the vehicle can not be separated from the self. the vehicle is an extension of the self. the vehicle is included in the limits, the definition of self. just as god is the objectification of man’s highest ideals of his self, the vehicle is the objectification of man’s limits of his self.

we can not discuss and create design, limits, as if it is separate from our self. designs which are created to topically smooth over, to hide the true distribution and limits of selves, always fail. it is time to realize that it is not things, not tools, not shelters, not information, which we are designing. it is our selves which we design.

we must stop objectifying our self.

“We must see ourselves as vague or indefinite beings prior to the fixed qualities that tie us to grounds or lands, and so as beings always able to be released from such qualities.” (rajchman constructions 86)

we are vapor. shifting clouds within an endless sky. it is by the physicality of self that we can recognize a self. we are a floating mixture. a more or less dense area. a pressure. a strange attractor. a cloud of vapors glowing and hovering in the ether. shifting. when you look at the edges, there are no edges. we are every form and no form.

we are vector. movement is life. it is only by the continuity of self that we can recognize a self. bodies move. thoughts move. death is the cessation of movement. the dispersion of vector. a wave sliding onto a beach. we are movements among movements.

the vehicle is the objectification of man’s limits of his self. the vehicle is synonymous with the definition of self. we must free this definition without losing all definition. we must free man without losing man. we must create a vehicle of vapor and vector.

we can no longer bind our selves with boxes and lines. we are not limits and connections. we are relation and movement. moving relations. a lighter or denser pressure moving in a void. a wind current. when we look at our self closely, we find that we can not distinguish the limits. when you look at the edges, there are no edges. we can identify our self only in relation to pressures. only in relation to movements. we can not claim to be separate from all pressures and all movements. we claim a certain area which is only identified in time by its continuity. a dense area moves and expands and slows and we can only claim it to be the same area by its continuity. we must see our selves as vague or indefinite beings.

it is the limits of self by which we are chained. there is an incredible trap being set in which we are invited to further limit our self. to further define our self. to objectify our self in order to more clearly see our self. it is by pinpointing our position that we are controlled. it is by further defining the limits of self that we become a cog in a giant wheel. it is by making us into identifiable and predictable forms that others can use us the most for their own means. objectification is the greatest weapon. we are much much more than what we can ever see. much more than custom fit levis, pinpointed GPS coordinates and IP addresses, author of whatever.

how can we combat an ever-tightening objectification? we are video recorded hundreds, soon to be thousands, of times every day. we are bombarded by millions of advertisements inviting us to further define our self with this product and this brand name. we are invited to see our self through personalization. custom jeans. custom web sites. custom fit limits. profilers. psychiatrists. records. receipts. photographs. genetic reports. national id’s.

we need an invisibility, an anonymity. we need to be able to see all the contents of what we are consuming. we need to arrange our selves as semi-transparent beings. as vague and indefinite beings. we must reject the limits which are being sold to us. we must stop longing for the cities and bodies and vehicles of the past. they are gone and all turned into tourist traps. we are now in an age of formless function. there are no physical paths. no more varying streetscapes based on functions and circulations. we have invisible paths through a void. our intentions transmitted through invisible waves to other wanderers. no more longing for form. we are formless.

this does not mean an abandonment of physicality. we are still physical beings. we are still vapors and pressures and vectors. we are still composed of what we consume. we still consume. but we must redefine our physicality. we must no longer limit our self to the traditional physicality. at what point does food become a part of you? at what point do words become a part of you? at what point do vehicles become a part of you? we must reject a total objectification. to do so is to bottle the vapor and stop the vector.

what if this is all just entropy?

