,,ggddY"""Ybbgg,, subversive literature ,agd888b,_ "Y8, ___`""Ybga, for subverted people! ,gdP""88888888baa,.""8b "888g, / ,dP" ]888888888P' "Y `888Yb, ,dP" ,88888888P" db, "8P"""" Installment 238 of... ,8" ,888888888b, d8" db. dP b. ,8' d88888888888,88 d$$$s. dP `8, - -- -THE NEO-COMINTERN ,8' 8888888888888" dP$$$$$s. dP 8. d' I8888888888P" dP `T$$$$$$dP `.d$$b. .d$$b. .d$$b..s$s 8 `8"88P""Y8P' dP `T$$$$P d$$$P dP' `$ dP' T$ dP' `TP' `T$ 8 Y 8[ _ " dP `T$P d$$$P dP dP dP dP dP dP 8 "Y8d8b dP dP :$ .$ $b. .dP dP dP dP 8 `"".dP dP `T$$P' `T$$P' dP dP dP Y, ,,odnd88b, ,b `8, ,d8888888baaa ,8' ELECTRONIC MAGAZINE- -- - `8, 888888888888' ,8' `8a "8888888888I a8' Writers: `Yba `Y8888888P' adP' Reuban O'Neill "Yba `888888P' adY" Heckat `"Yba, d8888P" ,adP"' BMC `"Y8baa, ,d888P,ad8P"' - - - - -``""YYba8888P""''===================------- -- - - - - MAY 11, 2003 INSTALLMENT 238 BMC, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF - - - - -- -------===========================------- -- - - - - FEATURED IN THIS INSTALLMENT: Maintaining the Ear: Social Construction and Personal Experience - Heckat Rube O'Pia: Chapter 16 - Reuban O'Neill Marx's Anthropocentrism: Animal Rights under Humanist Dictatorship - BMC - - - - -- -------===========================------- -- - - - - EDITOR'S NOTE - - - - -- -------===========================------- -- - - - - Some triple-slippin sucka asks: "Now that the N-Com writers have perfected the art of fiction, is it true that they can no longer pen those platinum articles that made them famous from the Aegean Sea to the Mines of Minolta?" BMC responds: "If issue 237 wasn't enough to school ya on the science that The N-Com drops, check this shiznit out and expand ya muthafuckin mind, boyeee!" WORD. - - - - -- -------===========================------- -- - - - - Maintaining the Ear: Social Construction and Personal Experience - Heckat - - - - -- -------===========================------- -- - - - - white bats a thousand white bats huddle close in communion behind the fold of your ear clinging white wings folded close their extended toes grasp the soft flesh under your lobe at night they fly out exploring our room and soar close enough to brush my eyelids with the delicate pale tips of their wings. I wrote a few years ago for a lover who, in the winter, would get flakes of dry skin behind his ears. I actually thought they were quite cute and I used to imagine that they were little white bats sleeping there. After I wrote the poem, I showed it to some people and, although I thought it was a romantic poem, many thought it was creepy. It is interesting that now that I am no longer with him, I sometimes wonder if those white bats behind his ears may have been signalling the end of our relationship before I was even conscious of it. I am fascinated by ears. It is interesting that while we have ideals of what a whole body should look like, each individual body part is expected to look a certain way as well in order to be considered "beautiful" or even "normal." My own expectations of "normalcy" in ears became evident for me when I recently encountered a girl without any earlobes; her ear rejoined the side of her head without the detour that creates a little flap of skin that, on me, is as big as a fingerpad. I realized that I did not like her ears, that I somehow thought they were "deviant," even though I logically know that ears come in all shapes and sizes. Of course, I was not happy to discover that I have prejudices against certain types of ears. It was definitely a reminder that it is difficult to escape a mind set of regulation, as Foucault might call it, and it made me wonder what I would do if I had her ears. If I had her ears would I believe they were ugly? Would I cover them up? I then realized that if I had her ears I would have a different perspective entirely on what a normal ear should look like; I would perhaps include more ear-shapes in my idea of what and ear should be, or alternately, I might even have a prejudice against earlobes. Once again I was faced with the reality that beauty and normalcy are social constructs, they are not intrinsic features of nature. Along with the constructed ideas of what an ear should look like are notions of what a clean ear should be. This is not only evident in the age-old cliché "don't forget to wash behind your ears," but it even presents itself in the contemporary phenomenon of ear candling. Ear candling involves the use of a custom made, hollow candle that is coated with beeswax. While the client lies comfortably on a cushioned table, the hollow candle is placed gently in the outer opening of the ear. Massaging of the face and neck areas around each ear canal aids the release of often astounding quantities of inner ear debris with immediate and long lasting benefits (or so practitioners of the procedure would have us believe). Many adults use this technique as a regular part of their overall health program. Thus, we see that the ear is an important site of purity and health on the body; excessive ear wax (or perhaps any ear wax at all) is associated with potential disease, and certainly uncleanliness. This is not only true in North America; I learned from a friend who travelled to Indonesia that the people in other countries also associate the insides of ears with impurity, perhaps even to a greater