pollution is other people

[Dorry Clay]

Jim heartfield wrote:
> 
> Car Survey
> 
>         owns a car      drives to work
> Alex    yes             no
> Doug*   no (rents)      no
> Carl    yes             no
> Wojtek**yes             yes
> Max     yes             yes
> James   no              no
> 
> As the German environmentalists would say 'you're not in a Jam, you are
> the Jam'.
> 
> No, but seriously, without dreaming about some other world, isn't it
> plain that people drive because they want to? All of this protesting
> that 'it isn't possible' and 'of course I don't approve' is just by the
> by. You don't have to make that journey - you want to. Stop feeling so
> guilty about it.
> 
> Note that most of our car-opposing car users do not use their cars for
> the journey to work. So what do they need them for? Could it be 'non-
> essential use'? God forbid that you are all visiting relatives, or going
> shopping, or picking up the kids from school. Don't you know you are
> damaging the ...blah blah blah.
> 
> It just goes to show that environmentalism is so much hot air. we pay
> lip service to it, but you cannot live your life by it. Plainly the
> terrible dangers ahead are only half-believed in, like religious
> damnation (which they so plainly echo). 'Pollution' as Sartre would say
> 'is other people'.
> 
> * Don't be scared of cycling, Doug, I've cycled to work for twenty
> years. Cars are more considerate of cyclists than you think.
> 
> ** Wojtek writes "I could go on and on, but I think you should see the
> barbarity  of the US transportation system (outside New York) by
> yourself, before criticizing people for using cars in this fucking
> jeder-fuer-sich-und-Gott-gegen-alles country." And I thought I was the
> person who was refusing to criticise people for using their cars.
> --
> Jim heartfield

Pollution IS other people!!! Maybe some women drive cars because they
have locks and afford a kind of armor from other people. DUH?