From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #283 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, July 22 1998 Volume 07 : Number 283 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: DC NHM gig [Christopher Gross ] Re: DC NHM gig [dmw ] Re: Pass me ny hair shirt bretheren , its repentance time [dlang ] Re: History of the World pts.4 through 739 [no Robyn] [Terrence M Marks <] Re: History of the World pts.4 through 739 [no Robyn] [Christopher Gross ] Re: DC NHM gig [Christopher Gross ] Re: Shall we go... further? (10% Robyn content) [Tom Clark ] before nmh in dc [dmw ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 02:36:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: DC NHM gig On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Bayard wrote: > > so are we doing anything before the NHM show day after tomorrow? we could > just meet in the red room, or... ben's chili bowl!!! heh heh. but do > they have anything for vegetarians? Ben's Chili Bowl would be fine with me (actually, anyplace would be fine with me, though if enough of us showed up in the red room, it might get really crowded once the I-live-in-the-Black-Cat crowd also shows up). Any other votes? And what time are y'all thinking of? - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 07:28:46 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: DC NHM gig On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Christopher Gross wrote: > > so are we doing anything before the NHM show day after tomorrow? we could > > Ben's Chili Bowl would be fine with me (actually, anyplace would be fine > other votes? And what time are y'all thinking of? ben's chili bowl isn't all that appealing to me. how about polly's? (two blocks away on u street) maybe 7ish? - - oh,no!! you've just read mail from doug = dmayowel@access.digex.net - - and dmw@mwmw.com ... get yr pathos at http://www.pathetic-caverns.com/ - - new reviews! tunes, books, flicks, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:38:16 -1850 From: dlang Subject: Re: Pass me ny hair shirt bretheren , its repentance time I really was not trying to get at EB with this post , in fact I was not trying to revive the dead theme at all, I really did look through my posts to Eb , felt guilty because I laid into him personally after I overreacted to his remark and wanted to apologise, his reply almost knocked me off my seat. Just goes to show how easy it is to get peoples back's up in this medium. I'm gonna retire to tape trading for a bit, I can't take the antagonism. So long,I'm gonna lurk, not post. dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 07:31:20 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: History of the World pts.4 through 739 [no Robyn] O.K., I don't have time to do this properly before running to work, but I must come to Eddie's partial defense... At 02:29 AM 7/21/98 -0400, Christopher Gross wrote: >> > direct American involvement in WWII. There was no other realistic >> choice >> that the US gov't could have taken.> >> well, we could have renounced imperialism altogether. *theoretically* >> we could have done that. but to renounce imperialism is really to >> renounce capitalism itself. and why would the bosses do something crazy >> like that? > >The automatic equation of capitalism and imperialism is Leninist >mumbo-jumbo unworthy of serious response (though I'll whip one out upon >request). I'm intrigued by the idea that the US could have avoided Pearl >Harbor by "renouncing imperialism." I've got to side with Christopher on the last sentence -- unless we were to go to 1898-99 and make some different choices then. As Christopher says later in his message, many folks then saw a conflict between our ostensible democratic beliefs and controlling foreign nations (though some opposed annexation of foreign countries b/c the idea of incorporating millions of dark-skinned people into the United States repulsed them, not strictly b/c of anti-imperialism!). I do take offense at "Leninist mumbo-jumbo unworthy of serious response" -- the only capitalist nations I've ever seen who didn't have empires were nations too small to seriously contend with the big boys for divvying up the world's brown people. And even some of 'em (Belgium, for instance) tried... >> and just to show that there weren't really any >> hard feelings, we put the fascists right back in power in italy, germany >> and japan (and korea, and vietnam, and france more or less. > >This is even farther from the truth than usual. Fascists were purged from >power pretty effectively in all these countries (except Korea and Vietnam, >which never had them). Some were cynically spared punishment because the >Allies wanted their technical or intelligence advice, but they weren't put >back in power (and the USSR was at least as guilty of this as the >capitalist countries). There was Kurt Waldheim, of course, but he wasn't >installed by the Allies, he was elected by his fellow Austrians, long >after the war, and only because he concealed his fascist past. This is where Eddie is much more right. Maybe ex-fascists weren't allowed the top positions in government, but they certainly were utilized extensively in private industry, in local government (which one could argue meant more in rebuilding Germany than Adenauer-level positions), and, when we decided