extent than we do. She told me that in Indonesia it is considered extremely rude to stick your finger inside your ear in public; the "dirtiness" of the action there would be the North American equivalent of a person picking their nose in public. In relation to this idea of ear cleanliness and cleaning the ear, I remember that when I was young, I was given safety advice in regards to cleaning inside my ears by my fifth grade teacher. She told my class, "Never stick anything in your ears smaller than your elbow," and she meant, never stick anything in your ears at all. Of course I knew from what I had already learned at home that I had to clean my ears, so my teacher's statement put me in a bit of a panic. I remember thinking to myself, "Well, perhaps it is dangerous, but I cannot just leave them dirty." Since then I have continued to clean my ears with q-tips, but I hear my teacher's voice warning me each time I do and I am very careful. I wonder now if ear-candling is not somewhat of a response to this paradox where we need to clean our ears, but we are not allowed to stick anything inside of them. If it is not safe for us to clean our ears ourselves, then we must get professionals to do it; once again, I notice that part of the private body moves into the public domain to be regulated and maintained. It is not only the inside of our ears which society scrutinizes, but our outer ear as well. The outer ear is not only important to hearing, which I will talk about in a moment, but it is also a bodily frill, a beautifully folded decorative body part. The ear is a site of adornment where we attach baubles to accentuate beauty. Piercing is a popular practice that has always been regulated by societal norms. It has primarily been done to women's bodies, and each time period has had an accepted amount of holes that could be in each ear and even a standard on how big the earings themselves should be. These standards are taught to us by society in general, but our first introduction to them is often given by our mothers. My own mother took me to get one piercing in each ear when I was four years old but she refused to let me get a second hole until I was "old enough," which in our house meant age thirteen. My mother believed that two piecings in each ear was too many, but she agreed to let me make my own decision on that after a certain age. She began to educate me, however, on the dangers of taking piercing too far; whenever we would see a woman with earings all the way along the outside of her ear, my mother would remind me, "That's just gross." Since I was a child, I have seen the conventions of piercing change dramatically. When I got my ears pierced at age four, I had never seen or heard of any men with earings. As I got older, I realized that certain males did pierce their ears and that it was not accepted in mainstream society. I was told that these men were homosexual, marking their difference upon their bodies by piercing their right ear. By the time I got to high school, piercing had been adopted by males as a sign of rebellion against societal norms in general. To this day, I am attracted to men with piercings because I see it as rebellious and defiant, an exciting transgression, even though I know that piercing is now very mainstream for both men and women. People who want to rebel now that piercing has become acceptable, and even desirable, have moved on to pierce other body parts: the nose, the eyebrow, the tongue. These piercings, however, have been quickly adopted by the mainstream and now it is almost impossible to get a visible piercing that would be considered outrageous. Gazing upon the ear is not the only way in which ears enter the public sphere; ears are the body parts that allow us to participate conventionally in social relationships. The ear is where hearing is located on our bodies, which is the prominent way that we exchange verbal language. Of course, people who are deaf find ways to compensate for the absence of this sense by using sight to lip read or interpret sign language, but communication is much easier for those of us who are lucky enough to be able to hear. The experience of hearing is not only cerebral; the sensation is often a bodily one. When we hear a joke, for example, we laugh, our body shaking in enjoyment. Pleasing music invites us to hum along, tap our feet, sway, and even dance. Jarring noises can be just as physical. Alarming noises speed up our heart rate, cause an adrenaline rush, and prepare us to face danger. Even loud, unpleasant noises cause uncomfortable physical sensations; for instance, I remember once going to ask someone to turn down their music; it was physically painful to walk down the hallway toward the torture-level noise. Repeated irritating noises cause an almost physical aching in my body. Alternatively, I have also had the experience where music created so much physical joy for me that I had to get up and dance, sometimes even at work. Hearing is an important way in which we interact with others through verbal communication and even sharing music, but the ear is a physical body part in its own right which can be touched and caressed and kissed. The ear is an erogenous zone, and I not only find it exciting to have my ear touched, but I also love to touch, and even look at, my boyfriend's ears. When I began to ask