BIO
Lewis LaCook makes things. He is a programmer/poet. He likes unstable objects. He doesn't eat enough. Send him all your money.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Charles Simic:
curt===
thank you for pointing out the actual logic behind bush's supporters---
though i'm certainly not one of them, and do strongly disagree with many of the points raised, i'm awful glad someone had the balls to humanize these people and to consider where their logic is coming from---i've never viewed republicans as simplistic, easily-led "rednecks," mostly because doing so solves no problems whatsoever---it's really only once we begin to empathize with and make a sincere effort to understand one another that any real progress is made---you have obviously done this, and i thank you for it---
bliss
l
curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
Hi Jim,
In a nutshell, here's my difference with lots of folks who post to rhizome -- I'm not a marxist materialist. So when you describe a region in terms of its labor unions, its agricultural exports, its teacher salaries, its history of supporting this or that political party, and you expect to suss it all up based on those material indicators, I think you're grossly oversimplifying the "reality" of the region. I agree with what you say, that literature and art get closer to what's really happening in a culture, yet Simic's "literature" misses the mark because it's more like deductive fiction as essay. He finds what he's looking for.
You want to know why someone woud vote for Bush. That's why you're looking for an insight into the mind of Joe Southerner. Fair enough.
It's easy for me to understand why someone would vote for Bush, without me having to view them as brainwashed, ignorant, empoverished, pathetic, or from Mars. Oftentimes, it has to do with a difference in basic ethical assumptions. Let me try to explain at least one reason why somone would do it, an ethical reason. You are going to have to put yourself into someone else's shoes to understand this. You probably won't agree with it, but you should be able to at least understand it. Don't inject your own ethics into the situation. Just allow someone to have their own ethics, and follow the perfectly plausible logic that proceeds from those ethics:
+++++++++++++++++
1. God exists
2. The Bible is God-approved
3. The Bible says God knit each person together in the womb
4. A fetus has a human soul
5. A fetus is a human
6. To kill an innocent human is murder
7. Abortion is murder
8. Murder is wrong
9. 1 million murders occur per year in the US due to abortion
10. If abortion were illegal in the US, fewer abortions would occur
11. The supreme court has the authority to make abortion illegal
12. If more supreme court justices were against abortion, they would make it illegal
13. The president is the one who appoints new supreme court justices when the old ones die
14. Several current supreme court justices are old
15. Bush will appoint new supreme court justices that oppose legal abortion
16. Kerry will appoint new supreme court justices that support legal abortion
17. To vote for a third party presidential candidate would just be a wasted vote
18. 1 million human murders per year is a national debacle
19. Abortion is an issue that takes precedence and primacy over all other issues
20. I'm voting Bush for presdient in 2004
+++++++++++++++++
Again, the above line of reasoning is by no means a proof or even an argument. You could probably have a debate with someone point by point on each statement ad nauseum. For instance, point #19 is open to all sorts of debate, even if you agree with points #1-18. I'm simply saying that the above reasoning is consistent in and of itself given the a priori assumptions. The above person can logically vote for Bush without agreeing with his foreign policy, without believing he's a Christian, without even believing that he's ethical. They just have to believe that he would appoint a pro-life supreme court justice should the need arise, and that Kerry would not, and there's little debate about that.
That's the degree to which many voters value this one particular issue. If you believed that 1 million innocent humans were being legally murdered in the US each year, you could hardly call yourself a liberal activist and not consider how you might do something to stop it. Not that you DO believe that, but IF YOU DID. And these people do.
Is believing in the God of the Bible insane or ignorant? Is it the result of being raised in poverty and superstition, of being poorly educated, of living in a rural area? Last time I checked, believing in the God of the Bible was more or less a global phenomena, spanning race, nationality, class, education, and economic status.
It's the high-minded condescension and bewilderment of the liberal left that so rubs me the wrong way (no less so than the loftly moral condescension and bewilderment of the religious right). "How can they be so easily misled?" Maybe not all the people who disagree with you are cattle. Maybe they just disagree with you.