how can we create difference? (not preserve difference… an attempt to make difference into a commodity)
difference is produced through an absolute limit. that is, difference is something beyond a limit we set for our selves. difference implies a reality, a limit, which is outside of the self. if we assume we are in a closed energy system (dualistic, dichotomous, binary), then there is a real limit, an economy, imposed upon us. difference is produced as a product of economy. we can set up information as the meta-observation of the relationships between phenomena (virilio art of the motor 139). that is, we can set up information as above the binary system, viewing matter and energy. but, as the uncertainty principle illustrates, information is not above a binary system. anti-information is produced with information. the production of certainty also produces uncertainty. the heisenberg uncertainty principle assures us that there will always be difference, a real limit to our understanding and control of the world.
how can we create difference?
production automatically creates difference. it is the distribution of difference in which progress finds its economy. while anti-information may be produced with information, they are distributed and distilled through filters whose purpose is to deny and/or assimilate the other. information, from within the realm of information produces various masks to distribute anti-information to an area which can strengthen the production of information. anti-information, as with anti-technology, is presented as that which has not yet been economized. when information produces anti-information, it is promptly declared that more information is needed to understand, combat and economize this anti-information.
information and anti-information are produced simultaneously because information produces a division of the whole. information is that which we choose to include in our definition. anti-information is that which is not in our definition. one can not exist without the other.
economy is distribution. we ‘maximize the return’ to ourselves. where is the anti-information we produce with information? where is the anti-technology we produce with technology? the answer is simple: who cares? (as long as its not in my backyard)
can we create difference? difference is inherent in creation. creation is an act of redistribution. utopia excludes difference, or rather, utopia claims to exclude difference. a utopia can not reproduce without difference. economy relies on an extraction. technology can not survive without a link to anti-technology. this is how the modern project produces such remarkable differences, by extraction and division. by an intricate network of distribution which puts the tech and the anti-tech in the right hands. which puts the profits in the hands of those in power and the losses in the hands of those not in power. while these extreme differences are not meant to collide, sometimes a powerful relationship is established by their proximity. like the new comiskey park, the dan ryan, and the taylor homes. the taylor homes are flame stained brick boxes with boarded windows and chain-link ‘porches’, comiskey just got rebuilt – it is still unstained concrete, and the dan ryan rushes between them, a trench dug through. a place where the distribution of societal difference manifests itself in physical and spatial proximity. (as opposed to the sweat shops in third world countries) don’t worry though, these visible manifestations of difference distribution are quickly ‘corrected’ – swept under the rug. they are tearing down taylor homes and forcing the residents to scatter into the city, hoping that there they will be invisible. the reason we are tearing down the projects is to hide the distribution. the reason we are tearing down the projects is the same reason the projects were built, to make the price of economy invisible as it becomes visible. no specific plans have been made for where the residents of the projects will go. the only plan was to tear down what has become a massive visible icon of the stacked distribution of the american economy. where will these people go? the answer is simple: who cares? (as long as its not in my backyard)
we automatically create difference. we need creation which realizes a redistribution of difference. creation must understand it’s anti-creation. we must anticipate the outcome of our failed design. we must abandon progress and utopias. it is time to demand an accountability, a responsibility, and most of all a humility. it is time to quit building tools and monuments whose sole purpose is to distribute anti-utopian elements away from our selves. (i can see the end now… a perfect utopia without difference, the death of the individual.)
now is the time to destroy. an entropic redistribution. a destruction of the distribution chains. and then a chance to rebuild beyond belief in economy. and then a chance to rebuild based on a whole, based on the implications of failure, limits, difference, and self. this is the model for creation beyond belief: the destruction of belief, the abandonment of an immortal self, a synthesis of difference which produces a new life. a life separate from our self. a life whose limits are apparent from its difference. a child must be born without language. a child born without genetic engineering. a child where we cut the cord (that feeds us).

