Griswalds had been Taken

circulate widely , 02.05.2007 00:59

circulate widely

To our Local Government and its Police Force,

We have occupied Griswald's on 4th Avenue. We do not believe in private property and thus feel no remorse about reclaiming an unused, burnt out, abandoned buidling. We will not leave until the following demands are met:

1) ALL OF THOSE WITHOUT HOMES SHOULD BE FREE TO CREATE THEIR OWN HOUSING ALTERNATIVES FREE FROM POLICE BRUTALIZATION

2) ALL OF THOSE CURRENTLY INCARCERATED FROM CHARGES RELATING TO HOMELESSNESS BE IMMEDIATELY RELEASED

3) ALL OF THOSE CURRENTLY INCARCERATED IN THURSTON COUNTY JAIL BE IMMEDIATELY RELEASED

4) THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT RELINQUISH ITS CONTROL OVER "SOCIAL SERVICES" AND GIVE THE MONEY DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE IT IS SUPPOSEDLY MEANT TO HELP WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTION WHATSOEVER

5) THE OLYMPIA POLICE DEPARTMENT PUBLICLY APOLOGIZE FOR ITS BRUTALITY AND DISRESPECT TO THOSE CURRENTLY AND FORMERLY LIVING ON THE STREET

6) THE CITY COUNCIL DISSOLVE ITSELF AND CEASE TO EXIST

7) THE OLYMPIA POLICE DEPARTMENT DISSOLVE ITSELF AND CEASE TO EXIST

If these simple demands are not met, a group of us will remain locked down in the upstairs room of the building. You will NOT be able to remove us. We will not negotiate with anyone besides Doug Mah.
Capitalism has shown itself, from the local to the global level, to be a suicidal undertaking. Private property and wage slavery are two aspects of capitalism which ensure homelessness and poverty. Poverty is endemic to the system and cannot be avoided so long as capitalism is the dominant philosophy. We do not want more reform or more legislation, we do not want less government or better government; we want no government at all. We will take whatever we need from you because you do not know what you are doing and never have. You cannot do a single, worthwhile thing. None of your system makes the slightest bit of sense to anyone who is not wealthy. And the wealthy are not worth preserving at the expense of those with nothing, a group of people growing increasingly larger. We can and will begin building our own communities, by any means neccessary. Piece by piece, your precious government will start to disintegrate.