On a lighter note, I'm not personally offended by southern stereotyping. I didn't mean to play the politically correct "I'm in that minority group" card. There are a lot of idiots down here living Socrates' fabled "unconsidered life." But not as many as you might suspect.
viva la peace, love, and understanding,
curt
P.S. For all others reading this post, I do not relish entering an online public debate with you (on a net art list, no less) on the "truth" of any of the above 20 points. I'm just showing a logical progression.
_
Jim Andrews wrote:
part of the value of
literature is that it usually does take such a closer look at things, and a
closer look at people and their struggles and victories of the spirit, which
tend to be the most important victories, arrived at usually despite more
than because of the surrounding 'cultures'. what makes art so improbable in
a particular place is usually strongly related to what makes it possible,
the rub, the edge, what is to be resisted and overcome.
+
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
***************************************************************************
Lewis LaCook -->http://www.lewislacook.com/
XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/
Collective Writing Projects--> The Wiki--> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
thank you for pointing out the actual logic behind bush's supporters---
though i'm certainly not one of them, and do strongly disagree with many of the points raised, i'm awful glad someone had the balls to humanize these people and to consider where their logic is coming from---i've never viewed republicans as simplistic, easily-led "rednecks," mostly because doing so solves no problems whatsoever---it's really only once we begin to empathize with and make a sincere effort to understand one another that any real progress is made---you have obviously done this, and i thank you for it---
bliss
l
curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
Hi Jim,
In a nutshell, here's my difference with lots of folks who post to rhizome -- I'm not a marxist materialist. So when you describe a region in terms of its labor unions, its agricultural exports, its teacher salaries, its history of supporting this or that political party, and you expect to suss it all up based on those material indicators, I think you're grossly oversimplifying the "reality" of the region. I agree with what you say, that literature and art get closer to what's really happening in a culture, yet Simic's "literature" misses the mark because it's more like deductive fiction as essay. He finds what he's looking for.
You want to know why someone woud vote for Bush. That's why you're looking for an insight into the mind of Joe Southerner. Fair enough.
It's easy for me to understand why someone would vote for Bush, without me having to view them as brainwashed, ignorant, empoverished, pathetic, or from Mars. Oftentimes, it has to do with a difference in basic ethical assumptions. Let me try to explain at least one reason why somone would do it, an ethical reason. You are going to have to put yourself into someone else's shoes to understand this. You probably won't agree with it, but you should be able to at least understand it. Don't inject your own ethics into the situation. Just allow someone to have their own ethics, and follow the perfectly plausible logic that proceeds from those ethics:
+++++++++++++++++
1. God exists
2. The Bible is God-approved
3. The Bible says God knit each person together in the womb
4. A fetus has a human soul
5. A fetus is a human
6. To kill an innocent human is murder
7. Abortion is murder
8. Murder is wrong
9. 1 million murders occur per year in the US due to abortion
10. If abortion were illegal in the US, fewer abortions would occur
11. The supreme court has the authority to make abortion illegal
12. If more supreme court justices were against abortion, they would make it illegal
13. The president is the one who appoints new supreme court justices when the old ones die
14. Several current supreme court justices are old
15. Bush will appoint new supreme court justices that oppose legal abortion
16. Kerry will appoint new supreme court justices that support legal abortion
17. To vote for a third party presidential candidate would just be a wasted vote
18. 1 million human murders per year is a national debacle
19. Abortion is an issue that takes precedence and primacy over all other issues
20. I'm voting Bush for presdient in 2004
+++++++++++++++++
Again, the above line of reasoning is by no means a proof or even an argument. You could probably have a debate with someone point by point on each statement ad nauseum. For instance, point #19 is open to all sorts of debate, even if you agree with points #1-18. I'm simply saying that the above reasoning is consistent in and of itself given the a priori assumptions. The above person can logically vote for Bush without agreeing with his foreign policy, without believing he's a Christian, without even believing that he's ethical. They just have to believe that he would appoint a pro-life supreme court justice should the need arise, and that Kerry would not, and there's little debate about that.