myself what I find so fascinating about ears, it immediately came to mind that ears are phallic. Earlobes especially, remind me of the penis in their shape, and so perhaps this is why I find them visually appealing. When I thought about it further, I realized that the associations between ears and sexual body parts do not end at the penis for me. The earlobe is also like a breast in that it is comforting and pleasing to suck on. I am reminded of my childhood cat who used to climb onto my shoulder so that she could suck on my ear as if she expected to get milk from it. Ears, then, bring to mind an entire range of images and associations for me. I was surprised to learn the ear is an important site in acupuncture and that it is compared to the fetus. Once I heard this, it made perfect sense to me. The ear does look like a little fetus, and perhaps it is appropriate that the ear should not only remind me of both male and female sexuality, but also the new life that comes from the union of the two. After deconstructing the meanings and associations of the ear, a single body part, I notice that many of the observations that can be made about the body as a whole are also true about the ear. The ear is "normalized" by society to the point where we have certain ideas about what an ear should look like, how clean it should be, and whether or not it should be pierced. Although our bodies are personal and private, the public sphere often dictates how we view our own bodies as well as the bodies of others. Our ears are important in social interaction, just as our entire bodies are, and they allow us to experience sound sensation and sexuality. Each body part, then, can tell us something about the whole and help to make us aware that our feelings about bodies are not intrinsic and natural, they are the outcomes of the interface between social construction and personal experience. - - - - -- -------===========================------- -- - - - - Rube O'Pia: Chapter 16 - Reuban O'Neill - - - - -- -------===========================------- -- - - - - My name is Reuban O'Neill. The date is March 24, 1972. The time is early afternoon. I have snuck off into the woods to write this chapter of my revolutionary publication, entitled "Rube O'Pia," my Magnum Opiate as it were. As this segment of my design for the future is intended to open the world's mind to the way that women should (and eventually will) be treated, I am writing it in the midst of the forest so as to be at great distance from my wife. I do this because she would be shocked, amazed, and impressed to gaze upon this masterpiece in its unfinished format, not because I am scared that she will physically assault me if she discovers my true orientations of wisdom. That being cleared up, I will proceed forthwith into My apologies. I was momentarily distracted by a low-flying bird that I believed was my wife attempting to assassinate me. It was, in fact, a magpie. Chapter 16 Women and Work 1 - Sex In The Workplace Many prudish peoples have come out in recent years to declare that there should be no sex in the workplace. I find this notion to be absurd. If there were no sex in the workplace, the job market would quickly be filled with androgenies and castratos. If this became the case, eunuchhood would become the new trend and men and women would quickly find themselves out of work. I am here to say that people of sex should not be banned from the workplace. In fact, people of the male sex should be entitled to a higher number of jobs than they currently are, since, by my last count, men were being flooded out of their positions not only by neuters but by women as well. This is perfectly unacceptable. There are a great deal of reasons why non-males should be forbidden from the workplace. Firstly, we need to worry about the distraction factor. When women (and eunuchs) dress scantily, it draws men's attention away from their work, causing reduced productivity at the workstation and increased production of hormones, resulting in dangerous sexual arousal. On the other hand, when women do not dress provocatively it creates even more distraction, encouraging men to give a great deal of thought to why a woman would wear apparel that is out of her character. 2 - Alternatives to Work (for Women) I believe that most women will agree with me that there is a higher calling for womankind, or should I say a more naturally fulfilling life for them. Of course, I am referring to the domestic life. Contrary to the beliefs of the mistaken few, women do not crave the stress and drudgery of the factory or office, but instead prefer a simpler life of relaxation, listening to the radio, bathing in the sun, and occasionally cooking meals, cleaning the house, and raising children. All of these tasks are infinitely more pleasurable than pulling bricks off of a conveyor belt or slaving away in a corner office, so I hope that male readers do not get offended by the notion of women staying at home instead of working. A note to men - this works in your favour as well, since you have too much of your time tied up in business meetings and tedious rounds of golf to have the excess leisure time to cook food and perform such other simple tasks for yourselves. All in all, the low rate at which a wife can be maintained is nearly equaled by the tasks that she can aid you