“Most of the stone a nation hammers goes towards its tomb only. It buries itself alive.” (Thoreau Walden 44) what is at the base of our desire to objectify? why do we need tombstones? is our whole life one long journey towards an epitaph? (when i die i imagine they will write on my tombstone, “here lies wade, the poor son of a bitch couldn’t think of anything worth chiseling into stone.”) NO. i refuse the tombstone. i want to be burned to ashes in a searing heat. i want the ashes to be scattered in the breeze, scattered and trampled into dust. and forgotten. and this dust is no smaller than my life. a grain of sand on an infinite beach. we are obsessed with ownership because we believe that by owning it references our self. we want to be known and remembered as the writer, as the creator, as the owner because we believe in immortality. we are obsessed with capturing power, with holding it. and we will build up, through cycles of the storm, through the undercurrents a gigantic and powerful wave. and it will break and crash on the beach with incredible force and a roaring turrent. and it will recede. and the beach as smooth as ever. we can not separate power from itself. we can not hold power. we can only be a vehicle. and the miserable tombs we create are only stones in a field. and the miserable writings we write are only pages yellowing. we need tombstones because we fear death. we objectify because we fear death. we own because we fear death. we create because we fear death. in fact, most of the things we do every day are done because we fear death. i say let us abandon ownership. let us abandon authorship. let us cast our creations and thoughts into the void and let go. the creation is separate from the creator. this is the definition of creation, of objectification. objectification produces something that is no longer dependent on our thoughts about it. it is the attempt to hold on to power which destroys us. it is our demand that our creations remain attached to our self that drowns us with our creation. “Is this not torture? Setting the soul in marble and then mocking the living.” (Malevich) so why am i writing then? why do i desire to create? because i fear death. because i remain unable to let go of the limits of my self. and someday, some glorious day, i won’t write anymore. what i fear even more than death is the fear of death. i fear living my life creating useless stones in an endless cemetery where the dead remember the dead. i want to live my life living life. every second wasted on death is one more second of death. some people spend their whole life trying to preserve it, wallowing in formaldehyde. and maybe they succeed in growing to an age of 100 and getting a really big tombstone. but out of those one hundred years how many seconds did they really live. how many seconds do you really live? out of a day maybe there are a couple minutes. the rest are given over to the preservation of life, to the fear of death, to death. yes, these creations that we create do live on their own. so let’s let them. let’s stop photographing, autographing, copyrighting. if there are things which must be created let us make them so that they can stand on their own. so that they can become a part of life rather than be an eternal monument to death. let us create so that life will stem from our creations. let us create from life a new life. rather than from death a new death. this forces us to evaluate the entire process of creation. because we have within us a belief that we must be outside the process to change it. we believe that we must be outside life, within death, in order to change life, in order to create life. we believe that we must be outside experience, within thought, in order to create experience. this is the great lie of language and of capitalism. that we can create something out of lanugage which is not language. that we can work our whole life in death towards a something which will endure beyond death. that we can create from thought an experience. that we can create objects which will force us to experience. that we can create thoughts that will free us from our bodies. that there is an economy. there is no economy. we can not trade in death for life. and yet we continue to make tombstones. this is where capitalism gains its strength, this is where language inflates its power. in the belief that there is economy. there is no economy. there is only now. that is all we will ever have. and yes someday you will be dust, and so will i. but now i am not. this is what i propose for art. this is what i propose as the final creation which will free man from his chains. this is what i propose as victory over economy, as destruction of the entire system, as life unbridled, lived to its fullest experience within the eternal present. this is what i propose as the greatest work of art ever. this that i propose is: abstention. to not create. to not consume. to not objectify. to stop wrestling economy. to stop living a death to preserve life. to live life in a constant state of the present. (and from life, life will stem.) we must stop believing in the great lie of economy. economy takes everything that you give. economy relies on a belief in a return. time can never be returned. actions can never be returned. consumption can never be returned. economy makes us believe that there is a big picture, that there are goals, that the object will be greater than the life put into it. nothing is greater than life. and it is our beliefs and perception that make life what it is to us. economy steals the minutes of our life from us. economy steals the present from us and gives us a future. and future never comes. economy keeps us focused on the ‘big’ decision while stealing from us our every decision. economy extracts from us while we do not even know. if there is one trend in our attempt to economize life, it is that life can not be economized. it refuses in fact. the more the modern project attempts to capitalize