From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest)
To: ecto-digest@smoe.org
Subject: ecto-digest V6 #338
Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org
Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


ecto-digest         Sunday, November 12 2000         Volume 06 : Number 338



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  Re: Are there *any* Republicans/conservatives on this list???  [Joseph Zit]
  ATTN: Mazzy Star fans!                                [RocketsTail@aol.com]
  Re: election                            [indedamon 2000 <dcrumple@mdo.net>]
  Re: election                            [indedamon 2000 <dcrumple@mdo.net>]
  Today's your birthday, friend...                 [Mike Matthews <matthewm>]
  Re: Are there *any* Republicans/conservatives on this list???  [indedamon ]
  Re: POL: Protest                        [indedamon 2000 <dcrumple@mdo.net>]
  Re: Are there *any* Republicans/conservatives on this list???  [indedamon ]
  Article about Elizabeth Elmore's stalker    [Michael Curry <mcurry@io.com>]
  re: Shakespeare                           ["Tom Ditto" <ditto@taconic.net>]
  Re: election                               [Daniel <iamnoti@earthlink.net>]
  Re: Are there *any* Republicans/conservatives on this list???  ["Michael P]
  Re: Shakespeare                     [Joseph Zitt <jzitt@metatronpress.com>]
  Re: election                        [Joseph Zitt <jzitt@metatronpress.com>]
  Re: Are there *any* Republicans/conservatives on this list???  [Joseph Zit]
  Re: election                        [Joseph Zitt <jzitt@metatronpress.com>]
  techno folk                                        [RedWoodenBeads@aol.com]
  Re: election                               [Paul Blair <ciriwe@phobot.net>]
  RE: Shakespeare                           ["Tom Ditto" <ditto@taconic.net>]
  Re: election                            [indedamon 2000 <dcrumple@mdo.net>]
  Re: election                            [indedamon 2000 <dcrumple@mdo.net>]
  Re: election                        [Joseph Zitt <jzitt@metatronpress.com>]
  Twenty-year-olds - liberal artists - whatever else crosses my mind  [tenth]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 01:15:05 -0500
From: Joseph Zitt <jzitt@metatronpress.com>
Subject: Re: Are there *any* Republicans/conservatives on this list???

On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 08:25:10PM -0800, Michael Pearce wrote:
 
> 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.

Er, what? After a terrible, long history of art and music being
suppressed by the authoritarian Right, they managed to use skillful
indirection and projection to make it seem as if the Left were the
source of suppression of art. If it weren't so sad, it would be funny.
(And yes, the term "political correctness" had its origins in a joking
term that got twisted around.)

Or do people actually believe Jesse Helms to be on the left somewhere?

(Vague deja vu -- I think we may have had this discussion here some
years ago.)

- -- 
|> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <|
| jzitt@metatronpress.com           http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt |
| Latest CD: Jerusaklyn                  http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt |
| Comma: Voices of New Music    Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 02:05:19 EST
From: RocketsTail@aol.com
Subject: ATTN: Mazzy Star fans! 

 Hope Sandoval is recording with a new band and will be releasing a full 
length album in the coming months...there's an EP coming out in  afew days 
though! ~eric

HOPE SANDOVAL RELEASES NEW EP 

Mazzy Star chanteuse, Hope Sandoval, releases an EP with her new band, Hope 
Sandoval & The Warm Inventions, on Rough Trade on November 13th. 

"At The Doorway Again" features 4 exquisitely beautiful tracks written by 
Sandoval and former My Bloody Valentine drummer, Colm O'Ciosoig. The record 
comes in CD and 12" vinyl formats. 
The EP will be released worldwide. Vital are the distributor but they'll sell 
to other worldwide distributors and wholesalers such as Wide in Italy, 
Caroline in Spain, Ether in Germany, etc. An album will follow in early 2001. 