in. On top of this, a domestic friend is helpful in relieving your tension - because she has no problems of her own, she is always more than willing to share yours with you! 3 - The Will of God As Adam came before Eve, so do all men come before women in skill and application of said skill. However, like the sinking ship our world can be likened to, women and children are helped first. Men must stay at the helm to orchestrate the goings-on in the world while women and children do their part by not interfering. Such is the way of things in the workplace. Women and children would not be very productive in the working world, and so they should not be considered as potentials. For example, imagine an infant attempting to perform the work of a welder or a woman pretending to be a physician. As you can see, these two groups of people are not intended to be labourers. 4 - a note on sexual frigidity I believe that women who disagree with the fact that only men should be in the workplace are particularly unreceptive to sexual advances, and moreso when engaged in a debate about their botched sexual beliefs. At current this is only a theory of mine, as these characteristics have only been demonstrated to me by my wife, who believes that I am wrong about this and every other conception that I have. However, I believe that some moral guidance could be helpful in teaching her to perform her duties and cease in her attempts to come up with more wild and unfounded notions. This concludes chapter 16, which is preceeded by chapter 15 and followed up by chapters 18 and 19. Chapter 17 went into further detail about sexual frigity, but was accidentally left in a place where my wife could find and destroy it. Chapter 18 deals with the raising of children (for they must be raised or they would forever remain small), and chapter 19 deals with the implementation of youth prison camps. This book will be published in full in late 1974, hot on the heels of "The Reuban O'Neill Process," "The RADD Tract," and "A Treatise on Reading." "Rube O'Pia" will be followed up with a future book containing an interview and biography by the late Jean-Paul Salt. - - - - -- -------===========================------- -- - - - - Marx's Anthropocentrism: Animal Rights under Humanist Dictatorship - BMC - - - - -- -------===========================------- -- - - - - It is not known what kinds of loves, friendships, arts, and aesthetics might exist in the mysterious minds of other animals, and intellectual humility as well as compassion requires us to give creatures the benefit of the doubt as to what higher needs they might enjoy, once allowed the basic necessities of life. - David Sztybel Karl Marx's talk of socialist ideals and working class revolution still seems relevant and exciting in our time. Never before Marx did a philosopher write so concisely about class-based exploitation or suggest taking action to eliminate inequality in society. Marx's ideas are the basis of conflict theory, a sociological school of thought dedicated to pointing out social injustice and prescribing solutions to these problems. Being the founder and pioneer that Marx was, one might assume that he was a supporter of the cause for equality on all fronts, but, in fact, he often ignores social problems such as misogyny and heterosexism, and tends to limit his cause to the economic emancipation of the working class. Unfortunately, Marx does not seem to have a mind for much more than the working class and its desire for wealth within the capitalist system. This is especially clear when observing his treatment of non-human animals, an interest group whose rights he ignores and occasionally advocates against. By examining Marx's treatment of animals within his writings, we can peel back some of his ideological veneer and see that his goals might not be based on a desire for equality or fairness, but rather on a desire to invert dominating and dominated classes, creating economic success for the working class à la capitalism. In a modern socialist essay, _The American Left Should Support Animal Rights: A Manifesto_, we read, "Only the most oblivious or callous would deny that animals get a pretty raw deal in post-modern technological society" (Charlton et al. 1). It is indisputable that no matter how bad the human class considers its living conditions to be, the conditions that owned animals live under are worse. Economic class theory is often criticized for neglecting non-economic types of social stratification such as those promoted by institutionalized patriarchal sexism, and Marx's ideals are specifically humanist. Humanism, by nature of name, is anthropocentric, advocating free exploitation and abuse of non-human animals. Adopting the title of humanist, Marx declares that human beings have the capacity to reach a greater potential than can be reached while performing animal-like functions and being treated like non-human animals. The moral basis of humanism insists that the rights of all human beings should be recognized. A latent basis of humanism, however, is a disregard of the rights of non-human animals. Humanism, then, is intrinsically anthropocentric, and yet subtly so, because the focus is on empowering the human class and carries a positive connotation amongst humans rather than a negative one. But, as the word "humanism" truly