From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #312 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, August 18 1998 Volume 07 : Number 312 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #311 [edoxtato@ssax.com] from randi - re - Antwoman [Tim Fuller ] Peter Cook and Dudley Moore [Danielle ] Peter Cook 'n' Dudley Moore [Marshall Joseph Armintor ] Politics & gaffer tape, Celine & Peter [james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz] Re: from randi - presidential content - sorry, no Robyn [Mark_Gloster@3co] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:49:39 -0500 From: edoxtato@ssax.com Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #311 Eb writ: >PS The most (only?) interesting Grateful Dead-influenced album I've heard >in quite awhile is the new Gomez disc, Bring It On. (It's on Virgin.) Those >of you equipped with the Dead chromosome might want to take a listen. Even if you have no Dead chromosome. I heard Gomez on Jools Holland's "Later" program this last spring and they were outstanding. Is there a US release of this disc? There wasn't one a few weeks ago, but it's been awhile since I checked. Look after yerselves... - -Doc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 17:57:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Fuller Subject: from randi - re - Antwoman Since woj and Mike Godwin mentioned Antwoman - I'll give you some of the explanation *I* was given. Jennifer Blair - the original Antwoman - is NOT handling Robyn's merchandising any more - it makes sense...if you think about it... Steve Martin, who is Homer's/Tim's road manager, *used to be* Robyn's manager too. Not to get into exactly what happened - but that has led to Jen *not* doing Robyn's merchandising. I thought this was known by everyone - I got a letter explaining the whole thing... What about everyone else? I don't want to write what was told to me in private - but Steve is no longer Robyn's manager - and Jen Blair is no longer Antwoman. If anyone wants me to pursue this further, I can...if this is enough info for now...then let it be ;} fading back into yesterday, Randi *what scares you most will set you free* - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:13:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Danielle Subject: Peter Cook and Dudley Moore Capuchin says: > I seem to recall someone saying that Dudley Moore and Peter Cook > had a television show a long time ago, but I guess I never believed they > were actually funny. I guess Peter Cook can make any partner seem also > talented. You know, there's a time, almost always in your teenage years, where Derek and Clive records seem *really really* funny. You have to be quite drunk, or quite stoned, and you have to be lying around giggling, with friends of a similar inclination... and all of a sudden, you break through some sort of maturity barrier, and discover that the 'as I was walking down the street one day...' song, or even the 'you fucking cunt' sketch, can make you almost helpless with laughter. Don't ask me how it happens. It just does. Danielle, trying hard not to think about the 1500 word essay due by Monday _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 17:13:07 -0500 (CDT) From: Marshall Joseph Armintor Subject: Peter Cook 'n' Dudley Moore << I just saw this film the other day. Brilliant. Did I mention that on list? I seem to recall raving about it for a couple of days. I seem to recall someone saying that Dudley Moore and Peter Cook had a television show a long time ago, but I guess I never believed they were actually funny. I guess Peter Cook can make any partner seem also talented.>> Mmm. Anyone here familiar with their incarnation as Derek and Clive? I didn't know the records existed until I made it to England. Every now and then, when I'm in a foul mood, I pull out _Come Again_ and feel the nasty vibes to my bones. It's somehow cleansing. For the uninitiated, in 1972, Cook and Moore were doing some studio recording (I don't know what for, exactly) one day and proceeded to get totally plastered. They then adopted these Cockney personae, Derek and Clive, and improvised some of the most surreal, scatological, hair-curling (and also funny) material there's ever been. The tapes were heavily bootlegged, so they did a couple of proper albums. They kind of compare favorably with Richard Pryor's early stuff, if that's any indication...but Pryor has a much more positive worldview, as it were. marshall ___________________________________________________________________ Marshall Armintor/mojo@rice.edu/Grad.English Dept. Rice University/ Fondren IT Guy x5833 <<"Rock music is mostly about moving big black boxes from one side of town to the other in the back of your car." - John Thompson, of Pere Ubu>> ___________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 18:16:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Fuller Subject: from Randi - webring yes? webring no? > On Sun, 16 Aug 1998...woj sven-woj sprach: > hmmm. i think webrings are not a bad idea as they allow related sites > to be tied more closely together. on the other hand, there aren't > *that* many robyn-related