 1. Around My Smile
2. Charlotte
3. Sparkly
4. Down the Steps





    



"There's a jealous net inside my chest
  there's a hurt, a saddness there
  Maybe I'd tell you all about it if
  I thought you'd care"     
                         ~Sarah Harmer

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 02:24:36 -0500
From: indedamon 2000 <dcrumple@mdo.net>
Subject: Re: election

RedWoodenBeads@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 11/8/00 11:03:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org writes:
> 
> <<  Look, it was not my responsibility to vote for Gore; it was Gore's
>  responsibility to earn my vote.  He did not do that.  I could never in my
>  life support someone like Bush, or nutters like Buchanan.  Nader spoke out
>  against corporate control of society, which is something that I see.  And I
>  felt that I could believe him, so he earned my vote.  I have no guilt over
>  this, nor should anyone else. >>
> 
> What makes Buchanan a "nutter"? The main thing that bothers me about Buchanan
> is his hostility towards immigrants from Mexico, but he's no more of a right
> wing extremist than Nadar is a left-wing extremist. Personally, I think it's
> the government that looms the greater danger to controlling our lives than
> any privately owned corporation.

you're mistaken.
while the government as a singular entity
can control our lives more, industry and corporations in toto
exert more control. sadly, while the government tends to do things
like tax small businesses nearly to death, unless they're internet
based, or try to deflate despots like bill gates,
or pass annoying laws aboput growing pot,
corporations tends to lock people inside burning buildings,
dump posion into rivers,
or jerry rigg the price of products so their board members
can buy their way out of crimes.

since the government is acocuntable by election, i'd have to side with
having
the government exert more control than the corporations.

or, mor eon topic-
coporations screw over artists so much that the the and smashing pumkins
resort to anarchy in order to fight them.

the government puts warning labels on discs, but every other 
act of censorship they try is tossed out in court.
meanwhile, wal mart starts banning discs from its stores.



- -- 
"Neither Bush nor Gore is President. As reassuring as that is,
it can't last."  Bill Maher

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 02:32:28 -0500
From: indedamon 2000 <dcrumple@mdo.net>
Subject: Re: election

Paul Blair wrote:
> 
> Joe Zitt wrote:
> 
> >No, Bush believes that people who make a lot of money should get even more
> 
> This statement package-deals taking money from one person and giving
> it to someone else, with refraining from taking it in the first
> place. It rests on the assumption that individuals' lives are public
> property.
> 
> Not that I'm any great Bush enthusiast.  Some of us believe that
> individuals should get to keep *all* the money they earn, regardless
> of how much, and that government has no business taking from some
> people to give to others, regardless of the need of the recipients.


and some of us beleive that the function of a government
should be, in part, to keep its citizens from starving to
death if it can reasonably prevent it.


> >And the dichotomy of "government" vs "people" is a smokescreen. The
> >people *are* the government.


wrong.
in this country, we have a representational democracy.
which means the electoral college elects the prez, and not us.
which means that those whom we elect can vote
any which way they want to once in office,
because we are electing them, not their platforms.

> I see.  So suppose Bush is elected.  But then the people *are* the
> government...so Bush's policies ipso facto are in the interest of the
> people...?
> 
> I see no justification for aggregating individuals' values into a big
> collective heap like this. 

errrr, because humans are intrinsically both altruistic and selfish.
hence, capitalism and socialism both have their uses.


 I'm surprised  anyone who passionately
> values non-mainstream music could think so.  It's no secret that even
> here the government wants to censor music "for the common good."  If
> the people "are" the government, if government policy expresses
> *your* true will, what right have you to disagree?
> 
> I personally am no great fan of having political discussions on ecto.
> But if we're going to have them, let's drop the pretense that
> everyone here basically shares the same political values.


and here's the stickler-
in a democracy, lyrics would be banned.
so as much as i'd prefer one,
we can't have one.

my view is the best reocurse would be closer
to a true democracy than currently exists,
but with greater emphasis place don consitutional rights.

gore threatened censorship during his campaign.
bush's party platform regularly threatens the same thing.


- -- 
"Neither Bush nor Gore is President. As reassuring as that is,
it can't last."  Bill Maher

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:00:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Mike Matthews <matthewm>
Subject: Today's your birthday, friend...

                                i*i*i*i*i*i
                                i*i*i*i*i*i
                              ***************
                            *****HAPPY*********
                      **************BIRTHDAY*********
            ***************************************************
 ***************************************************************************
 ******************* Ken Latta (klatta@icpsr.umich.edu) ********************
 ***************************************************************************
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

