent itself.

Here's one example of a hypothetical literary patent:

Claim 1: a communication process that represents, in the mind of a reader,
the concept of a character who has been in jail for a long time and
becomes bitter towards society and humankind.

Claim 2: a communication process according to claim 1, wherein said
character subsequently finds moral redemption through the kindness of
another.

Claim 3: a communication process according to claims 1 and 2, wherein said
character changes his name during the story.

If such a patent had existed in 1862 when Les Miserables was published,
the novel would have infringed all three claims - all these things
happened to Jean Valjean in the novel. Hugo could have been sued, and
would have lost. The novel could have been prohibited - in effect,
censored - by the patent holder.

Now consider this hypothetical literary patent:

Claim 1: a communication process that represents in the mind of a reader
the concept of a character who has been in jail for a long time and
subsequently changes his name.

Les Miserables would have infringed that patent too, because this
description too fits the life story of Jean Valjean.

And here's another hypothetical patent:

Claim 1: a communication process that represents in the mind of a reader
the concept of a character who finds moral redemption and then changes his
name.

Jean Valjean would have infringed this patent too.

These three patents would all cover the story of one character in a novel.
They overlap, but they do not precisely duplicate each other, so they
could all be valid simultaneously; all three patent holders could have
sued Victor Hugo. Any one of them could have prohibited publication of Les
Miserables.

Other aspects of Les Miserables could also have run afoul of patents. For
instance, there could have been a patent on a fictionalized portrayal of
the Battle of Waterloo, or a patent on using Parisian slang in fiction.
Two more lawsuits. In fact, there is no limit to the number of different
patents that might have been applicable for suing the author of a work
such as Les Miserables. All the patent holders would say they deserved a
reward for the literary progress that their patented ideas represent, but
these obstacles would not promote progress in literature, they would only
obstruct it.

This analogy can help non-programmers see what software patents do.
Software patents cover features, such as defining abbreviations in a word
processor, or natural order recalculation in a spreadsheet. Patents cover
algorithms that programs need to use. Patents cover aspects of file
formats, such as Microsoft's new formats for Word files. MPEG 2 video
format is covered by 39 different US patents.

Just as one novel could infringe many different literary patents at once,
one program can infringe many different patents at once. It is so much
work to identify all the patents infringed by a large program that only
one such study has been done. A 2004 study of Linux, the kernel of the
GNU/Linux operating system, found it infringed 283 different US software
patents. That is to say, each of these 283 different patents covers some
computational process found somewhere in the thousands of pages of source
code of Linux.

That's why software patents act like landmines for software developers.
And for software users, since the users can be sued too.

Treacherous computing is a plan to change the design of future PCs so that
they will obey software developers instead of you. From the purpetrators'
point of view, it is "trusted", so they call it "trusted computing"; from
the user's point of view, it is treacherous. Which name you call it
expresses whose side you're on. The new XBox is a preview--it is designed
to prevent the user from installing any software without getting
Microsoft's authorization. Here's more explanation from my essay, 'Can you
trust your computer':  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

The technical idea underlying treacherous computing is that the computer
includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the keys are kept
secret from you. Proprietary programs will use this device to control
which other programs you can run, which documents or data you can access,
and what programs you can pass them to. These programs will continually
download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those
rules automatically on your work. If you don't allow your computer to
obtain the new rules periodically from the Internet, some capabilities
will automatically cease to function.

Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new
authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules
automatically on your work. If Microsoft, or the US government, does not
like what you said in a document you wrote, they could post new
instructions telling all computers to refuse to let anyone read that
document. Each computer would obey when it downloads the new instructions.
Your writing would be subject to 1984-style retroactive erasure. You might
be unable to read it yourself.

Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and
free applications at risk, because you may not be able to run them at all.
Some versions of treacherous computing would require the operating system
to be specifically authorized by a particular company. Free operating
systems could not be installed. Some versions of treacherous computing
would require every program to be specifically authorized by the operating
system developer. You could not run free applications on such a system. If
you did figure out how, and told someone, that could be a crime.

ZNet has begun to explore the possibility of converting to free software.
If you would like to help in this effort, please go to the Free ZNet
Project forums, register, and introduce yourself.


--------13 of 13--------

 The shiftless rich scream
 at us: Get a job! - so they
 can remain shiftless.


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

   - David Shove             shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments