From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #133 Reply-To: ammf@smoe.org Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Tuesday, July 21 1998 Volume 01 : Number 133 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Moxy Tshirts ["^kat^" ] Re: greetings from Alberta! ["Stephen R. Laniel" ] Walmart Policies (related to Warning Sticker thread) [seqiro@mail2.nai.ne] Re: Review of 7/17 Burlington, VT show [gorbitron@aol.com (Gorbitron)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 05:31:23 GMT From: "^kat^" Subject: Re: Moxy Tshirts [absolutely off-topic... just trying to verify a rumor :) ] And as a personal horror > story I paid close to $40 for a marilyn manson "dead to the world" tour shirt. > Like Cal said sometimes the venues slap on a higher price to make profits. That > was definitly the case at that show. Yeah, I know I'm strange, I like fruvous > and manson, maybe I'm just diverse. ok, erich, or anyone else with knowledge on the subject: someone told me recently that marilyn manson is, in fact, josh saviano, the guy who played paul on _the wonder years_. i'm skeptical. is this the truth? or merely some perverse rumor created to defame saviano's reputation? (or improve it, depending on what light you hold marilyn manson in...) tha'z all... oh, and for loosely-related frucontent: maybe fruvous should cover "sweet dreams" (which manson covered off of the original... ahh... eurythmics? correct me if i'm wrong...). or maybe not. i'm just trying to keep this relevant, and it's too late at night for me to even try. ;p gonna go for some shut-eye now... ^kat^ "everybody is looking for something" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 05:38:14 GMT From: "Stephen R. Laniel" Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! - --On Tuesday, July 21, 1998, 1:30 AM +0000 Dot0926 wrote: > the first step is to make our government truly representative of all americans. > it's a sad fact that many walks of american life have no representation in the > legislature, and therefore, your definition of democracy is not applicable. > until there is equal reprentation for all races, financial classes, and > religions, as well as both genders, then we are not living in a true democracy, > and therefore anyone (elected or not) who tries to impress his or her > definition of morality on the masses is perverting an already corrupt system. What is your standard of whether a legislative body is representative? Will it have to contain members of every single subgroup of the American population? This, of course, is impossible, because subgroups can be defined in infinitely many ways (I am a member of the curly-haired, engineering school-attending, Pontiac Bonneville-driving, Chomsky-reading subgroup). Could we say that a legislative body represents its people if it does what the people as a majority want? Then we certainly have a representative legislative body. Polls acheive representation. In fact, many complaints about the US Senate in recent years have said that senators overuse polls - -- that is, that they are overly representative. I would suggest that what we need is a legislative body which is only representative to a point. When we elect representatives, rather than running a direct democracy like the Greeks did, we assume that someone else can do a better job of legislating than we can. I suggest that we thoroughly read each candidate's platform, elect the person with whose platform we agree, and then let them do as they will for their term in office. If they fail to act as they stated they would, we vote them out of office. But while they're in office, it is their job to do what the rest of us cannot do: govern. They should be given the freedom to do so. > perhaps the basis of western law needs a bit of undermining, if it is comprised > of a small unrepresentative representative (how's that for an oxymoron??) body > that wishes to preach personal morality, while providing little to no example > of this morality. Again, in what sense is our legislative system unrepresentative? In a sense I agree with you that the system is unrepresentative (cf. Chomsky, and start with "Manufacturing Consent"), but I don't think you're being clear about how you think it is unrepresentative. Direct democracy is probably the only truly representative system -- the only one which represents each voice with 100% accuracy. But it comes with its own problems. If we commit to a representative democracy, we commit to its problems. One of these is that it does not represent all of its people clearly. When we take positions according to the beliefs of the majority, we exclude the minority. Can you suggest a way of simultaneously representing everyone and committing to representative democracy? I don't believe it's possible, but I'm open to suggestion. > i don't understand the connection between the government instituting laws to > protect people from bodily harm, which is an objective thing, to