   Ken Latta                Sun  November 11  1951     Scorpio
   Michael Doyle            Wed  November 12  1969     Scorpio
   Marla Tiara              Tue  November 13  1973     Scorpio
   Neil K.                  Thu  November 14  1968     Grocible
   Dave Cook                Mon  November 15  1971     Scorpio
   Jeff Pearce                   November 16           Orpheus
   Naama Avramzon           Mon  November 18  1974     Scorpio
   Jeff Smith               Mon  November 19  1962     Crash
   Kevin Bartlett           Fri  November 21  1952     Scorpio
   Claudia Spix             Wed  November 23  1960     Schuetze
   Anja Baldo               Tue  November 23  1965     Garbanzo
   Tommy Persson            Wed  November 25  1964     Sagittarius
   Pat Tessitore                 November 26           Sagittarius
   Valerie Kraemer               November 26           Sagittarius
   Justin Bur               Fri  November 27  1964     Sagittarius
   Sue Trowbridge           Sun  November 27  1966     Skytten
   Ward Kadel               Tue  November 29  1977     Sagittarius
   Jesse Hernandez Liwag    Wed  November 29  1972     Water Rat
   Mirko Bulaja             Sat  November 30  1974     Block
   Juha Sorva               Thu  December 02  1976     Sagittarius
   Chip Lueck               Thu  December 05  1968     Sagittarius
   Michele Wellck                December 08           Sagittarius
   Jeremy J. Corry          Fri  December 11  1970     Sagittarius

- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:03:50 -0500
From: indedamon 2000 <dcrumple@mdo.net>
Subject: Re: Are there *any* Republicans/conservatives on this list???

Tom Ditto wrote:
> ......
> There are many artists who are drawn to the Republican party. Sonny Bono was
> actually elected to the House where he authored a key bit of legislation on
> copyright, a revision of that law which reflects quite clearly how
> Republican artists feel about their intellectual property. In the
> conservative view, the role of government is to protect an individual's
> private property from piracy by outside agents. Bono was also a musician
> whose most important work was done with Cher, and I rather think he could
> have been a closet admirer of the likes of Happy Rhodes, but as a political
> activist he was a Palm Springs denizen who wanted to funnel yet even more
> money into the hands of the already rich. That kind of money-first attitude
> doesn't happen inside the brains of most of use on this list, perhaps
> because we are first motivated by our hearts.
> 
note also it was a republican who slipped in that work
for hire clause into legislation wrt the recording companies and
artists.


this isn't atypical.

note also it was republican prosecutors who had a comic book artist
convicted of obscenity [plus the attempt on those rapper whose names
i forget back in the late 80's int he same area of fl], and drove
another comic shop owner into bankruptcy in ok.

granted, with tipper gore, liebrman, etc, democrats have been known
to take stands which threaten artisitc freedom.
but on the whole, republicans are far far more likely to.



- -- 
"Neither Bush nor Gore is President. As reassuring as that is,
it can't last."  Bill Maher

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:26:48 -0500
From: indedamon 2000 <dcrumple@mdo.net>
Subject: Re: POL: Protest

jason and jill wrote:
> 
> 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.

allof which is irrelevant for two reasons.


first, presidents don't make laws, congress does, and congress features
both proportional and nonproportioanl
representation.

second, by using the electoral college, you are essentially
saying that one person's vote is more
powerful than another's.
this means that while all men may be created equal,
their voting power is not.

- -- 
"Neither Bush nor Gore is President. As reassuring as that is,
it can't last."  Bill Maher

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:35:10 -0500
From: indedamon 2000 <dcrumple@mdo.net>
Subject: Re: Are there *any* Republicans/conservatives on this list???

Michael Pearce wrote:
> 
> At 11:14 PM -0500 11/9/00, Larry Troxler <lt@westnet.com> wrote:
> 

> >
> >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.


i do.
i do because shrub has demonstrated to me that he's a sock puppet.
i don't want a country with a rep congress, both houses,
and with dick chaney running the show.



> 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."



every time i've listened to him in the past 2 years, he has simply
spouted
off empty and meaningless rhetoric. i've never heard an intelligent
thought come fromt he man
[ok, i'm lying, but the average of one per three years isn't too much
better].


there are plenty of intelligent conservatives i like- john schnieder
fromthe dukes of hazzard was just on politically incorrect tonite. and
extremely intelligent man. [along with a complete idiot for a
conservative].
rush is not one of them.

neither is keyes, or that film guy.

sortontopic.
jewel was on last night.
interesting person.
brighter than i'd pegged her to be, and very pretty, but needs tooth
work.
i forget what she said now, but they had her next to another
intelligent conservative.