suggests, the non-human world is not worthy of consideration by believers in this school of thought. Humanism is based on the premise that humans are superior to animals. The belief that humans are destined rule the Earth and all life within it goes back to the story of Eden (in Christian countries such as Marx's Germany). Religion was instrumental in the political sphere, as it legitimized the power of monarchs who claimed that their power was granted by God. Marx, who is an outspoken atheist, does not rely on religious authority to show that humans have the right to live more freely than the other animals, but he does develop a new set of criteria to differentiate between a being with rights (human) and a being without rights (non-human). According to David Sztybel, Marx requires that a "human" be: (1) a being for himself, (2) individuated only in the midst of society, (3) defined by labour and productivity, (4) productive of "his" own subsistence, (5) productive beyond immediate physical needs and for others beyond self and kin, (6) a tool-making animal, (7) a transformer of nature, (8) possessed of consciousness and knowledge of nature, and (9) capable of consciously making "his" own history. (Sztybel 10) Because non-human animals lack these characteristics, they are not part of Marx's design. He categorized human beings in this way to provide justification for why should not be denied their potential, but in doing it he dealt a blow to the rights of those creatures that cannot advocate their own causes. Marx's true desire is not for wide-sweeping equality. Marx does not entertain the notion that we should not exploit animals. The range of his compassion is limited to the working class of human beings. If Marx has a claim to being an advocate for justice and freedom, it is only because he advocates the justice and freedom of the human working class, not anyone else's. Marx may be a humanist in the sense of believing in human potential, but he is not a humanist in the sense of caring about personal wellbeing and/or suffering. His notions of the dictatorship of the proletariat and violent revolution seem to suggest that he is ready to murder members of the ruling class, and even prepared to allow the working class to suffer casualties. As a means for gaining power, socialism is appealing on a personal economic basis and also on the basis of compassion and concern for the social good. However, Marx believes not only that the ruling class will be usurped and replaced by the proletarian class, but also that human beings are to continue to exploit non-human animals. This turns humans into the bourgeoisie of the animal kingdom, much like the pigs in George Orwell's _Animal Farm_. Marx sees murder in a positive light when he says, "Communist society... makes it possible for me... to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner" (Marx, qtd in Ritzer 64); however, when he says, "Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks" (Marx, qtd in Ritzer 69), he negatively likens the bourgeoisie to the feaster and the proletariat to the feast. Marx's theories do not fail to take animals into account; in fact, communist society as Marx envisions it will be a haven for vampires of the humanist variety, where each human proletariat can participate equally in the murder of non-human animals. Marx believes that the human working class has rights because humans have the ability to be advocates for their own causes, and that since non-human animals do not have this capacity, they are not eligible to have rights. This notion is as elitist as monarchy itself. If the ability to be an advocate for one's own cause gives one the legitimate grounds on which to have rights, we can deduce that the working class-in-itself does not have any intrinsic rights - that if class consciousness cannot be attained, they should not be granted rights. Marx suggests that the working class should increase its ability to be an advocate for itself, since a greater ability for self-advocacy is a greater eligibility for rights. While animal rights theoretician Peter Singer says that human beings should not exploit non-human animals, right-wing columnist Daniel G. Jennings explain how well the human bourgeoisie proves itself to be the greatest of all self-advocates: If every rich American who disagreed with Singer and his moronic beliefs called the President of Princeton tomorrow and said they wouldn't donate any money to the university until Singer is gone, within a few hours security guards would escort Singer off the campus and tell him never to come back. (Jennings 4) Clearly, if self-advocacy is the way rights are to be legitimately obtained, bourgeoisie, who have greater means for self-advocacy, should also have greater rights. If greater ability results in more rights, the bourgeoisie has as much right to abuse the working class as Karl Marx has to abuse non-human animals. If the working class is simply concerned with using the concept of socialism as a device through which to obtain personal economic success, the philosophical justification is merely a technicality. If socialism and capitalism are equivocal, Marx's theory loses a great deal of merit. However, if we are reshaping socialist ideals, basing them on compassion and the overwriting of capitalist dogma, we must include the rights and needs