That's the degree to which many voters value this one particular issue. If you believed that 1 million innocent humans were being legally murdered in the US each year, you could hardly call yourself a liberal activist and not consider how you might do something to stop it. Not that you DO believe that, but IF YOU DID. And these people do.
Is believing in the God of the Bible insane or ignorant? Is it the result of being raised in poverty and superstition, of being poorly educated, of living in a rural area? Last time I checked, believing in the God of the Bible was more or less a global phenomena, spanning race, nationality, class, education, and economic status.
It's the high-minded condescension and bewilderment of the liberal left that so rubs me the wrong way (no less so than the loftly moral condescension and bewilderment of the religious right). "How can they be so easily misled?" Maybe not all the people who disagree with you are cattle. Maybe they just disagree with you.
On a lighter note, I'm not personally offended by southern stereotyping. I didn't mean to play the politically correct "I'm in that minority group" card. There are a lot of idiots down here living Socrates' fabled "unconsidered life." But not as many as you might suspect.
viva la peace, love, and understanding,
curt
P.S. For all others reading this post, I do not relish entering an online public debate with you (on a net art list, no less) on the "truth" of any of the above 20 points. I'm just showing a logical progression.
_
Jim Andrews wrote:
part of the value of
literature is that it usually does take such a closer look at things, and a
closer look at people and their struggles and victories of the spirit, which
tend to be the most important victories, arrived at usually despite more
than because of the surrounding 'cultures'. what makes art so improbable in
a particular place is usually strongly related to what makes it possible,
the rub, the edge, what is to be resisted and overcome.
+
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
***************************************************************************
Lewis LaCook -->http://www.lewislacook.com/
XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/
Collective Writing Projects--> The Wiki--> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
saucerLovebites: Flash Poem Engine by Lewis LaCook and Michael Kapalin
http://www.lewislacook.com/saucerLovebites/
A Flash poem engine
Best viewed at a screen resolution of 1024 X 768
Turn your speakers on
***************************************************************************
Lewis LaCook -->http://www.lewislacook.com/
XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/
Collective Writing Projects--> The Wiki--> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
A Flash poem engine
Best viewed at a screen resolution of 1024 X 768
Turn your speakers on
***************************************************************************
Lewis LaCook -->http://www.lewislacook.com/
XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/
Collective Writing Projects--> The Wiki--> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
ecriture
http://www.lewislacook.com/echo/classes/Echo.html
a java po-let
with interwriteactivity
***************************************************************************
Lewis LaCook -->http://www.lewislacook.com/
XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/
Collective Writing Projects--> The Wiki--> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
a java po-let
with interwriteactivity
***************************************************************************
Lewis LaCook -->http://www.lewislacook.com/
XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/
Collective Writing Projects--> The Wiki--> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
Looks like I bought myself some time...
...playing Parcheesi during the Rapture.
http://www.lewislacook.com/sound/LewisLaCook_Parcheesi.mp3
***************************************************************************
Lewis LaCook -->http://www.lewislacook.com/
XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/
Collective Writing Projects--> The Wiki--> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Now with 25x more storage than before!
http://www.lewislacook.com/sound/LewisLaCook_Parcheesi.mp3
***************************************************************************
Lewis LaCook -->http://www.lewislacook.com/
XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/
Collective Writing Projects--> The Wiki--> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Now with 25x more storage than before!
Re: miles davis and new media
i don't think you'd find many to dispute that here---one studies miles in school, along with chopin...
____oooooh_____will someone mix some miles up with some chopin?_____
bliss
l
Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
Beautifully put, Eduardo.
The original comparison strikes me as about as useful
as comparing a tomato and a hairbrush.
I too am a Miles fan & a more pertinent question, it
seems to me, is why his work is not universally hailed
as great in the same way as the "art" music greats
are.
It is every bit as complex, multilayered and subtle.