- -- 
"Neither Bush nor Gore is President. As reassuring as that is,
it can't last."  Bill Maher

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:45:22 -0500
From: Michael Curry <mcurry@io.com>
Subject: Article about Elizabeth Elmore's stalker

   This was posted to the Sleater-Kinney mailing list, and 
I thought some here might find it of interest.  I hope the 
original poster doesn't mind me passing it along.....


 >Anyone who is a fan of Sarge/Elizabeth Elmore and/or
 >cares about stalking and women's safety should read
 >this article about Elizabeth's stalker. It's quite
 >frightening.
 >
 >http://www.msnbc.com/local/wmaq/67642.asp?cp1=1

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:52:17 -0500
From: "Tom Ditto" <ditto@taconic.net>
Subject: re: Shakespeare

RedWoodenBeads wrote:

>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).<

You are right about the suppression of women in Elizabethan times, and it is
a wonderful testamony to Elizabeth I that she transcended the oppression,
but all I was saying was that the theater of the era would be a magnet to
someone who had sexual fantasies involving boys, since they played the
women's roles. As for Shakespeare's tendancies, they read to me in both his
plays and more particularly in his sonnets. Then comes the recent scholarly
work showing that the author of a lover's eulogy to a deceased male lover
was probably written by Shakespeare. The work was done by the same Vassar
professor who guessed that "Anonymous", author of _Primary Colors_ was Joel
Klein.

The historical record about both Leonardo and Michaelangelo is replete with
lifestyle choices that are signatures of homosexuality. Handsome and famous
though they were, they didn't marry. Their most intimate servants were
attractive men. And the sculpture of Michaelangelo ignores female anatomy
(except in Pieta where he got it right), but the attention he lavished on
the male body is the focus of someone who appreciated what he was creating.
Leonardo is more of a stretch. Although he documented his work to the finest
detail, his personal life was not. Perhaps he was asexual, but that seems
odd for a guy who was so completely rev'd. We know he was somewhat vain
about his good looks, perhaps excessively so. Recently Lillian Schwartz of
Bell Labs wrote a fascinating study that showed that the Mona Lisa was
Leonardo seen as a woman. She used the one extant self-portrait (made as an
old man) and correlated key facial features. It is a fascinating concept and
reinforced the growing realization that he was gay.

Tom
ditto@taconic.net
"I may not know much,
but I ain't lost neither."

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:20:17 -0800
From: Daniel <iamnoti@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: election

A nameless individual wrote:

> > Not that I'm any great Bush enthusiast.  Some of us believe that
> > individuals should get to keep *all* the money they earn, regardless
> > of how much, and that government has no business taking from some
> > people to give to others, regardless of the need of the recipients.
>
> and some of us beleive that the function of a government
> should be, in part, to keep its citizens from starving to
> death if it can reasonably prevent it.

<can of worms>
The only rational function of a government is to protect the rights of its
individual citizens. Caring for the needy is the function of a charity.
</can of worms>

> > I see no justification for aggregating individuals' values into a big
> > collective heap like this.
>
> errrr, because humans are intrinsically both altruistic and selfish.
> hence, capitalism and socialism both have their uses.

<another can>
Animals in general are instinctively selfish, a survival-positive trait.
Altruism, a survival-negative trait, is a learned behavior. Socialism is slavery.

</another can>

Daniel

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 2000 10:50:44 -0800
From: "Michael Pearce" <mp@moonmac.com>
Subject: Re: Are there *any* Republicans/conservatives on this list???

Joseph Zitt writes,
>On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 08:25:10PM -0800, Michael Pearce wrote:
>
>>  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.
>
>Er, what? After a terrible, long history of art and music being
>suppressed by the authoritarian Right, they managed to use skillful
>indirection and projection to make it seem as if the Left were the
>source of suppression of art. If it weren't so sad, it would be funny.
>(And yes, the term "political correctness" had its origins in a joking
>term that got twisted around.)
>
>Or do people actually believe Jesse Helms to be on the left somewhere?

No no no - I mean that the left has been doing the same kind of thing 
as the right all along. The Helms types haven't changed. 
Authoritarians are all alike, right or left.

mp

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 14:24:49 -0500
From: Joseph Zitt <jzitt@metatronpress.com>
Subject: Re: Shakespeare

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 10:52:17AM -0500, Tom Ditto wrote:

> detail, his personal life was not. Perhaps he was asexual, but that seems
> odd for a guy who was so completely rev'd.

Until I figured out that that was probably "revered", I got this odd
picture of someone stepping on Michaelangelo's foot and him yelling
"Vroooooom!".