In Utter Contempt,

THE OLYMPIA CHAPTER OF
THE EUGENE ANARCHISTS

Doing Worthwhile Things 02.05.2007 - 21:00 I am sure that almost everyone has done something, at least one thing, in his or her lifetime that can qualify as worthwhile. I think that the antagonistic attitude in these demands detracts from your desire for independence. Rob Whitlock> Homepage: http://robwhitlock.blogspot.com finally 02.05.2007 - 21:03 total fucking solidarity I'm at college in the east right now, but I'll be back at home in the south sound on 20 may. don't get arrested before then. we got your fucking backs. five parts gasoline and one part styrofoam war on capital and the state finne> oh thanks, rob whitlock 02.05.2007 - 21:21 good job, you're a statist finne> statism 03.05.2007 - 00:01 Tell me more, anonymous commenter, about how I am a statist. I want to know how you came to that conclusion. What else do you know about me that you would like to share? Rob Whitlock> Homepage: http://robwhitlock.blogspot.com tell me more 03.05.2007 - 04:58 What makes you say that I am a "statist?" Also, it seems that you advocate the use of violence. Do you think harming others is a good way to effect social change? rob whitlock> Homepage: http://robwhitlock.blogspot.com Location 03.05.2007 - 05:05 Where is griswalds on 4th? kronopio> putting the tracing back on the map 03.05.2007 - 05:57 Well, Rob, we could talk about your blog and how much you mention congress and other organs of state(s) as if they could effect any kind of meaningful, massive change, but instead let's talk about violence. Whether you like it or not,there aren't categorical states like "peace" and "violence" (as Emerson posits). There are degrees of "peace" and degrees of "violence", which overlap and interplay on organic strata. Barring such an assertion, however, we could also talk about the specific position of "non-violence" in the context of Olympia, which is in Washington State, which is part of America. The state, Rob, is violent. Coercive authority is always violent authority. Always. Again, whatever hopes you have for reform, for relative position, don't mean shit in the face of the overwhelming violence of hierarchical organizations of power. Moreover, the state can operate without you, Rob. It can still kill, still index, still exploit, still capture and overcode without your permission or participation. The state is a machine which can continue functioning in the face of almost all nonviolent resistance. Therefore, if the state is overwhelmingly violent, and capitalism is an expression of colonizing, hegemonic, near-banal violence (go to a convencience store, Rob), then EVERYONE WHO IS COMMITTED TO "NONVIOLENCE" IS COMPLICIT IN THE CONTINUING PARALLEL VIOLENCES OF STATISM AND CAPITALISM. This "occupation" post might even be a joke, but its a joke only a few people got because everyone else was too busy running to defend the people and structures which are killing them. Power does not fuck around, and neither should those who radically oppose repressive dynamics and coercive authority. So, again, a toast to wars of liberation prank capital into the fucking ground and bring machetes for the bureaucrats who try to build it back up around you stones and fire finne> what v. how 03.05.2007 - 14:49 Perhaps the problem could be understood from a different perspective. Instead of arguing about whether government is bad (which I happen to think that government probably does more bad than good - though it does do some good things) and whether a "non-state" solution would be effective in achieving social betterment - perhaps we would be wise to ask whether or not the structure of society is the most important factor in the health of society. Perhaps it doesn't matter whether society is capitalist, communist, or anarchist. Perhaps what is critical is how the individuals in that given society operate. I think that there are going to be problems with any social structure, whether it's capitalism, communism or anarchism. What is important is how the people who make up that system behave (as well as the attitudes they take.) Robert Whitlock> Homepage: http://robwhitlock.blogspot.com for the record 03.05.2007 - 21:13 just so people in other places know, this press release seems to have been a hoax. the olympian responded before i arrived with about 2 dozen others who came over to see what was happenning. I love the sentiment and even the antagonism present in the statement. However, for the integrity of indymedia i hope that we can all step back and view this as the political theater that it was. jon> An ad hoc hypothesis 08.05.2007 - 08:10 An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute one’s theory. Ad hoc hypotheses are common in paranormal research and in the work of pseudoscientists. For example, ESP researchers have been known to blame the hostile thoughts of onlookers for unconsciously influencing pointer readings on sensitive instruments. The hostile vibes, they say, made it impossible for them to duplicate a positive ESP experiment. Being able to duplicate an experiment is essential to confirming its validity. Of course, if this objection is taken seriously, then no experiment on ESP can ever fail. Whatever the results, one can always say they were caused by paranormal psychic forces, either the ones being tested or others not being tested. Martin Gardner reports on this type of ad hoc hypothesizing reaching a ludicrous peak with paraphysicist Helmut Schmidt who put cockroaches in a box where they could give themselves electric shocks. One would assume that cockroaches do not like to be shocked and would give themselves shocks at a chance rate or less, if cockroaches can learn from experience. The cockroaches gave themselves more electric shocks than predicted by chance. Schmidt concluded that "because he hated cockroaches, maybe it was his pk that influenced the randomizer!" (Gardner, p. 59) Ad hoc hypotheses are common in defense of the pseudoscientific theory known as biorhythm theory. For example, there are very many people who do not fit the predicted patterns of biorhythm theory. Rather than accept this fact as refuting evidence of the theory, a new category of people is created: the arhythmic. In short, whenever the theory does not seem to work, the contrary evidence is systematically discounted. Advocates of biorhythm theory claimed that the theory could be used to accurately predict the sex of unborn children. However, W.S. Bainbridge, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington, demonstrated that the chance of predicting the sex of an unborn child using biorhythms was 50/50, the same as flipping a coin. An expert in biorhythms tried unsuccessfully to predict accurately the sexes of the children in Bainbridge's study based on Bainbridge's data. The expert's spouse suggested to Bainbridge an interesting ad hoc hypothesis, namely, that the cases where the theory was wrong probably included many homosexuals with indeterminate sex identities! Astrologers are often fond of using statistical data and analysis to impress us with the scientific nature of astrology. Of course, a scientific analysis of the statistical data does not always pan out for the astrologer. In those cases, the astrologer can make the data fit the astrological paradigm by the ad hoc hypothesis that those who do not fit the mold have other, unknown influences that counteract the influence of the dominant planets. Using ad hoc hypotheses is not limited to pseudoscientists. Another type of ad hoc hypothesis occurs in science when a new scientific theory is proposed which conflicts with an established theory and which lacks an essential explanatory mechanism. An ad hoc hypothesis is proposed to explain what the new theory cannot explain. For example, when Wegener proposed his theory of continental drift he could not explain how continents move. It was suggested that gravity was the