Bloodlines Mailing List archives May 7-8, 1997
from the John Stewart email list Talk of the devil gets heated, and the life of a mailing list... -REB ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Re: Quiet night... Date: 97-05-07 From: blasalle@crc-gw.med.utah.edu (GCRC System manager) It's been great to read all of the notes the last few days... people involved in animal rights, planning trips, trying to figure out who's the youngest, etc.. Me, I'm back at work tonight in staring at the 20" monitor, smoking my favorite pipe and listening to a Cannons In The Rain/Wingless Angels double CD (one of my favorites) and thinking "life is lucky and good" (a quote from my 14 year old). Only thing better would be working over some of these tunes on my Taylor... This group is a real find... a true gem!! b. ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Re: Quiet night... Date: 97-05-07 From: Angelbravo@aol.com YOU BETCHA ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Re: Spirit Date: 97-05-07 From: blasalle@crc-gw.med.utah.edu (GCRC System manager) Terry Tillman wrote: > > At the risk of appearing to be a heretical Stewartista I submit the > following: > > One thing that is attractive and beautiful about John's music is the spirit > of connection, acceptance, understanding, compassion, loving and oneness > that speaks through it. Seems to me that the againstness and separation I'm > seeing in the attacks against Dr. DeValois might be contrary to that, or at > the least premature. Have you got all the information and facts before you > condemn him as guilty? And are you against him or his methods? He actually > may be a nice guy with good intentions and a misguided approach. Maybe he > needs some education, not a battle. At the least he's an animal too, so do > you want to impose the same level of cruelty toward him that you think he's > directing toward the animals. Just a thought. > > Terry T. > Well Terry, I understand your spirit but I believe there can be a wrong and right even in a world of acceptance and understanding... Guess the good Dr. could put a positive spin on this and accept my activism on the NIH campus and at his institution as good will gesture to help him find another line of work or at least a different way of pursuing his current one. When we choose to live together we must accept some compromises in our ultimate freedom. Dr. DeValois's compromise for accepting my tax dollars is that I may have some opinion about how that money is used. I have been involved in clinical research for 20 years and from what I've read this work falls way outside the bounds of what is acceptable, even within the research community. I can accept the notion that he's not the devil but I can't accept the nature of his work. bernie ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Patrick's banjo article / the devil/ chat Date: 97-05-07 From: ClackClack@aol.com In a message dated 97-05-05 23:52:42 EDT, Patrick Plumlee wrote: > I am amazed you remember that article. [Ron is > referring to an article I wrote back in the mid-80s for the short-lived > Folk Era magazine, a sort of house organ for Rediscover music. The > article was, as I recall, a comparison of the banjo styles of Dave Guard > and John Stewart in their respective versions of the KT.] > Yep- that's the one. I went and checked my files and it was Summer 87, "The Folk Era Today." Rereading the article I think all (the musicians especially) on the list would enjoy it, even if they aren't "banjo pickers". It is a very well written article, even though it is a bit of a plug for Folk Era, that covers banjo styles and the Trio in particular from Dave Guard to George Grove. Patrick, if you don't mind and Folk Era (Ian) doesn't mind, this would be a nice article to add to Clack's Cellar one day. ---------------------------------------- As a final note, I agree with Terry Tillman and what I sensed from Del too, that we need to be more informed about what is up with the "Devil" before firing off hell and damnation letters. However, the little I have heard sounds absolutely unacceptable by any definition.The short letter I sent off today stated that I had heard certain things and asked for the Chancellor's response to these allegations and the appropriateness of the research. Hopefully he will get the message that cruelty, even in the name of research, is unacceptable. I hope, but don't expect to receive, an acknowledgement. --------------------------------------------- The chat is only available to people who are on AOL Ron ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Re: HELP Date: 97-05-07 From: Angelbravo@aol.com DeValois email address His email address is russ@valois.berkeley.edu ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Fwd: Patrick's banjo article / the devil/ chat Date: 97-05-07 From: Angelbravo@aol.com Do you really think I would send you off half cocked writing letters about DeValois if I didn't have my facts together. You write in glowing terms about the integrity of my music and you don't trust me on this? Alright you asked for it!. THOSE WITH WEAK STOMACHS SHOULD READ NO FURTHER. In 1980 reports of animal cruelty began to surface. It was discovered that DeValois and his students ignored the recommendations of campus veterinarians, experimented on sick animals, violated quarantine procedures and illegally aquired