legislation > about "morality", which is clearly subjective. Do you believe in minimalist government? Should the government only protect against physical harm between two people? This is weak protection indeed. Sexual harassment is a much more subtle crime, and much harder to prove than physical assault, but I think you would agree that the government has a right to legislative against harassment. Similarly, it has a right to restrict _some_ speech; Holmes and Brandeis, for instance, made it clear that even the most relaxed free speech laws would never permit someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. I don't know where this tangent began, and I regret if I've swerved off the road. However, I think there are some more fundamental questions of governance here than just free-speech laws. - --Steve Stephen R. Laniel | "That's because he treats her like dirt. Carnegie Mellon University | Anyone can get a girl that way." laniel@cmu.edu | --Joseph Heller ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 03:37:04 GMT From: seqiro@mail2.nai.net (Paul D. Beasi) Subject: Walmart Policies (related to Warning Sticker thread) Hey there, On a slightly related topic, I've been led to understand that Walmart is one store that definitely is not in favor of our First Amendment. Apparently (and if I'm wrong then please correct me) they will pick and choose which albums they won't sell based on content. Sometimes there will be special Walmart editions which are edited down, noted in extremely fine print on the album. Otherwise, they just won't stock the album. What's my problem with this? Well, first I think that the bands are going to end up losing some of their market. I live in Connecticut, so there are a million stores near me and I won't even going into a Walmart looking for music. However in some areas, Walmart is the only place around for many miles. Thus, they have the band in the palm of their hand. If they don't release an edited version, an entire group of people may not be able to get the album unless they can order it over the internet. But not everyone who wants the music has internet or a credit card! The consumer can be cheated because he or she could unknowingly buy a censored album and not be getting the whole thing. All of this is entirely at Walmart's discretion. Sheryl Crow definitely knows this end of the story, as one of her albums was banned from Walmart for mentioning the store in a song in a way they didn't like. I think that warning labels probably do more good than harm as long as it is left to the discretion of the band and record labels. The only problem is a lack of a description of the content. As an example, Moxy's use of the F-word on Live Noise is, for the most part, harmless in my opinion. A parent might listen to the album and decide it's OK for his or her child to listen to the music and maybe just caution im/her about repeating the words. The problem is that the same label goes on albums with content including rape, murder, and other acts of violence and hatred. These albums get more of the publicity and I think that maybe the labels are associated with that type of content. Is there an easy solution? Probably not other than maybe being open minded and screening the music ahead of time. Several stores in my area will open a CD for you and re-shrink wrap it if you don't want it. I would definitely be opposed to a law requiring the labels. Similarly, what Walmart does seems extremely unfair to the artists who may be forced to comply with their rules in order to reach a wider market. I suppose every store has the right to determine what merchandise it will carry, but it ends up being a weapon for Walmart. Anyway, I shall step off my soap box and put on my fire-resistant suit in preparation :) Paul - ----------------------------------------- Paul Beasi seqiro@ct2.nai.net http://w3.nai.net/~seqiro The spotlight guys got Iggy! -TMBG, Lupos Heartbreak Hotel 10/25/97 - ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1998 03:01:25 GMT From: gorbitron@aol.com (Gorbitron) Subject: Re: Review of 7/17 Burlington, VT show >Banter - Tony Esposito Sweat. Who? Ok I am going to have to get all of you your very own National Hockey League Official Guide & Record Book. Or maybe an old Sporting News hockey register. And if not that, at least start watching Classic Sports Network. If they show any of the Canada Cup games from the 80s between Canada and the Soviets, WATCH THEM!!! They are awesome. Tony Esposito: 16 seasons in the NHL, inducted to the Hall of Fame in 1988. Goalie. Played for Les Canadiens and the Chicago Blackhawks. 423-306-152 record, 76 shutouts, 2.92 career goals against, 1 cup win (which he won as a rookie with Montreal, I believe backing up Rogie Vachon who is unexplainably not a hall of famer). His brother was Phil Esposito, but we won't go there. Gordon ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #133 ********************************************