to rebuild West Germany's armed forces in the late '40s and early '50s, in the military. And as for "Vietnam, which never had them," the moment the western allies occupied the nation in 1947, the first thing they did was rearm the Japanese to use them against Ho Chi Minh and his government. >> killed >> 100,000 people in greece to put the fascists in the saddle there. > >What? The deaths in the Greek civil war are at least as much the >responsibility of the Communists as of their enemies. And AFAIK Greece >has never had a fascist regime. A garden-variety military dictatorship or >two, perhaps, but that's not the same as fascism; and it was the work of >the Greeks themselves, not those nasty capitalist imperialists. Oh, come now -- ever hear of a little thing called the Truman Doctrine? I don't know how things would have turned out in Greece minus US intervention (with $$$, equipment, and "advisors"), but some of the guilt has to be laid at the US' doorstep. [And the USSR's, for that matter, but I tend to think of the Cold War as something made a whole lot worse by Truman et al, but that's another essay...] This is where Eddie is absolutely 100% right across the board -- the U.S. never really uses "democracy" as the litmus test on whether to support/finance/aid and abet a foreign regime; what matters is "is the guy friendly to U.S. business?" Marcos, Noreiga, Batista, the Shah (who we restored to power in 1954, ousting a much more democratic gov't which wanted to -- horrors! -- nationalize Iran's oil interests!), etc. All nasty people, and all OUR creations. Anti-communism was certainly a part of this, but United Fruit and Exxon I think are just as important. Is this unique to American imperialism? Nah. But with all the lip service the US pays to "democracy" and "civil rights," there's a layer of hypocrisy in our "empire" that perhaps surpasses others. later, Miles =============================================================== "Gettin' piss-drunk, givin' the players a hard time, throwin' a chicken bone at the cop - that's what baseball is all about." -- a lout from Cleveland two rows in front of me at a Tigers game, waxing rhapsodic about how Indians games used to be Miles Goosens outdoorminer@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~outdoorminer/miles =============================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:23:29 -0400 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Fwd: From www.mylaunch.com >The interesting thing about the project--which will also be released on >home video and possibly on vinyl--is that each configuration will have >slightly different material, Gershon adds. Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! This brings tears to my CollectorSkum eyes. Time to start schmoozing my Warner Bros. contacts... But "possibly on vinyl"? I could swear I've heard mention of a gatefold-sleeve double album. Am I wrong on this? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:31:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: Re: History of the World pts.4 through 739 [no Robyn] > This is where Eddie is much more right. Maybe ex-fascists weren't allowed > the top positions in government, but they certainly were utilized > extensively in private industry, in local government (which one could argue > meant more in rebuilding Germany than Adenauer-level positions), and, when > we decided to rebuild West Germany's armed forces in the late '40s and > early '50s, in the military. And as for "Vietnam, which never had them," The implication was that America put said fascists back in power. There is a HUGE difference between the US deciding to put ex-Nazis in charge of Germany and some German company deciding to hire ex-Nazis. I tend to doubt that the Allies had much say in local German politics. If the people of Hamburg thought that so-and-so would be a good mayor, and so-and-so had worked with the Nazis in the past (which, mind you, approximately half of Europe did, in one way or another) then I doubt that the Allies could have realistically prevented so-and-so from being elected mayor. I'm of the opinion that in Germany in 1946, there were too many ex-Nazis for businesses to summarily decide not to hire them all. Now, I'm not going to deny that the US has made other political decisions with primarily financial motives, but WWII and the reconstruction of Europe weren't two of them. Terrence Marks normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:53:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: History of the World pts.4 through 739 [no Robyn] On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Miles Goosens wrote: > O.K., I don't have time to do this properly before running to work, Don't worry about it -- you're not the only one writing hastily, without research and without proofreading.... > I do take offense at "Leninist mumbo-jumbo unworthy > of serious response" -- the only capitalist nations I've ever seen who > didn't have empires were nations too small to seriously contend with the > big boys for divvying up the world's brown people. And even some of 'em > (Belgium, for instance) tried... Sorry about my sneering tone earlier! But anyway -- you could take "capitalist" out of your paragraph above and it would still be true. If you only look at classic 19th Century style imperialism, then