animals for experiments. In 1984, the IDA filled a lawsuit against the USDA to force it to end UC Berkeley and Professor DeValois's vicious animal cruelty and abuse. The USDA responed by isuing a cease and desist order against the university and fining it $12,000. Some of DeValois experimental procedures. Stereotaxic devices are screwed, cemented,or bolted onto the skulls of monkeys and cats. The "appropriate" part of the brain is exposed for up to 106 hours, electrodes are inserted into the brain of the "desired"location while recordings are taken. To prevent eye movement the animals are paralyzed. Upon completion of the research, the monkey or kitten is killed and it's brain removed for disection. " I have concerns about the animals experiencing appreciable suffering during the recording sessions, which argues further that this work should not be done". Robert S Hoffman. M.D Neurologist "The irrelelevance of the findings of his research simply cannot justify this abuse." ;John A. Distler M.D The Opthamology Center "being color blind myself, I find it incredible that one investigator should spend his life in pursuit of hideous brain maping experiments on animals for what I consider to be a truely benign, clinically insignificant ailment." Ronald E. Sneider M.D. Animal #90093 species cat sex :F Age 1 yr. 11/28/90 Two Holes drillec in skull, electrodes inserted. 12/6/90 Temp 104.6 incision edges squeezed..pus like discharge resulted. 12/10/90 Cat seems depressed, head set with scabs and.. discharge 2/20/91 A hole was drilled over the visual cortex and electrode inserted. Exudate was noted in chamber....holes drilled and electrodes inserted in brain three different locations. over a thirty hour period. Cat was killed 3.26.91. Animal #52 species monkey sex M age 7 yrs. Observed coughing up blood clits and passing mucous exudate from nostrils on 9.28.90 Two weeks later he was anesthetized and experimented on for 18 hours. Though his lungs were congested he was left unattended. He never regained conciousness and died 5:15am 10.12.90 Devalois has repeatedly Experimented on sick and suffering animals Kept animals in over crowded conditions. Ignored the recomendations of campus veterinarians and challanged their authority. Refused entrance to veterinarians to treat sick and suffering animals. Violated quarantine laws and illegally acquired animals for testing. Neglected sick and suffering animals "Urine builds uo under the research tables because animals must be kept immobile for hours at a time and they urniate in the floor... From the high pitched squealing of the kitten, it was obvious the aninal was experiencing intense pain." D. Kaufman Research Assistant If that isn't enough for you, you can write In Defense of Animals 131 Camino Alto Mill Valley , Ca.94941. ________________________________________________________________ Subj: On Dr. Devalois Date: 97-05-07 From: pplumlee@osprey.unf.edu (Patrick Plumlee) Bloodliners-- I have been quite so far on the DeValois issue. One must be appalled at the gruesome details of the research he has conducted, although I suspect that it is not much worse than things that were routinely done in the past in the name of science, and not just to animals. As you know from my introduction a while back, I am in an academic position myself, including having served as a department chairperson for 9 years. Consequently, I am pretty familiar with how institutions of higher learning operate. One of the things that universities cherish, and faculty fight for above all else, is that protection given to faculty members activities under the rubric of "academic freedom." Essentially, the idea that what a faculty member does in the classroom or lab is privileged, and that a person cannot be administratively disciplined or punished for what he or she chooses to teach or work on, or how it is taught. There are limits on this, of course, but they are difficult to invoke, and usually involve lengthy procedural and even legal action. The purpose of all of this is to protect the freedom of thought and speech considered essential to the academic mission. It is so strongly socialized into the people who are part of institutions of higher learning that they will tolerate some truly amazing statements and behaviors by colleagues. Essentially the idea is one of reciprocity--if I don't condemn or question what he/she does, then he/she won't question what I do. This is not the time or place to defend the concept of academic freedom, however. The point I want to make about it is that in launching a campaign against DeValois, the perverse effect may be to make his position stronger within the university, by forcing the administration and his colleagues to defend his research, as indefensible as that work might seem to be to outsiders. I hope that this does not happen in this case, but I am by no means sure that it will not. Does this mean that we should not support John in his efforts to get rid of a person who does monstrous things to animals? No, but everyone should understand that the good may not triumph overnight. It is almost certain that the university will respond in some procedural way, by establishing a review committee or something like that. Hopefully such a committee will find this research unacceptable. (If it does so, it will almost certainly be on the grounds that the value of the results