force behind the movement of continents, though there was no scientific evidence for this notion. In fact, scientists could and did show that gravity was too weak a force to account for the movement of continents. Alexis du Toit, a defender of Wegener's theory, argued for radioactive melting of the ocean floor at continental borders as the mechanism by which continents might move. Stephen Jay Gould noted that "this ad hoc hypothesis added no increment of plausibility to Wegener's speculation." (Gould, p. 160) Finally, rejecting explanations that require belief in occult, supernatural or paranormal forces in favor of simpler and more plausible explanations is called applying Occam's razor. It is not the same as ad hoc hypothesizing. For example, let's say I catch you stealing a watch from a shop. You say you did not steal it. I ask you to empty your pockets. You agree and pull out a watch. I say, "Aha!, I was right. You stole the watch." You reply that you did not steal the watch, but you admit that it was not in your pocket when we went into the store. I ask you to explain how the watch got into your pocket and you say that you used telekinesis: you used your thoughts to transport the watch out of a glass case into your pocket. I ask you to repeat the act with another watch and you say "ok." Try as you will, however, you cannot make a watch magically appear in your pocket. You say that there is too much pressure on you to perform or that there are too many bad vibes in the air for you to work your powers. You have offered an ad hoc hypothesis to explain away what looks like a good refutation of your claim. My hypothesis that the watch is in your pocket because you stole it, is not an ad hoc hypothesis. I have chosen to believe a plausible explanation rather than an implausible one. Likewise, given the choice between believing that my headache went away of its own accord or that it went away because some nurse waved her hands over my hand while chanting a mantra, I will opt for the former every time. It is always more reasonable to apply Occam's razor than to offer speculative ad hoc hypotheses just to maintain the possibility of something supernatural or paranormal. Pointer> An ad hoc hypothesis 08.05.2007 - 09:02 An ad hoc hypothesis by Pointer An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute one’s theory. Ad hoc hypotheses are common in paranormal research and in the work of pseudoscientists. For example, ESP researchers have been known to blame the hostile thoughts of onlookers for unconsciously influencing pointer readings on sensitive instruments. The hostile vibes, they say, made it impossible for them to duplicate a positive ESP experiment. Being able to duplicate an experiment is essential to confirming its validity. Of course, if this objection is taken seriously, then no experiment on ESP can ever fail. Whatever the results, one can always say they were caused by paranormal psychic forces, either the ones being tested or others not being tested. Martin Gardner reports on this type of ad hoc hypothesizing reaching a ludicrous peak with paraphysicist Helmut Schmidt who put cockroaches in a box where they could give themselves electric shocks. One would assume that cockroaches do not like to be shocked and would give themselves shocks at a chance rate or less, if cockroaches can learn from experience. The cockroaches gave themselves more electric shocks than predicted by chance. Schmidt concluded that "because he hated cockroaches, maybe it was his pk that influenced the randomizer!" (Gardner, p. 59) Ad hoc hypotheses are common in defense of the pseudoscientific theory known as biorhythm theory. For example, there are very many people who do not fit the predicted patterns of biorhythm theory. Rather than accept this fact as refuting evidence of the theory, a new category of people is created: the arhythmic. In short, whenever the theory does not seem to work, the contrary evidence is systematically discounted. Advocates of biorhythm theory claimed that the theory could be used to accurately predict the sex of unborn children. However, W.S. Bainbridge, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington, demonstrated that the chance of predicting the sex of an unborn child using biorhythms was 50/50, the same as flipping a coin. An expert in biorhythms tried unsuccessfully to predict accurately the sexes of the children in Bainbridge's study based on Bainbridge's data. The expert's spouse suggested to Bainbridge an interesting ad hoc hypothesis, namely, that the cases where the theory was wrong probably included many homosexuals with indeterminate sex identities! Astrologers are often fond of using statistical data and analysis to impress us with the scientific nature of astrology. Of course, a scientific analysis of the statistical data does not always pan out for the astrologer. In those cases, the astrologer can make the data fit the astrological paradigm by the ad hoc hypothesis that those who do not fit the mold have other, unknown influences that counteract the influence of the dominant planets. Using ad hoc hypotheses is not limited to pseudoscientists. Another type of ad hoc hypothesis occurs in science when a new scientific theory is proposed which conflicts with an established theory and which lacks an essential explanatory mechanism. An ad hoc hypothesis is proposed to explain what the new theory cannot explain. For example, when Wegener proposed his theory of continental drift he could not explain how continents move. It was suggested that gravity was the force behind the movement of continents, though there was no scientific evidence for this notion. In fact, scientists could and did show that gravity was too weak a force to account for the movement of continents. Alexis du Toit, a defender of Wegener's theory, argued for radioactive melting of the ocean floor at continental borders as the mechanism by which continents might move. Stephen Jay Gould noted that "this ad hoc hypothesis added no increment of plausibility to Wegener's speculation." (Gould, p. 160) Finally, rejecting explanations that require belief in occult, supernatural or paranormal forces in favor of simpler and more plausible explanations is called applying Occam's razor. It is not the same as ad hoc hypothesizing. For example, let's say I catch you stealing a watch from a shop. You say you did not steal it. I ask you to empty your pockets. You agree and pull out a watch. I say, "Aha!, I was right. You stole the watch." You reply that you did not steal the watch, but you admit that it was not in your pocket when we went into the store. I ask you to explain how the watch got into your pocket and you say that you used telekinesis: you used your thoughts to transport the watch out of a glass case into your pocket. I ask you to repeat the act with another watch and you say "ok." Try as you will, however, you cannot make a watch magically appear in your pocket. You say that there is too much pressure on you to perform or that there are too many bad vibes in the air for you to work your powers. You have offered an ad hoc hypothesis to explain away what looks like a good refutation of your claim. My hypothesis that the watch is in your pocket because you stole it, is not an ad hoc hypothesis. I have chosen to believe a plausible explanation rather than an implausible one. Likewise, given the choice between believing that my headache went away of its own accord or that it went away because some nurse waved her hands over my hand while chanting a mantra, I will opt for the former every time. It is always more reasonable to apply Occam's razor than to offer speculative ad hoc hypotheses just to maintain the possibility of something supernatural or paranormal. grow up> e-mail: sf@indymedia.org "by Pointer" 25.05.2007 - 07:46 > sf@indymedia.org This is a forgery, one of many:  http://tinyurl.com/2bltgj this is a forgery>