of all oppressed groups, including non-human animals. Humans must act as advocates for other animals and act responsibly and compassionately so that exploitation may finally cease. Marx was an innovator in the fields of rights and equality, but he was trapped by many notions of his time that now seem to be outdated. Human superiority is clearly rooted in religious dogma. The proletarian revolution sets its aims in relation to capitalism. Likewise, the use and exploitation of animals was common in Marx's time, but it is 100 years later and contemporary society does not need to rely on the slaughter of animals for food and clothing. It is simple for humans to eat a balanced diet that excludes the dead bodies of animals and it is not difficult to create synthetic materials for clothing. Contemporary people who use animal products do so for the sake of comfort or novelty rather than need. In _The American Left Should Support Animal Rights: A Manifesto_, it is stated that, "In nearly all instances, a relatively trivial human interest is balanced against an animal's most fundamental interest in not experiencing pain or death, and the human interest nevertheless prevails" (Charlton et al. 4). As long as human beings fetishize their domination of the animal kingdom, they will continue to allow people to treat other animals as less-than-slaves, valued not so much for what they produce in life, but what their bodies are worth when they are killed. Human beings do not have a just claim to ownership of animals. This ownership is illegitimate, justified only through human law, an elitist code designed to protect and advocate the interests of humans. This is akin to legalized economic stratification, where the elite create the laws and force a subordinate class to follow said laws. The aforementioned laws are nothing more than a prescription for the maintenance of inequality. The law is written by and for those in the dominant class. Socialist thought does not recognize the laws of the ruling class because they do not represent the interests of the working class; they are oppressive, and they are not arrived by democratic consent. As proletariats should not be subject to bourgeoisie law, animals should not be subjected to human law. Perhaps the problem is not so much about rights, but about the right to dominate and exploit others. The basis of contemporary socialism is compassion, equality, and social value. The goal of contemporary socialism is to eliminate the existence of dominant and subordinate classes. Socialism aims to rid the world of classism, sexism, racism, humanism, and many other class structures. Without an all-inclusive moral framework embedded into the concept of socialism, it appears that the idea is as spawned from a desire for personal economic success, typical of the aims of capitalist success. But such need not be the way in our time. Compassion is our present and future. Now is the time to make change, offering personal diligence and social consciousness to all of our causes. Charlton, Anne E., Sue Coe, and Gary L. Francione. "The American Left Should Support Animal Rights: A Manifesto." . Jennings, Daniel G. "Letters to the Editor." . Ritzer, George. Sociological Theory. Fifth Edition. Montreal: McGraw-Hill, 2000. Sztybel, David. "Marxism and Animal Rights." . - - - - -- -------===========================------- -- - - - - The Neo-Comintern Magazine / Online Magazine is seeking submissions. Unpublished stories and articles of an unusual, experimental, or anti-capitalist nature are wanted. Contributors are encouraged to submit works incorporating any or all of the following: Musings, Delvings into Philosophy, Flights of Fancy, Freefall Selections, and Tales of General Mirth. The more creative and astray from the norm, the better. For examples of typical Neo-Comintern writing, see our website at . Submissions of 25-4000 words are wanted; the average article length is approximately 200-1000 words. Send submissions via email attachment to , or through ICQ to #29981964. Contributors will receive copies of the most recent print issue of The Neo-Comintern; works of any length and type will be considered for publication in The Neo-Comintern Online Magazine and/or The Neo-Comintern Magazine. - - - - -- -------===========================------- -- - - - - ___________________________________________________ | THE COMINTERN IS AVAILABLE ON THE FOLLOWING BBSES | |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| | TWILIGHT ZONE (905) 432-7667 | | BRING ON THE NIGHT (306) 373-4218 | | CLUB PARADISE (306) 978-2542 | | THE GATEWAY THROUGH TIME (306) 373-9778 | |___________________________________________________| | Website at: http://www.neo-comintern.com | | Questions? Comments? Submissions? | | Email BMC at bmc@neo-comintern.com | |___________________________________________________| | The Current Text Scene : http://www.textscene.com | |___________________________________________________| - - - - -- -------===========================------- -- - - - - copyright 2003 by #238-05/11/03 the neo-comintern All content is property of The Neo-Comintern. You may redistribute this document, although no fee can be charged and the content must not be altered or modified in any way. Unauthorized use of any part of this document is prohibited. All rights reserved. Made in Canada.