Here I don't think it is amiss to find a certain
institutionalised racism at play ( and I write this
fully aware that many of Miles' sidepeople were white,
as are many cutting edge jazz performers today, for
example Brad Mehldau, who is simply the most
interesting piano player in *any* genre as far as I'm
concerned)
The point I'm *not* making is that all musics are
equal -I hold to a rather unfashionable distinction
between high and low art. My point rather is that
Miles, Coltrane, Coleman et al by any possible
criteria clearly belong in the "high" category.
regards
michael
--- eduardo@navasse.net wrote:
---------------------------------
Hello Eric,
I normally read through most material that goes
through the list anddon't reply, mainly due to time
constraints, or because othersoften say it before I
get to the keyboard. But you have made aremark that I
find the need to comment on, partly because it is a
bitproblematic.
You write:
"Perhaps because he's black, from a culture we just
don't get, wewill then escape the stupidity of our
fathers history.
No. That doesnot work. We have to face the reality of
Miles Davis, and cringe in ourfailures.
New media is nothing, and there are cultures far
advancedof us."
-------------
You are here assuming that everyone else on the list
is not black, itappears. Who is "we" exactly? This
is the main reason why Iam writing. Please reflect on
what your statement reallyimplies. There is no need
to defend yourself, but the statementis problematic.
And since I already writing, I will also say that I
amheavily involved with music and Miles is one of my
main Jazzinfluences. I am familiar with both discs
that you mention and Ithink that they are truly
incredible pieces of art. But I amnot sure why you
place him in opposition to new media. Miles
wasactually very interested in what was going on in
contemporaryculture. His last album from 1991, which
you may alreadyknow, explored the relationship of Hip
Hop with Be-Bop. He named the Album Doo-Bop. Check
the word:
http://www.sweeting.org/mark/mp3/Miles_Davis/Doo-Bop.html
It was produced with Kool-Mo-Be. It is a remarkable
synthesisbetween loops, samples and improvizational
jazz, including twotracks produced posthumously around
his sampled trumpet solos, andwhich are
indistinguishable from his other compositions,which
where improvised in the studio. Miles embraced
whathis culture offered him at the same time that he
contributed to enhanceit by making material for the
future with what was new inhis own time. He embraced
the new, just like any othercreative cat would and
should do. So let's not put himon a pedestal in
opposition to theoriticians or emergingtechnologies.
Best,
Eduardo
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:[SPAM] RHIZOME_RAW: miles davis and new media
From: "Eric Dymond"
Date: Thu, August 05, 2004 9:40pm
To: list@rhizome.org
Miles and the Virtual
Tonight,not unlike any other night I have been
listening to MilesDavis.
Tonight I played Miles Davis Live from Montreaux and
KindaBlue.
Why do these sounds escape the rules of
virtualencoding?
How is it that a mere human being can so deftly craft
artthat easily escapes the rules of new media.
He destroys Benjamin,Gutarri, Deleuze and the rest.And
he does it so easily. Why?How?
Does he see the world in a panoplay so different than
therest?
Does he escape human boundaries?
Apparently he does. Sowhat are we left with?
Maybe we should force ourselves to ignorehim. Banish
him because he does not follow the new order.
How do wefit Miles Davis into the new media history.
Perhaps because he'sblack, from a culture we just
don't get, we will then escape thestupidity of our
fathers history.
No. That does not work. We have toface the reality of
Miles Davis, and cringe in our failures.
Newmedia is nothing, and there are cultures far
advanced ofus.
Eric
+
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions:info@rhizome.org
->
subscribe/unsubscribe:http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give:http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.orgweb site is open
to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome aresubject to the terms set out
in the
Membership Agreement availableonline at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php +-> post:
list@rhizome.org-> questions: info@rhizome.org->
subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz-> give:
http://rhizome.org/support-> visit: on Fridays the
Rhizome.org web site is open to
non-members+Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the
terms set out in theMembership Agreement available
online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
+
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
***************************************************************************
Lewis LaCook -->http://www.lewislacook.com/
XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/
Collective Writing Projects--> The Wiki--> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
____oooooh_____will someone mix some miles up with some chopin?_____
bliss
l
Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
Beautifully put, Eduardo.
The original comparison strikes me as about as useful
as comparing a tomato and a hairbrush.
I too am a Miles fan & a more pertinent question, it
seems to me, is why his work is not universally hailed
as great in the same way as the "art" music greats
are.
It is every bit as complex, multilayered and subtle.