and extract time, ‘leisure time’ that is, the less life we experience. the more we sit in traffic, listen to voice mail, ride on an undergound subway with nothing to see, drive to the mall, watch tv, wait on dinner, wait in line, wait on the internet, wait for a promotion, work towards goals, put off quitting, drive on the highways, fly in airplanes, wait in line. imagine a vacation to disneyworld (or mall of america). first you have to work to make the money – weeks of waiting, saving and not doing what you enjoy so that you can take a vacation. then on the vacation you wait for the plane, wait on the plane, wait on the car, wait in the car, wait in line to get tickets, walk to the ride, wait in line for the ride. for weeks of waiting you are rewarded with 2 minutes of leisure time (but is is such ‘quality time’ it makes up for it). this makes me sick. who has enjoyed life more, he who has taken the highway to his destination and got there in 15 minutes, but not enjoyed a second of the travel. or he who has taken the backroads and explored and enjoyed and got there in an hour. it took you an hour to get here, how horrible (imagining you stuck in traffic) but where you go there is no traffic. the one who enjoyed the hour enjoyed life more because the other lost 15 minutes to economy. the city, it is not the abstraction of ideals, the metaphor of inter-relations, the looking glass in which we see subtle relations. it is the direct result of our desires, the immediate physical manifestation of our wants and needs and thoughts. if there is something about the city we hate and fear and feel is loss, it is that which we fear in ourselves. the city is endless, like points on a line. it is our choices which shape our experience of it and contribute to its form. not our choices as designers, but our choices as consumers. for jewel while ignoring and yearining for the ‘neighborhood grocery store,’ like rich’s. for starbucks while forgetting the store where the conversation is better than the coffee. for glencoe while regretting there is no where to walk to. for old orchard while forgetting chicago ave. for eddie bauer while abandoning nature. for convenience and cheesecake factory forgetting real italian. for disney forgetting road trip. for comfort and against reality. the truth is we have an entire economy based on comfort. we want the ‘experience’ without any of the hassles. we believe that we can extract life all of its pleasures. we believe that we can economize death. we believe that we can experience more, that we can live more all with the wonderful tool of economy. we believe that we can economize death by living life faster, by not worrying about the present. we believe that we can buy experience. that even spirituality is something which can be economized and consumed. we live our life in pursuit of the next spiritual nugget – a ‘powerful’ movie, a ‘spiritual’ album, an ‘unbelievable’ ride, a ‘relaxing’ vacation. the trick of economy is that there is no escape. it takes even when it seems to give. a truly spiritual experience is one that you can not separate from life, one that changes your life, one that allows you to live your life spiritually. applause is one of the greatest weapons of consumption. it allows the viewer to dismiss the experience as something to be consumed. it crushes all attacks by putting a distance, by forcing the experience back into the realm of massive economy. economy always has to take more than it gives or it would cease to exist. we are so trained as consumers not to focus on the present or the ‘small’ decisions that we do not even know when we are consuming. consuming has been made an integral part of our lives and our selves. through ownership we allow our idea of self to merge with what we consume and what we create. so that economy and self are inseparable. so that we don’t even notice turning on a light switch or flushing the toilet or using a kleenex or drinking a coke or driving a car or any of our immediate life and decisions in general. they are all “improved means to an unimproved end” (thoreau). the greatest trick of modern society is the project. work towards something great. the end don’t worry about the means. build something beautiful. don’t worry where the money is coming from. don’t worry where it is being built. don’t worry who lives there. don’t worry what it does to the neighborhood. don’t worry about politics, about favors, about payoffs. don’t worry what you build it with. don’t worry how it will affect life. don’t worry about religion. don’t worry about energy. don’t worry about the poor. don’t worry about excess. don’t worry about gluttony. don’t worry about rotting in comfort. don’t worry about ‘the little stuff’. don’t worry about coca-cola. don’t worry about mcdonalds. don’t worry about shell or exxon or amoco. don’t worry about microsoft. don’t worry about commonwealth edison. don’t worry about at+t. after all, its just a soft drink, just a dollar. just a hamburger, a gallon, a program, a light, a phone call. this is the great trick. making everything means to an end. means that do not matter. convenience is not a sin. it is a virtue of modern society. none of it costs much more than $1.50. never mind adding it up. it is a small cost. a small item. it isn’t even a decision. it is a reaction, a habit. who knows how many hundreds or thousands of dollars a year the average american spends on coca-cola making it a trillion dollar industry without a thought. it is a staple. coke or pepsi? not coke or water. we do not choose between having something or not. we ‘choose’ which name brand. half of them are owned by the same companies, but it still appears as a chice. we do not live our life as a series of decision but a series of ‘choices’ of habits. and if we are ‘political’ we can be political in a consumers way. the choice betweeen cars. not the choice between cars and walking. we’ll help your cause as long as we get some m&ms out of the deal.

can we think without language? we can think graphically, spatially, relationally, actively (as action). we can think abstractly, intuitively, immediately, responsively. language is only level of thought. within language, as within the other levels, more subdivisions can be created, such as: mathematics, logic, formal speech, informal (stream of consciousness) speech. if it is a stream of consciousness, that is, automatic, is it thought?

in our everyday activities, we constantly use thought which is not language. to lift our cup of coffee we do not think “arm extend, hand open, hand close, hand to mouth, mouth open, pour, swallow.” we do not have to write programs for our every action. they are immediate. the action is the thought. but then even a dog can drink water right? this does not prove thought, or at least not thought considered worthy of the homo sapiens brand name. could you teach a dog to drive a car. do you think with language when you drive a car? the car becomes an extension of the body, an automatic usage. as with most tools and extensions of the body. when an interface is too complicated and not easily used without lots of figuring and deduction, we complain that it is not intuitive or user-friendly.

but there is a belief that the creation of the tool must be made through rational, language induced thought. the idea is that we must be outside the system to change it. we must escape the present into the future to think, and then we can use our bodies to build. we must leave the realm of being and enter the realm of becoming in order to change the realm of being. this is one of the principle tenets of modern society; you can not be and become at the same time. that we make the plan and then execute it. that our minds are separate from our bodies. we think with our minds and then we build with our bodies. our bodies are merely mechanical machines which allow us to build what we have dreamed up. we must work (become) towards a goal (being). we must journey to a destination.

this is what i challenge: the division of plan and construction. the idea that all thought other than language ends in mere traces (animal tracks) also called expressionism. there is thought which occurs beyond language. abstract physics is a spatial construction beyond mathematics. sculpting clay is an immediate construction of thought. but how can we avoid mere expressionism without language, without a plan which indicates an induction, a working, a functioning, beyond. we can create through trial and error, through construction and its testing, like a mad scientist, but this is not considered efficient or rational. perhaps we need to challenge the ideas of efficiency and rationality. there is an open-endedness, an ambiguity, which is inherent in non-language constructions which leads to them being called non-meaning, non-objective. they do not refer to specific ideas within language. they leave themselves open to be used physically and immediately to many uses. like a cage performance. like art which involves the viewer. the piece is never completed.

this is a familiar thought. that something is without end, an endless flow. but have the implications of a never-ending being really been accepted? can we accept the idea that a hammer is never truly constructed. that its uses and potentials are part of its construction and definition. death is just as much a part of the creation of life as birth. maybe this is all just semantics from within language. it sounds ridiculous because it is said from within language.

but the main implication of a never-ending being is that because it is never-ending, it must have the ability to include becoming. being is becoming. life is growth. language can not be relegated to a separate space away from being. journey can not be separated from destination. language must then occur within being.

could we reproduce without desire? what if we see desire as part of being, not something opposed to it? can we enjoy desire? is this really desire? what is the point of desire from within being? what is the point of goals from within being? there is no point. there are no goals. but there is still desire, i think. being must be large enough to include language and desire without destroying it. it must include it as a part of itself. i can not imagine this.

“…when the world is reduced to nothing and we have everything at hand, we’ll be infinitely happy.  I believe just the opposite – and this has already been proven – that we’ll be infinitely unhappy because we will have lost the very place of freedom, which is expanse.  All current technologies reduce expanse to nothing.  They produce shorter and shorter distances – a shrinking fabric.  Now, a territory without temporality is not really a territory. but only the illusion of a territory.  It is urgent that we become aware of the political repurcussions of such a handling of space-time, for they are fearsome.  The field of freedom shrinks with speed.  And freedom needs a field.  When there is no more field, our lives will be like a terminal, a machine with doors that open and close.  A labyrinth for laboratory animals.  If the parceling out of territory – of territories of time – is envisioned like that, according to a strict regulation and not to a chrono-political understanding, there will be nothing left but absolute control, an immediacy which will be the worst kind of concentration.” (virilio, pure war 73)

The question becomes how can we create limits to our conquest of the void.  Does not simply the ability to change something fundamentally change that something, or at least our perception of it?  Does it not become design by the lack of design?  By the fact that it is within the ability of design, and yet not designed.  Does the fact that we chose not to design it make it design?
There are things which are outside the limits of design, things which we can not change.  And then there are things outside the economy of design, which we have chosen not to change based on the amount of energy it would take to accomplish, or once in a while based on aesthetics or a desire to preserve.  We must look as much at what we have chosen not to design as what we have chosen to design.  Because we must see how our choice to not design something affects that something.  Because the ability to create sound changes the silence.  Will there still be a field of freedom if we have the ability for absolute control.
What if we actively work against these limits.  Like the artist who refused to go into any building for a year.  The artist was dragged into jail.  By actively opposing the limits, the stakes are raised and the limits must become stronger.  The question is, did the artist gain more freedom by refusing the limits of design, or did he extend the limits of design to include the exterior?  While anti-information destroys information, maybe just the production of anti-information places it within the realm of information.  How can we produce anti-matter?  Is there any way to keep from assimilating the void?  Is there any way to preserve reality?  I guess the question is, what if we changed the limits of design?

“Hughes was already aping our technical future: the abandonment of the vehicular speed of bodies ofr the strangely impressive one of light vectors, the internment of bodies is no longer in the cinematic cell of travel but in a cell outside of time, which woould be an electronic terminal where we’d leave it up to the instruments to organize our most intimate vital rhythms, without ever changing positions ourselves, the authority of electronic automatism reducing our will to zero… somehow the vision of light moving on a screen would have replaced all personal movement….  The development of high technical speeds would thus result in the disappearance of consciousness as the direct perception of phenomena that informs us of our own existence.” (aesthetics 104)

See Wade Tillett’s wonderful ” self-animator ”

“To make a railroad round the world is equivalent to grading the whole surface of the planet.”  (thoreau, walden 41)

 Paralyzed man controls computer via brain implant – “We’d like to get them on the Internet and open communications to the rest of the world, and vice-versa.  After that, we’d like for them to use the computer to control their envrironments, turn lights on and off, adjust a bed, call an attendant, turn the TV on or off.  Finally, we hope they will be able to run prosthetic devices, wheelchairs, even prosthetic limbs.”

“all that remains, is the fascination for desertlike and indifferent forms, for the very operation of the system that annihilates us.”  (Baudrillard simulacra and simulation 160)
Don’t you see that it is all a game?  The Unabomber was an idiot.  “At the behest of the square-jawed “make my day” Freeh, The Washington Post and The New York Times (21 September) collaborated – against their better judgment – and printed all 35,000 words of the Unabomber’s treatise, “Industrial Society and Its Future.”” (Meeks)
“against their better judgment” ?!
Hardly.  I’m sure it put them in a real economic pinch.  I’m sure that they only sold a couple thousand extra newspapers that day.  I’m sure that it really hurt the media to ‘do the right thing’ and collaborate with the FBI to ‘catch the killer.’  I mean it is terrible to have to print something that will sell AND look like the good guy while you are doing it.  The secret to the media spin is to simulate a conscious.  To hold various ‘closed door’ conferences with the FBI on whether or not you should publish it.  To make it seem like you are only doing this ‘for public safety reasons.’  “By keeping his manuscript under wraps – ensuring a burst of intense interest when they were finally forced to reveal its contents to the public – The New York Times and The Washington Post may have inadvertently confirmed the bomber’s theory.”  (Corcoran)
Don’t you see, Ted, that the media always wins?  I’m sure that in Ted’s mind the day after the Post ran its print of the manifesto their was going to be a massive revolution.  Apparently Ted thought that these eloquent words would surely wake people into an angry torrent.  Apparently Ted thought that he was telling us something we didn’t already know.  Apparently, Ted overlooked the fact that he was using the very technology he wished to purge.  Not a revolution, Ted, just your fifteen minutes of fame.  The killer killed by the media… not with a bullet, but with a blanket.
“One problem with seeking celebrity as a mass murderer is that once you’re caught, it’s strictly their movie. By last night’s “film at 11,” the script that the character of Theodore Kaczynski will have to play out in public had been inscribed in concrete.” (Silberman)
One more day of printing presses and radio towers and television sets, Ted.  A gigantic media orgy breeding with itself.  Special news bulletins on whether ‘the media’ should or should not have published the manifesto.  Maybe we should even do one of those special ‘we interrupt this program’ bulletins.  Special graphics and theme song intros made with mega-computers and billions of dollars, Ted.  Entire internet sites, even your own newsgroup (alt.fan.unabomber), going over trillions of miles of phone lines and optic lines and computer processors and digital bits.
“It would be beautiful to be a nihilist, if there were still a radicality — as it would be nice to be a terrorist, if death, including that of the terrorist, still had meaning….  The system is itself also nihilistic, in the sense that it has the power to pour everything, including what denies it, into indifference.” (baudrillard, simulacra and simulation 163)
How do you diffuse a mail-bomb?  Why would we want to diffuse a mail-bomb, Ted?  We will implode it.  Absorb and smother it with love.  Devour every last morsel of energy to be gained.  Publish and re-publish.  What is the currency of three deaths by a mail-bomb?  How many minutes of coverage?  How many articles?  How many pictures?  What is the media value of the search for the bomber?  What is the media value of a terrorist manifesto?  What is the media value of a terrorist?
You cashed yourself out, Ted.  If you were smart you would have took up the offer for a percentage of the take.
“Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione offered a monthly column in his magazine if he would agree to cease the killings indefinitely.” (Corcoran)