Fw: Strange FTAA Dream

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>At 12:35 PM 4/20/01 -0400, Archer.Todd at ic.gc.ca wrote:
>>Carrol wrote:
>>
>>The point is, of course, that as long as there are millions and millions
>>of people who are _not_ dot-commers or _not_ businessmen who know what
>>it means to keep a payroll or _not_ libertarians, why should we ignore
>>all those more accessible people to waste time talking to dot-commers?
>>When we run out of Walmart clerks and students with an interest in
>>social justice and union members ticked off with their bureaucracy and
>>welfare (now more and more non-welfare) mothers, maybe we can give a few
>>moments of a lazy Sunday evening to a dot-commer or two, who by that
>>time will be ready to listen to us because of those tens of millions of
>>others we have reached while ignorning dot-commers.
>>
>>Geez! Don't you have any sense of priority?
>>
>>Carrol
>>
>>
>>Carrol, your criticism was right on the mark, but don't you think you could
>>have made your delivery with somewhat more tact than a drunken water buffalo
>>trying to tap-dance?  To put it your way:  Geez!  Don't you have any sense
>>of fellow-feeling?
>>
>>Todd
>
>rolling... but hey, carrol, do you actually think that welfare 
>mothers and walmart clerks are somehow different than dot-commers!! 
>this vulgar standpoint theory y'all seem to hold is quaint, but...

If by "dot-commers" you mean those who own dot-coms, surely there's 
an objective contradiction between them and Walmart clerks; those who 
work for dot-coms like Amazon.com employees who have tried to 
unionize, however, have much in common with Walmart clerks.  As for 
"welfare mothers," in the age of TANF, time limits, & workfare, the 
term becomes misleading even as a shorthand in empirical analysis.

Yoshie