Here I don't think it is amiss to find a certain
institutionalised racism at play ( and I write this
fully aware that many of Miles' sidepeople were white,
as are many cutting edge jazz performers today, for
example Brad Mehldau, who is simply the most
interesting piano player in *any* genre as far as I'm
concerned)
The point I'm *not* making is that all musics are
equal -I hold to a rather unfashionable distinction
between high and low art. My point rather is that
Miles, Coltrane, Coleman et al by any possible
criteria clearly belong in the "high" category.
regards
michael
--- eduardo@navasse.net wrote:
---------------------------------
Hello Eric,
I normally read through most material that goes
through the list anddon't reply, mainly due to time
constraints, or because othersoften say it before I
get to the keyboard. But you have made aremark that I
find the need to comment on, partly because it is a
bitproblematic.
You write:
"Perhaps because he's black, from a culture we just
don't get, wewill then escape the stupidity of our
fathers history.
No. That doesnot work. We have to face the reality of
Miles Davis, and cringe in ourfailures.
New media is nothing, and there are cultures far
advancedof us."
-------------
You are here assuming that everyone else on the list
is not black, itappears. Who is "we" exactly? This
is the main reason why Iam writing. Please reflect on
what your statement reallyimplies. There is no need
to defend yourself, but the statementis problematic.
And since I already writing, I will also say that I
amheavily involved with music and Miles is one of my
main Jazzinfluences. I am familiar with both discs
that you mention and Ithink that they are truly
incredible pieces of art. But I amnot sure why you
place him in opposition to new media. Miles
wasactually very interested in what was going on in
contemporaryculture. His last album from 1991, which
you may alreadyknow, explored the relationship of Hip
Hop with Be-Bop. He named the Album Doo-Bop. Check
the word:
http://www.sweeting.org/mark/mp3/Miles_Davis/Doo-Bop.html
It was produced with Kool-Mo-Be. It is a remarkable
synthesisbetween loops, samples and improvizational
jazz, including twotracks produced posthumously around
his sampled trumpet solos, andwhich are
indistinguishable from his other compositions,which
where improvised in the studio. Miles embraced
whathis culture offered him at the same time that he
contributed to enhanceit by making material for the
future with what was new inhis own time. He embraced
the new, just like any othercreative cat would and
should do. So let's not put himon a pedestal in
opposition to theoriticians or emergingtechnologies.
Best,
Eduardo
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:[SPAM] RHIZOME_RAW: miles davis and new media
From: "Eric Dymond"
Date: Thu, August 05, 2004 9:40pm
To: list@rhizome.org
Miles and the Virtual
Tonight,not unlike any other night I have been
listening to MilesDavis.
Tonight I played Miles Davis Live from Montreaux and
KindaBlue.
Why do these sounds escape the rules of
virtualencoding?
How is it that a mere human being can so deftly craft
artthat easily escapes the rules of new media.
He destroys Benjamin,Gutarri, Deleuze and the rest.And
he does it so easily. Why?How?
Does he see the world in a panoplay so different than
therest?
Does he escape human boundaries?
Apparently he does. Sowhat are we left with?
Maybe we should force ourselves to ignorehim. Banish
him because he does not follow the new order.
How do wefit Miles Davis into the new media history.
Perhaps because he'sblack, from a culture we just
don't get, we will then escape thestupidity of our
fathers history.
No. That does not work. We have toface the reality of
Miles Davis, and cringe in our failures.
Newmedia is nothing, and there are cultures far
advanced ofus.
Eric
+
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions:info@rhizome.org
->
subscribe/unsubscribe:http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give:http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.orgweb site is open
to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome aresubject to the terms set out
in the
Membership Agreement availableonline at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php +-> post:
list@rhizome.org-> questions: info@rhizome.org->
subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz-> give:
http://rhizome.org/support-> visit: on Fridays the
Rhizome.org web site is open to
non-members+Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the
terms set out in theMembership Agreement available
online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
+
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
***************************************************************************
Lewis LaCook -->http://www.lewislacook.com/
XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/
Collective Writing Projects--> The Wiki--> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!