are not commensurate with the level of the cruelties inflicted on the unfortunate "subjects." That animals suffer in research will not be much of a consideration, in and of itself. Animals suffer all the time in research without much fuss being made about it. I heard on PBS just last week about an experiment in which chimps were injected with live AIDS virus to test the effectiveness of a new medication. It appeared to work on the chimps that got the medication, but of course those in the control group didn't get any medication. What they got HIV-infected. Of course, HIV has different effects in chimps than in humans, but you get the point.) So, this is just for a bit of clarification about how these things tend to work on the receiving end. I do believe that public pressure will tell in the long run, and these cruelties may be ended. This is one of the values of the Internet--outrage can be mobilized much more quickly. While I have my qualms about constant outrage being generated against any institution, individual, or behavior with which one happens to disagree, this is probably an instance in which there is some justification. If some case can be made for DeValois within the university in terms of the legitimacy of his research, he may be allowed to continue. I, like all of you, am hoping that such a case, carefully considered, cannot be made, and that he will be removed from a situation in which he has access to animals. So, Angel Bravo, I trust your instincts on this one--my experience has shown me that such things are easily possible. I am just a bit less optimistic that this guy can be so easily stopped simply because of an angry public response. The way to find out, of course, is to give it a try. The bigger the response, the harder it is to ignore. Finally, just in case anyone is wondering how anybody could do such things to lab animals, the answer goes back to Rene Descartes, the 18th century French philsopher. Descartes concluded that only those creatures which were self-aware (conscious) could be considered as having any ability to feel pain or suffer. Since only humans had the ability to be self-aware, only humans could suffer. All animals, in his view, were merely rather cleverly-constructed automatons which, being non-self aware did not "suffer" in the sense that humans could be understood to suffer from being in pain. Descartes' ideas form one of the basic foundations of western philosophy, and have been especially popular in the sciences. Essentially Descartes' "gift" was the received wisdom that animals do not suffer, therefore it is o.k. to do anything that you happen to want to do to them, as long as it is cloaked in scientific objectivity and its practitioners are respectable. This also allows the practitioner to separate himself or herself from the normal sort of compassion we usually have when we see an animal in distress. In this view, animal suffering is just a kind of illusion, a projection of something that does not exist within the animal, but only in the human observer. This whole view has come under significant attack (and rightfully so, since it is just plain wrong--empirically AND morally) in recent years, but it is still widely held by those working in laboratory science. And that is probably another reason that DeValois has gotten away with his behavior. Except in its apparent excess, and apparent lack of meaningful results, his work is not much different than the kinds of things that have been done for a very long time. I hope that no one gets the idea that I am defending this guy--far from it. But I thought it might help you understand a bit better what the situation is that we are dealing with. Go for it. And thanks to AB for bringing this to our attention, even if he is "just a songwriter." Patrick going for it... ________________________________________________________________ Subj: A Lighter Note Date: 97-05-07 From: pplumlee@osprey.unf.edu (Patrick Plumlee) Whew--that last post was long-winded. Somehow the mention of y little article on the banjo styles of Dave Guard and JS got mixed up with the DeValois discussion. I'm not sure anyone got far enough past the atrocity list to actually look at the end of that note. But, I am flattered that JS thought the article was good (wildly flattered, in fact), and I am more than happy to have it shared with others. Maybe John could tell us what I got wrong. I will have to find my own copy--I am not even sure I have one (I haved moved three times since 1987). Patrick looking around... ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Re: On Dr. Devalois Date: 97-05-08 From: Angelbravo@aol.com Thanks Patrick for the sage advise. There's alot to chew on here. Victory Bravo out ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Re: A Lighter Note Date: 97-05-07 From: davidltaylor5@worldnet.att.net (David L. Taylor) Hi Patrick, I thought I understood...until your last note. No matter. Your note on the politics of academia was interesting, if not distressing. So what stops people such as the Professor? Withdrawing financial support? Follow the money. David ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Re: Patrick's banjo article / the devil/ chat Date: 97-05-07 From: davidltaylor5@worldnet.att.net (David L. Taylor) John, I don't see it as a lack of trust, but a lack of information. I agree with Terry. Before I launch