- -- 
|> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <|
| jzitt@metatronpress.com           http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt |
| Latest CD: Jerusaklyn                  http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt |
| Comma: Voices of New Music    Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 14:36:57 -0500
From: Joseph Zitt <jzitt@metatronpress.com>
Subject: Re: election

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 08:20:17AM -0800, Daniel wrote:
 
> <can of worms>
> The only rational function of a government is to protect the rights of its
> individual citizens. Caring for the needy is the function of a charity.
> </can of worms>

Easily said until the speaker becomes one of the needy. Which can happen
to any of us, quickly.
 
> <another can>
> Animals in general are instinctively selfish, a survival-positive trait.
> Altruism, a survival-negative trait, is a learned behavior. Socialism is slavery.
> 
> </another can>

Animals also generally do not live in constructed shelter, tend to die 
well before old age,
don't wear clothes, and either kill other animals to eat or go directly
to where the food is growing and get it from the ground or trees 
themselves. A speaker who believes that we should follow the animals'
lead in our own lives would only be credible in s/he also lives that
belief in the above ways.

- -- 
|> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <|
| jzitt@metatronpress.com           http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt |
| Latest CD: Jerusaklyn                  http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt |
| Comma: Voices of New Music    Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 14:43:04 -0500
From: Joseph Zitt <jzitt@metatronpress.com>
Subject: Re: Are there *any* Republicans/conservatives on this list???

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 10:50:44AM -0800, Michael Pearce wrote:
> Joseph Zitt writes,
> >On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 08:25:10PM -0800, Michael Pearce wrote:
> >
> >>  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.
> >
> >Er, what? After a terrible, long history of art and music being
> >suppressed by the authoritarian Right, they managed to use skillful
> >indirection and projection to make it seem as if the Left were the
> >source of suppression of art. If it weren't so sad, it would be funny.
> >(And yes, the term "political correctness" had its origins in a joking
> >term that got twisted around.)
> >
> >Or do people actually believe Jesse Helms to be on the left somewhere?
> 
> No no no - I mean that the left has been doing the same kind of thing 
> as the right all along. The Helms types haven't changed. 
> Authoritarians are all alike, right or left.

Uh, so what did you mean by the reference to taking on "broader 
acceptance"? Is that a contradiction, an ambiguity, or a paradox?

- -- 
|> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <|
| jzitt@metatronpress.com           http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt |
| Latest CD: Jerusaklyn                  http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt |
| Comma: Voices of New Music    Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 14:56:23 -0500
From: Joseph Zitt <jzitt@metatronpress.com>
Subject: Re: election

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 02:32:28AM -0500, indedamon 2000 wrote:
 
> > >And the dichotomy of "government" vs "people" is a smokescreen. The
> > >people *are* the government.
> 
> 
> wrong.
> in this country, we have a representational democracy.
> which means the electoral college elects the prez, and not us.
> which means that those whom we elect can vote
> any which way they want to once in office,
> because we are electing them, not their platforms.

Wrong, at least in essence. The electoral college is, indeed, a severe
glitch in our governmental design, but pertains only to a specific
pair of offices. The thousands of other governmental officials tend to
be elected directly, and work within the knowledge that they can be
reelected or voted out of office every few years by the actions of the
people.

(Well, except in the very silly case of positions with "term limits",
which position things so that a large portion of elected officials
will be in lame duck positions, and thus effectively without popular
controls on their actions, thus positioning them to do whatever they
want to make their own lives comfortable once they silde back into
corporate life afterwards.)

And the government is clearly not just the elected
officials but the millions of our peers who work within it every day and,
by extension, the millions more who vote.
 
> and here's the stickler-
> in a democracy, lyrics would be banned.

Care to provide a context in which that statement is meaningful?

- -- 
|> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <|
| jzitt@metatronpress.com           http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt |
| Latest CD: Jerusaklyn                  http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt |
| Comma: Voices of New Music    Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:43:30 EST
From: RedWoodenBeads@aol.com
Subject: techno folk

Lately I've really been enjoying "White Ladder" by David Gray and "Trailer 
Park" by Beth Orton and I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations in 
the form of electronic folk music.

Joe

http://www.angelfire.com/indie/impryan

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:30:37 -0500
From: Paul Blair <ciriwe@phobot.net>
Subject: Re: election

Joe Zitt wrote in response to Daniel:

>  > The only rational function of a government is to protect the rights of its
>>  individual citizens. Caring for the needy is the function of a charity.
>>  </can of worms>
>
>Easily said until the speaker becomes one of the needy. Which can 
>happen to any of us, quickly.

