From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V6 #337 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Saturday, November 11 2000 Volume 06 : Number 337 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: POL: Protest [jason and jill ] collide [drop the holupki ] Re: Are there *any* Republicans/conservatives on this list??? ["Michael P] Re: an interesting thought ["Michael Pearce" ] Re: shakespeare [RedWoodenBeads@aol.com] Re: nirvana [RedWoodenBeads@aol.com] Re: abortion [RedWoodenBeads@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:13:41 -0500 (EST) From: jason and jill Subject: Re: POL: Protest On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Robert Lovejoy wrote: > Without the electoral college, if we just had a popular vote, I suspect > the candidates would never go to Iowa but stay in the big cities where the > big votes are. Actually, things work in reverse now. (Iowa is bad example, b/c electoral vote wise it actually is of decent size--perhaps South Dakota or Delaware would be better, esp. since Delaware and the New Englad states are the reason we have the size makeup of the electoral college). H/e, if you take a look at the travel plans of the candiates in the month previous to the election, you will see that small states were ignored. Candidate travel was limited solely to large states, all advertising dollars were limited to large states, and even small things like yard signs weren't made available in large numbers in the small states so they could be sent to the larger bloc states. My little PA suburb of Cheltenham (made up of the neighborhoods Cheltenham, Elkins Park and Glenside) got more presidential candidate visits than most states. Small states get far more bang out of their representation in the senate than they get from the relatively obscure electoral college. Jason ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:18:45 -0500 From: drop the holupki Subject: collide a friend pointed out the band collide to me today. very interesting stuff - -- a bit gothy, a bit trip-hoppy, a bit electronic. at times, you'd think it was kym brown singing since the vocalist (kaRIN) sings in that whisper sing-song style that kym brown has nailed down. there are an assortment of realaudio clips on their website at and mp3s on mp3.com at . unfortunately, the clips from their latest album (which sounds to be the most intriguing) fade out early. ah well -- that's an excuse to buy the record! woj ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 2000 20:25:10 -0800 From: "Michael Pearce" Subject: Re: Are there *any* Republicans/conservatives on this list??? At 11:14 PM -0500 11/9/00, Larry Troxler wrote: >Geez, what a curse it has been to be born with a love of music, but also >with rightward political leanings :-) > >Obviously, it is not only this list, but a strange artifact of >artistically oriented people in general, that they tend to be >environmentalists, liberals, vegetarian, homosexual-aware, bla bla bla! > >Any theories as to why this is? > >I am not at all ridiculing that type of mentailty - rather, I'm >wondering why there seems to be a link between artistic personalities, >and that type of political view. Is it perhaps genetic? Maybe the type >of brain that is wired for art also typically is wired towards >left-tending political views? Or is it environmental/social, because >some existing correlation feeds on itself, so that someone artistically >or musically inclined, tends to interact with people who are also >left-political, which tends to further fuel the correlation? > >Certainly, there must be a lot of writing discussing the reasons for >this. Can anyone point me to some? > >A very interesting topic for me, since I seem to be the exception to the >rule. > >Larry > > >n.p. - Rush Limbaugh (ok, just kiding guys!) Not the only one. I consider myself to be a member of the Irreligious Right, more commonly known as Libertarian. Repub/conservative economic theories appeal to me, as do social-liberal ideals. I think that on this list and others that relate to artistic endeavors, social liberalism prevails due to inherent tolerance and interest in the unusual. And Ghoddess knows, the right wing has shown themselves to be quite intolerant of any form of deviation from what they decide is moral and correct. Until recently, only the most extreme left shared this view, that there is "incorrect" art that needs to be suppressed. Thanks to the hellacious notion of "political correctness," this idea has taken on broader acceptance. I am no fan of Bush, but Gore and of course Clinton have both demonstrated their willingness to make decisions for us, and impose them with vigor. I don't believe that the Shrub will be anywhere near as bad, which is why I contributed a few hundred bucks to his campaign, the first time ever in my life to do so. Plus, I think that the political talk is inevitable, and somewhat desirable, considering the historical event we are going through right now. As a lover of chaos, I hope this does not get solved before passing the Constitutional deadlines requiring hard measures. Once the mess is over and we actually have a President-elect, we will return to our regular discussions. Keep it up! Michael n.p. - www.rushlimbaugh.com (also kidding, but if you hate the guy passionately yet have not actually listened to his show in the last 10 years or so, give him a break. He has good taste in music, computers and fills his program with ideas that challenge the intellect. This guy is NO "Dr. Laura." ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 2000 20:46:40 -0800 From: "Michael Pearce" Subject: Re: an interesting thought At 10:59 PM -0500 11/10/00, Joseph Zitt wrote: >A theory that is, of course, blown to shreds by the musical stagnation >of the Eisenhower 50s, the vitality of the Kennedy/Johnson 60s, and the >return of stagnation in the Gerald Ford 70s. > >It can be useful to remember that history began sometime before one >was born... Ah, but I was born early enough to not so much remember the Ike era, but to know that this is when Bebop Jazz grew to flower and changed the musical world there. It fits the exact same mold. Then rock changed coincidentally with Lyndon at the helm, and the focus for the most organized and disorganized rebellion against Authority than we have seen since. The '60s and early '70s finally devolved into arena rock of the mindless Ford/Carter era, which led to punk, and then new-wave and modern rock, probably the best of the last half of the century. This is also Kate Bush's era, starting in 1977, creating the reason for which we all exist here. Certainly Happy would sound different if there had been no Kate. If there has been any stagnation it has been in the Clinton era, but even that isn't fair because since the CD revolution, the availability of diverse kinds of music has grown exponentially. I don't want to even mention hop-hip or c-rap (can you guess that I passionately hate that kind of music?) but if you want musical rebellion against convention, coupled with attempts at governmental censorship, look no further. And one more word: Tipper. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 01:42:13 EST From: RedWoodenBeads@aol.com Subject: Re: shakespeare In a message dated 11/10/00 8:12:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org writes: << One reason you might notice that in this particular list there is a left-leaning bias has to do with homosexuality. It is demonized on the right and applauded on the left. Many of the artists we admire are either gay or close to others who are gay. This would shock many who are carried into our presence by our works of art while remaining ignorant of our life styles. Look at the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa. The homosexuality of the artists who created these masterpieces went unmentioned for centuries. We were left to figure it out from the historical record. Shakespeare's bi-sexuality is still a fairly taboo topic, although it's perfectly obvious to anyone who has been there. Not only do his plays make specific use cross dressing; in his era all the women were played by boys. What a magnet that was in Elizabethan times for a male artist with the inclination to have sexual reveries about men. >> The reason boys played women in Shakespeare's time was because women weren't trained as actors, it had nothing to do with sexuality or "cross-dressing", it was simply necessary for lack of female participants. And I don't know what this is about Michaelangelo and Leonardo being gay, but that's not correct (at least to the best of my knowledge). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 01:46:07 EST From: RedWoodenBeads@aol.com Subject: Re: nirvana In a message dated 11/10/00 8:12:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org writes: << Hmm... Nirvana got huge in the early Clinton era >> Yeah, but they formed in 1987 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 01:53:57 EST From: RedWoodenBeads@aol.com Subject: Re: abortion In a message dated 11/10/00 8:12:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org writes: << Thus, Republicans find themselves taking what they term the high moral road and outlawing women's right to choose >> Alright, I understand your view on abortion, but remember, people who are pro-life (this includes a huge number of women) aren't trying to take away anyone's rights. We believe that abortion hurts women, and believe me, it can really take a psychological tole. In addition, what is moral about sucking a living, breathing fetus out of its mother's womb and disposing it with hospital waste? There are laws in our country against smashing an eagles egg, but unborn humans (that includes unborn women) don't even get that protection. I understand you don't believe it is a baby, but keep in mind that there are people who do, and because of that it is impossible for us to look at it as a choice. ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V6 #337 **************************