off on a letter writing campaign I want to know something about the issue. My need for that has nothing to do with a lack of trust or questioning the integrity of the person asking for my support. The information you provided, although painful to read, are what I needed. My letter to Chancellor Tien will go out in today's mail. David ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Re: Fwd: Patrick's banjo article / the devil/ chat Date: 97-05-07 From: tburke1@CCGATE.HAC.COM John, I trust you on this. I was in Vietnam, I've seen a lot of nasty things in this world, but I don't need - can't read - the gory details. There are certain things about this world I can't tolerate and high on the list is animal abuse. Thank you for quoting Bobby. Great evils are done because others stand by and let them happen. ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Fwd: The Devil DeValois Date: 97-05-07 From: Angelbravo@aol.com Thanks Den. I feel this group if "magnificant nuts" could be a real force for for what is right. "There was one great shout across the land, I don.t need this anymore!" If I may be so bold as to quote myself. ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Fwd: Re: HELP/the devil's web addresses Date: 97-05-07 From: Angelbravo@aol.com You misread my intentions. Idon't want to attack DeValois I want to have removed from his position so he cannot hurt the animals anymore. Am i sure he does these things? Yes. Maybe he's a nice guy? Maybe Mengelee was a nice guy. I don't care if he's a nice guy or he's not a nice guy, I just want him and all like him out of there. I believe in non violence and the power of prayer. I also believe a quote Robert Kennedy used during the 1968 campaign that " the hottest pkaces in Hell are reserved for those who, in times if great moral crisis, do nothing" " and no one was angry enough to speak out." A quote found in the great pyramid of Egypt. Well I am angry enough to speak out. I have no patience for the suffering of our little friends the animals. I have nopatience with men lije De Valois. God works through us and so does Satin. If we don.t speak out who will? The animals don't have time for DeValois to get religion. The only thing De Valois should get is OUT. The sooner the better.You misread me my friend. I Will get angry and use every peaceful means I can to get rid of this monster?I am a song writer not an evangelist. I never said I was. Againstness, I am totally against what this man does and stands for. Seperateness ? I am as seperate as you can get from this guy. I won't rest until he is gone. Did you think I was about all of this on rumors? ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Re: the devil Date: 97-05-07 From: TTillman@compuserve.com (Terry Tillman) Don't take it personally John. I don't even trust my Spiritual teacher, who I listen to because he says about all he says, "Don't believe me. Check it out for yourself." I've learned to be very careful who or what I follow. Too many times I've been lead down the path into an experience I didn't really want. I'm only lately getting good at trusting myself, and following inner guidence, not external. The only thing I trust about other people is that they will do what they do. I've chosen to focus my energies on increasing the good rather than trying to stop the bad. You might say that stopping the bad is increasing the good. Go for it. The real challenge is knowing what is "good" and what is "bad". I haven't noticed much agreement on the moral level out there in the world. Terry T. ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Re: the devil Date: 97-05-08 From: Angelbravo@aol.com Thanks for thewords Terry. I see your view point. I don't think stopping bad increases good. The balance will remain. It's not not our game. I think that stopping a bad thing from continuing stops a bad act from continuing. And " Every time an individual acts against in justice, it sounds out ripples thst can knock down even the highest wall." (para phrasing RFK 's speech in South Africa) ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Re: the devil Date: 97-05-08 From: cnewton@fyi.net (Christopher Newton) Trust your heart, Terry. Kit Newton ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Re: A Lighter Note Date: 97-05-08 From: pplumlee@osprey.unf.edu (Patrick Plumlee) David-- They are generally harder to stop than you might think, especially if they are at a prestigious research university, which certainly applies to Berkeley. If they are grant supported through the Federal government, sometimes Congressional concerns are reflected through reviews by the granting agency (probably the NIH or the NSF, although it could be several other agencies as well). This would mean another review, BUT, if someone got a grant in the first place, it means that their grant application was peer-reviewed, meaning (presumably) that the good Dr. laid out what he was going to do and how he was going to do it, and that he expected to demonstrate thus and such results. Knowing all of this, the grant (if there indeed is one) was approved anyway. Another possibilty is that the research is being funded privately, as corporation and private foundation grants have become increasingly important in an era of federal retrenchment. Such entities may have less scrupulous peer review than federal agencies (federal agencies have to be scrupulous because there is so much competition for federal dollars, and because questionable research can make it difficult to deal with Congress). So, I am speculating somewhat ahead of the facts. Your conclusion, however, I think is sound. Put pressure on whoever is funding the research, as well as on the institution where it is taking place. While an attack on a faculty member might cause the university to circle the wagons to preserve academic freedom, research funders would probably be anxious to avoid adverse publicity. Consequently, they might be a better target (if you can find out who they are). In a nutshell, follow the money, as you said. Patrick who has no money to follow... ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Something to think about.. Date: 97-05-08 From: joehler@afes.com Hello, I caught a brief headline from National Public Radio this morning that said Forbes magazine had released a list of CEO's from different companies and how much these CEO's were paid.. Some CEO from The Gap, a clothing manufacturer, was paid $150 million last year.. This man gets paid an outrageous sum of money while there are millions of people in this world who can't even buy food for themselves... It's absurd.. What do you think could be done?? James ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Re: HELP/the devil's web addresses Date: 97-05-08 From: KShep87309@aol.com AngelBravo, There were probably NONE of the Bloodliners who fell for that soggy EMail about "sympathy for the Devil" and all that live and let live nonsense. I'd tell you to relax about it, for not one of the real Bloodliners fell for it for one second: but your counter to that wishy-washy argument is even more convincing than your original request for help. The only good this so-called philosophical peace-lover brought to these Bloodlines is further unification and clarity on what is RIGHT. Your words on these pages are as strong as they are in song -and you are as consistant as your admirers all thought. Have no fear that we would be confused by such wash-out reasoning as to feel sorry for one minute for that animal-torturer. Let's hope the discussion of these dreadful acts continues long enough for them to be stopped. KShep87309 ________________________________________________________________ Subj: Re: HELP/the devil's web addresses Date: 97-05-07 From: davidltaylor5@worldnet.att.net (David L. Taylor) Dear Bloodliners, I am really sorry to read some of the letters regarding Terry's response to John's call for help on the cruelty to animals at UC Berkeley. Now we are separated into "Real Bloodliners" and what, "Not Real Bloodliners"? "Wishy-washy argument"? "Sympathy for the Devil"? I thought we were all entitled to our own opinions. Terry was looking for some facts on the issue and John provided them. I was really pleased to find this website so I could hear from others who love the music from my favorite writer and singer. I especially enjoy reading about people's experiences at JS concerts and reading his comments and insights. I DID NOT join this site to get into bashing people. I also did not join to start discussions about whether or not CEOs should make millions of dollars and "what can be done" about them. So, I am requesting you, Michelle, to delete me from this website. Adios mi amigos, David _______________________________________________________________ Subj: Life of a Mailing List Date: 97-05-08 From: ddunet@concentric.net (Michelle Stevens) Well, here is is Stewartistas, the day we've all been waiting for. (See quote from David Taylor below) This is normal in the life of a mailing list, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. We can look at this in one of two ways. #1 Good riddance... those who can't take the heat, or the flames, or the content of what people on this list wanna talk about can just unsubscribe if they don't like it. or #2 Hmmm. This is a list about John Stewart and his music, for people who love it and want to "commune" about it. Maybe we should learn from this little deviation of our purpose and try to get back on track, remembering that we are all new to this and learning as we go. Guess which one I like? Not that anyone was right or wrong, but just that we are all different and if we don't agree with something we can simply not acknowlege it and it will pass like other subjects. A little self-restraint can go a long way in this medium. I am very sad to be losing anyone due to a flame war, but that is one of those things that happens. I think everyone has something special to contribute to this list and that we could ALL do well to think before we type. (I'm not thinking of anyone in particular, just in general) Just because we CAN respond to something doesn't mean that we should. If you see a subject matter posted here that you think is inappropriate, simply don't respond. That is THE VERY BEST way to discourage it. Anything else, ANYTHING... simply fans the flames. Your friendly mailing list manager and webmistress, Michelle, considering "The Price of the Fire" PS If you don't agree with what I have said here, please email me PRIVATELY. I'll be happy to spar with you backchannel! Michelle Stevens Webmistess and Bloodlines mailing list manager ________________________________________________________________ end of Bloodlines archive May 97(E) Back to the archive menu