Interesting how those who scorn crass materialism in the name of 
principles are the first to dismiss principles as impractical in the 
face of material concerns.  Now there's a recipe for cynicism.

Those who seek to guarantee they will be taken care of, claim it is 
inhuman to have to face the ultimate responsibility for their own 
survival.  Instead they expect to force their neighbor to bear the 
responsibility they regard as inhuman--in the name of universal love 
and harmony.

But those who would ensure that people don't have to worry about 
their own material survival can only do so at the expense of those 
who do worry about it.  What sense is there in a morality that 
depends on the existence and support of those it condemns?

>  > Animals in general are instinctively selfish, a survival-positive trait.
>>  Altruism, a survival-negative trait, is a learned behavior. 
>>Socialism is slavery.
>>
>>  </another can>
>
>Animals also generally do not live in constructed shelter, tend to die
>well before old age,
>don't wear clothes, and either kill other animals to eat or go directly
>to where the food is growing and get it from the ground or trees
>themselves. A speaker who believes that we should follow the animals'
>lead in our own lives would only be credible in s/he also lives that
>belief in the above ways.

Here I agree.  What human beings should choose to do does not depend 
on what other animals are conditioned to do.  Altruism and 
selfishness are moral concepts; they apply to human choices, not to 
animal behavior.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 18:27:12 -0500
From: "Tom Ditto" <ditto@taconic.net>
Subject: RE: Shakespeare

Prior exchange:

> > odd for a guy who was so completely rev'd.
> 
> Until I figured out that that was probably "revered", I got this odd
> picture of someone stepping on Michaelangelo's foot and him yelling
> "Vroooooom!".

Yo Zit:
Tis Dit

I meant revved as in rpm, 
though revered also fits.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:49:41 -0500
From: indedamon 2000 <dcrumple@mdo.net>
Subject: Re: election

Daniel wrote:
> 
> A nameless individual wrote:

must be me!

> > > Not that I'm any great Bush enthusiast.  Some of us believe that
> > > individuals should get to keep *all* the money they earn, regardless
> > > of how much, and that government has no business taking from some
> > > people to give to others, regardless of the need of the recipients.
> >
> > and some of us beleive that the function of a government
> > should be, in part, to keep its citizens from starving to
> > death if it can reasonably prevent it.
> 
> <can of worms>
> The only rational function of a government is to protect the rights of its
> individual citizens. Caring for the needy is the function of a charity.
> </can of worms>


the can of wroms was in using the word 'rational'.

it demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge of 'rational'. 

your position, otherwise, is one that is, for lack of a better word,
defensible.
however, i don't want to live in a country in which the government
is not used to keep its citizens from starving.
i'm fairlyposiitve a large majority of others feel th esame,
and if i'm wrong, that just makes us all the sadder as a species.

> > > I see no justification for aggregating individuals' values into a big
> > > collective heap like this.
> >
> > errrr, because humans are intrinsically both altruistic and selfish.
> > hence, capitalism and socialism both have their uses.
> 
> <another can>
> Animals in general are instinctively selfish, a survival-positive trait.
> Altruism, a survival-negative trait, is a learned behavior. Socialism is slavery.
> 
> </another can>

the can here is simply that you're wrong.
narcissism is no more ingrained than altruisim.
in terms of instinctive values, both have their uses,
and evolution has instilled the capacity for both within our species.
your statement, in light of that, is simply based on outdated and
disproven theories.

as for socialism being slavery,
that's as ridiculous a statement as saying free market capitalism
is slavery- which, when taking the  [to be on topic] work for hire
arrangement
many artists, including ecto artists, have been subjected to,
wherein their creativity is mined and the efforts of their labor
and thought are proclaimed to be someone else's property, demonstrates
the kernel
of truth which i have, in imitation of you, completely blown of of
proportion with heavyhanded rhetoric.

i have to admire that that is all one sentence.