all of the imperialists were capitalist countries (Europe and the US) because they were the only countries capable of it at the time. If you look at earlier history, or the 20th Century, you'll see that *every* powerful nation, capitalist or not, engaged in imperialism of some sort. (And in many though not all cases successful imperialism made that nation more powerful, leading to a vicious cycle.) And as you say, the smaller, weaker capitalist countries weren't capable of maintaining empires. In short, capitalism does not equal imperialism. > This is where Eddie is much more right. Maybe ex-fascists weren't allowed > the top positions in government, but they certainly were utilized > extensively in private industry, in local government (which one could argue > meant more in rebuilding Germany than Adenauer-level positions), and, when > we decided to rebuild West Germany's armed forces in the late '40s and > early '50s, in the military. I think someone else (Terrance?) already replied to this. To put it briefly: there were far too many ex-fascists to keep them all out of any position of any power for all time. But the Western Allies did not, as Eddie said, put fascists back into positions of power. > And as for "Vietnam, which never had them," > the moment the western allies occupied the nation in 1947, the first thing > they did was rearm the Japanese to use them against Ho Chi Minh and his > government. Vietnam had a Japanese occupation government, but there were no Vietnamese fascists per se. I'll have to look up the incident you mention, which sounds vaguely familiar. Even assuming it happened exactly as you say, using Japanese troops is not the same as putting fascists in power. > Oh, come now -- ever hear of a little thing called the Truman Doctrine? I > don't know how things would have turned out in Greece minus US intervention > (with $$$, equipment, and "advisors"), but some of the guilt has to be laid > at the US' doorstep. [And the USSR's, for that matter, but I tend to think > of the Cold War as something made a whole lot worse by Truman et al, but > that's another essay...] Perhaps I wasn't clear the first time. Eddie laid the whole guilt for the Greek civil war on the West, and I responded by saying that the Communists were at least as guilty (since they were the ones trying to take over the government by force). This is getting off-topic from our off-topic topic, but how do you think "Truman et al." made the Cold War worse? > This is where Eddie is absolutely 100% right across the board -- the U.S. > never really uses "democracy" as the litmus test on whether to > support/finance/aid and abet a foreign regime; what matters is "is the guy > friendly to U.S. business?" Marcos, Noreiga, Batista, the Shah (who we > restored to power in 1954, ousting a much more democratic gov't which > wanted to -- horrors! -- nationalize Iran's oil interests!), etc. All > nasty people, and all OUR creations. Anti-communism was certainly a part > of this, but United Fruit and Exxon I think are just as important. I'm afraid you're contradicting yourself: first you agree with Eddie that business interests are the only important determinant of US policy, then you admit that "anti-communism was certainly a part." ... The truth is really more complicated than you, Eddie or I have said so far. US business interests and anti-communism were so inextricably entwined that in most cases it's difficult to say which was more important. But to deny that there was any factor but business interests is simply incorrect. And in my opinion, for all the mistakes, blunders and even crimes that the US committed during the Cold War, we were still on the right side, fighting the good fight (or at least the better fight). And our cooperation with right-wing dictatorships in the defense of US interests was really not much different than our cooperation with a certain large left-wing dictatorship during World War II.... - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:54:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: DC NHM gig On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, dmw wrote: > ben's chili bowl isn't all that appealing to me. how about polly's? > (two blocks away on u street) maybe 7ish? Sounds good to me. (Hey, I haven't been to Polly's since the night of my first Uz Jsme Doma show....) - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 98 10:35:43 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Shall we go... further? (10% Robyn content) On 7/20/98 6:07 PM, Ben wrote: >BTW - has anyone ever gone "on tour" with Robyn, a la the Deadheads who >would follow them from show to show? Obviously, I doubt if anyone has gone >on an extensive journey to see an entire run of RH shows, but has anyone >caught, say, more than 5 shows in a row? I was living north of Boston when Robyn swung through during the Queen Elvis Tour. I saw him at Berkelee School of Music in Boston, T.T. The Bear's Place in Cambridge, and up in New Hampshire at Hampton Beach. I seem to recall it was four shows total so either I'm missing a venue, or he played somewhere twice. Of course it's not really "on tour" since I went home each night... - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:35:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Danielle Subject: Re: History of the (white, male, military) World (sideline) and a bit of other stuff Chris wrote: > And > in my opinion, for all the mistakes, blunders and even crimes that the US > committed during the Cold War, we were still on the right side, fighting > the good fight (or at least the better fight). Disclaimer: historian or not, my area of expertise lies pretty exclusively on the home front, and I won't even attempt to compete with all you military/politically oriented people. In fact, I find study of the mechanics of battle, and treaties, and so forth, obviously necessary but mind-numbingly dull. I'm a social historian, so unlike Terrence, I'm much more interested in underlying assumptions than obvious cause-and-effect. Which is why I'm interrupting the melee to ask Chris what he means by the above statement. In a nutshell, what was so good about being involved in the Cold War on 'our' side? (Yes, at that point NZ hadn't rejected nuclear weaponry, so the US was going to save us from the 'yellow peril'. Well, after 1956, anyway.) I've *never* understood this, and no one's ever been able to explain it to me adequately. Being anti-Communist was good *how*? Why all the moral hoopla? Help me out here... As for toilets, Dignan - Otago said: >hmmm. the only outside toilets I've seen in Dunedin are at Carisbrook. You >sure you're thinking of the right Dunedin? :) Those tales of student flats with an outside dunny are all myths? I'm deeply disappointed. (Speaking of sporting grounds, I was watching a history of NZ cricket on video recently, and dammit, what the hell happened to the team after Howarth left? Why do we suck so much now? ) I'm glad someone liked Mallrats as much as me, Capuchin. Must be my weakness for John Hughes flicks. Kevin Smith is like a 'hip' Hughes, or something. Danielle, unashamedly seeing the rereleased Grease tonight NP The Go-Betweens. Pretty pretty... _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 20:08:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: History of people of all races and both sexes, military or civilian On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Danielle wrote: > Chris wrote: > > And > > in my opinion, for all the mistakes, blunders and even crimes that > the US > > committed during the Cold War, we were still on the right side, > fighting > > the good fight (or at least the better fight). [Disclaimer: The above was written at work and in haste -- in haste not because I was feeling guilty about writing Fegmail on work time but because tech support needed to update some software on my computer. If I had had more time, I would've gone back and at least made it sound a little less corny.] > Which is why I'm interrupting the melee > to ask Chris what he means by the above statement. In a nutshell, what > was so good about being involved in the Cold War on 'our' side? (Yes, > at that point NZ hadn't rejected nuclear weaponry, so the US was going > to save us from the 'yellow peril'. Well, after 1956, anyway.) I've > *never* understood this, and no one's ever been able to explain it to > me adequately. Being anti-Communist was good *how*? Why all the moral > hoopla? Help me out here... Well, because Soviet-style Communism was an evil system, distinguishable from fascism mainly by having nicer-sounding ostensible goals. Resistance to the spread of this system worked to the benefit of those who would otherwise have lived under it. Of course the anti-Communist countries resisted Communism in defense of their own interests, not from disinterested altruism. And many evil acts were committed in the name of anti-Communism. I don't deny either of these facts, but neither do I think that they invalidated the cause itself. Moral hoopla? Isn't that the kiwi slang for a church dance? I fail to see the relevence here.... - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 20:51:03 -0400 From: "Marcy Tanter" Subject: test, sort of Hey y'all. We're boiling down here, over here, up here (?) in Texas. If anyone wants to come visit, come on down but be warned!! We're thinking of going to Colorado to cool off. Anybody over there who can tell me if it's worth it? Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:03:48 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: before nmh in dc 'pologies to the non-locals for all these territorial leakings... but anyway, i'd suggested polly's @ 7ish, but neal wisely points out that this could involve a lot of standing around at the 'cat from 8.30 til ten or so waiting for band 1 of 3. (btw: there's a bit of a 'buzz' on about of montreal (perhaps just because of the "of" in their name) but i haven't seen/heard 'em yet. and why does phil krauth sound so familiar? can't quite place it) neal thought 7:45ish or 8ish would be a better meeting time. whatchall think? polly's ok wit' folks? any fegs participating except bayard chris gene and mary? it'd prolly be polite to take this blather off list... - -- d. p.s.: public service announcement: if you have the chance, see the loud family on their current tour (now headed down the east coast). - - oh,no!! you've just read mail from doug = dmayowel@access.digex.net - - and dmw@mwmw.com ... get yr pathos at http://www.pathetic-caverns.com/ - - new reviews! tunes, books, flicks, etc. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #283 *******************************