> Daniel

- -- 
"Neither Bush nor Gore is President. As reassuring as that is,
it can't last."  Bill Maher

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:45:02 -0500
From: indedamon 2000 <dcrumple@mdo.net>
Subject: Re: election

Joseph Zitt wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 02:32:28AM -0500, indedamon 2000 wrote:
> 
> > > >And the dichotomy of "government" vs "people" is a smokescreen. The
> > > >people *are* the government.
> >
> >
> > wrong.
> > in this country, we have a representational democracy.
> > which means the electoral college elects the prez, and not us.
> > which means that those whom we elect can vote
> > any which way they want to once in office,
> > because we are electing them, not their platforms.
> 
> Wrong, at least in essence. The electoral college is, indeed, a severe
> glitch in our governmental design, but pertains only to a specific
> pair of offices. The thousands of other governmental officials tend to
> be elected directly, and work within the knowledge that they can be
> reelected or voted out of office every few years by the actions of the
> people.

not was i was talking about.
those whom we elect directly are still representatives, which means,
tho they maybe elected out of office
later, they are still not elected on their platforms, but elected
as representatives to do whatever they feel is best for us.
they run platforms because, really, telling people that 'you're
electing me because i know what's
better for you than you do' doesn't get you elected very much,
although that's what the constitution spells out.


> 
> (Well, except in the very silly case of positions with "term limits",
> which position things so that a large portion of elected officials
> will be in lame duck positions, and thus effectively without popular
> controls on their actions, thus positioning them to do whatever they
> want to make their own lives comfortable once they silde back into
> corporate life afterwards.)

i agree with term limits- hell the president has one- but really only
because incumbents are so
powerful they rarely lose elections.

> And the government is clearly not just the elected
> officials but the millions of our peers who work within it every day and,
> by extension, the millions more who vote.
> 
> > and here's the stickler-
> > in a democracy, lyrics would be banned.
> 
> Care to provide a context in which that statement is meaningful?
> 

you put freedom of speechup to a vote,with
people pointing out rap lyrics and lyrics like ice-t's cop killer,
and i bet you'd see 51% or more voting for banning those types of
lyrics.


democracies oftencare less for freedom than for public
cohesion, which is why the constitution's bill of rights was devised-
specifically to keep people from voting away freedom.
the whole 'tyranny of the majority' thing.

i can't think of any ecto content, so i'll make some up.
redwood was recently talking about suzanne vega, whom
i've been listening to again recently, since i just got her
nine objects cd.
the self titled debut has a song called the soldier and the queen.
somehow i think it appropro.


- -- 
"Neither Bush nor Gore is President. As reassuring as that is,
it can't last."  Bill Maher

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:54:58 -0500
From: Joseph Zitt <jzitt@metatronpress.com>
Subject: Re: election

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 05:30:37PM -0500, Paul Blair wrote:
> Joe Zitt wrote in response to Daniel:
> 
> >  > The only rational function of a government is to protect the rights of its
> >>  individual citizens. Caring for the needy is the function of a charity.
> >>  </can of worms>
> >
> >Easily said until the speaker becomes one of the needy. Which can 
> >happen to any of us, quickly.
> 
> Interesting how those who scorn crass materialism in the name of 
> principles are the first to dismiss principles as impractical in the 
> face of material concerns.  Now there's a recipe for cynicism.
> 
> Those who seek to guarantee they will be taken care of, claim it is 
> inhuman to have to face the ultimate responsibility for their own 
> survival.  Instead they expect to force their neighbor to bear the 
> responsibility they regard as inhuman--in the name of universal love 
> and harmony.
> 
> But those who would ensure that people don't have to worry about 
> their own material survival can only do so at the expense of those 
> who do worry about it.  What sense is there in a morality that 
> depends on the existence and support of those it condemns?

This viewpoint may rest upon a misapprehension
of the range of events that can happen in the course of a person's
life, beyond the scope of a single human's recovery without the support
of those around him. (The fable of the ant and the grasshopper fails to
address the possibility of the destruction of the anthill.)

Perhaps we are blessed to live in a society where people have not had to
address these concerns firsthand. But that may leave us all the more
vulnerable should these events arise.

- -- 
|> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <|
| jzitt@metatronpress.com           http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt |
| Latest CD: Jerusaklyn                  http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt |
| Comma: Voices of New Music    Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 23:09:46 -0600
From: tenthvictim@mindspring.com
Subject: Twenty-year-olds - liberal artists - whatever else crosses my mind

Hello, everybody,

Good topics.  It's fun seeing a discussion of songwriting and politics going
on simultaneously and then intertwining (sort of) in the artists-as-liberals
thread.

Twenty-year-olds!  I love you guys!  Please don't think my mention of
twenty-year-old skinny singers was an attempt to heap scorn upon your youth.
In my E-mail about Happy I was trying to say in an ineloquent way what
someone in another E-mail said much better.  I think the term is bubblegum
music.  Pop music right now seems to be dominated by music created by
twenty-year-olds for teens and twenty-year-olds.  I just don't identify much
with poppy love songs as I ease ever closer to the grave.  I want to hear
from other people who have suffered for longer than twenty years (but I also
understand teenage angst, since sometimes I have those teenage/middleage
blues).  Those extra years of pain often make for more interesting songs.
But, I do not discount a twenty-year-old's contributions to Art.  Buddy
Holly, John Keats, Jimi Hendrix, Mozart.  Add your own favorites to the
list.  (To show how totally unhip I am, I will say I like Beck,
Byrds-influenced country-rockers, and a ton of electronic artists, all of
whom must still be in their twenties.  So tell me Beck is over and Americana
and electronica are dead and I'll go back to my rocking chair)

Conservative/Liberal Artists -- Joe RedWoodenBeads said it very nicely when
he pointed out he knows plenty of conservative artists and then listed some
well known left and right wing artists.  First off, I believe just about
everyone is capable of being an artist.  But I think we are probably talking
about professional or semi-professional artists when we try to identify the
political leanings of artists.  I think if you rounded up all the American
writers, artists, and musicians (and representatives of the other arts too)
and polled them, you would find they split along the lines of the country,
probably half liberal and half conservative, with (if I may bring a few more
percentage points in) a handful of anarchists and apolitical types.

You have to bear in mind that the New York and Los Angeles cultural centers
(bastions of liberalism, I think) are off-set by Nashville (C&W) and a
number of other cities (home of classical orchestras and jazz groups).  I
have my doubts that many Country and Western artists are liberals (Go,
Willie Nelson, go).  I know that the folkies and bluegrassers I jog elbows
with are frequently conservative, while the rock and rollers in town are
either liberals or hedonists that resemble liberals.  (Dare I mention my
lesbian friend who sings C&W and bluegrass, who more than likely voted for
Bush?)  When you drag the rest of the world into the equation, you have
whole cultures (Russia in the old days, Muslim countries nowadays) where any
American liberal artistic leanings are off-set by mandatory conservativism
(I'm thinking of  Russia's old ban on modern art and music and Muslim
governments that forbid left-wing expression).

What was the point again?  This list just seems to have more liberals than
conservatives.  If you went on Ted Nugent's website (if there is one, God
Forbid), you'd probably find a bunch of conservatives, libertarians, and an
anarchist or two.  If you go to a Billy Bragg website, you're going to find
flaming liberals.  I'm glad Happy attracts liberals and conservatives, young
and old, gay, straight.  Etc, etc.

By the way, my favorite pinko, communist, fellow-traveler, bleeding heart
singer is Bruce Cockburn.  He is an excellent artist, if a tiny bit
anti-American.  But he seems to dislike our Jingoism and not me personally.

About Shakespeare being gay.  I don't know that anyone has come to a
conclusion just yet.   He certainly had a strong platonic relationship with
whoever he is addressing his sonnets to.  The professors I had in college
leaned toward a platonic love.  Maybe he was bi.  He did marry and have a
daughter.  I figure if people are still arguing whether or not he wrote his
plays and the only records we have of him are his birth record and a will,
we probably can't make any concrete statements about his sexual leanings.

Don't know about Michelangelo.  He certainly appreciated male beauty, but he
painted plenty of female nudes too.  Is there a written account of him
enjoying the pleasures of male flesh?  I would be surprised if there is.

On a related note, when I was in graduate school I was out drinking with a
bunch of other students and we had a couple of professors in tow.  I
insisted on quizzing the resident expert on Walt Whitman as to whether or
not Whitman was gay, suggesting by my tone that only death could be worse
than being gay.  The professor assured me Walt Whitman was not gay.  I later
found out the professor I was talking to was a bisexual.  Moreover, I have
been reading Leaves of Grass the last couple of days, and I swear Whitman is
describing a homosexual liaison in a bar in one poem.  Whitman certainly
loved mankind, but he may also have loved man in a more than platonic way.

What was the point of that story?  Be more tolerant (I don't think gayness
is worse than death anymore), and sometimes if the writings of an author
hint that he or she is gay, he or she may be gay.

Bye,
Lyle

------------------------------

End of ecto-digest V6 #338
**************************