sites on the web and most of them link back > to each other anyways. so, in a sense, we already have a webring, just > not an organized one. > that said, i don't have a problem with having one and, if no one else > wants to volunteer and the general consensus is that we should, i will > set it up. So - what does everyone think? I know Dave Lang said he thought it might be cool... We can all pick up Robyn links from woj's site - or have a more "official" type webring - which would be good for anyone that has a personal website with Robyn content that we don't know about... I'm just lazy - since being in the hospital I've just been going through webrings to see different sites on topics that are interesting to me. I think they are kinda neat - but - my Robyn site is far away from being up and operable - so I don't have a say in that respect. Webring yes? Webring no? Or does no one really care, which is okay - - - but speak! Speak I beg! fading back into dreams of Antwoman and webrings, Rand *what scares you most will set you free* - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 18:28:08 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: from randi - presidential content - sorry, no Robyn In a message dated 98-08-18 17:43:07 EDT, you write: << > May I also remind people of the definition of 'impeach'. Impeach > does not mean to remove from office. It is simply the process by which > a government official is formally charged and tried *in order* to > remove him or her from office if the charges are determined to be true > by a 2/3 vote of both the congress and the Senate. >> I'll be surprised if Clinton slipped up during his testimony. I'll bet that everything he admitted to doin' with Monica will fall just outside whatever definition of "sexual interaction" he denied having with her in the Paula Jones case. If he didn't commit perjury, then there won't be any grounds for ol' Kenny to call for an impeachment hearing (of course). Sure, he was lying all along about being involved with Lewinsky, but I'll bet he slithers neatly through the loopholes. By the way, I thought the little speech last night was really good. It didn't change my opinion at all, but, in my case, Clinton would be glad to hear that -- that is, I think he's doing a fine job running the country and I wish they'd leave him to it. - ------Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 18:34:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Fuller Subject: from rand - send Clinton comments to me - *not* the list s.v.p. Ummm - hi - again. After reading Eb's comment about wishing politics were not going to be debated again on the list - {sorry to paraphrase Eb - but I'm quite sure that's what you meant :-} - maybe everyone should email me privately only - - in regards to Bill's speech and the questions I asked. I really asked everyone in fegland because we seem to have a bunch of really smart people on this list - but I don't want anyone hating me for bringing up topics that - A - are not Robyn related B - are politically related - - so don't mail the list - send comments to me - as several generous and intelligent fegs already have. Remember - I'm just a young {well 31 year-old} Canadian girl who really wanted the opinion of people I respect... I didn't know who else to ask Clinton questions to - except the list as a whole... So - email me - don't post - and maybe - just maybe - people will forgive *my* bringing up politics on the list... Thank you and - good day/night ;} Rand p.s. - I look *very* forward to more off-list commentaries :} ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:18:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: from randi - presidential content - sorry, no Robyn I probably shouldn't do this. On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Tim Fuller wrote: > I have a question for all fegs, but especially those who live in the > States, and those who voted for Bill Clinton. Because of a slip in responsibility and changing residence and a dozen other things, I didn't vote in the last national election at all. > Does his speech make any difference to any of you? It's an admission and eliminates the "reasonable doubt" that might have come up if he'd stuck to his cover story. In that much, it makes a difference. > Do you care? I feel I should. I'm not sure what that means. > I understand Watergate, because that was *abuse* of the powers of presidency. > Do you feel Clinton has abused the power of his presidency? You don't feel that having sex with someone that works for you is an abuse of power? I do. It's a very sticky subject. I don't think anyone who is in a position of direct power over another should engage in a relationship with that person. It's just not right. > Has he committed perjury and should be impeached? Tough call. Legalisms. Some lawyers will sit down and try to figure out if he did or didn't. If he did break the law, he should be impeached. That's just the rules, in my eyes. No exceptions. Now, whether or not congress has the votes (or the legal justification) to get a full 2/3 on it... > Did you believe his speech tonight - was he really remorseful in your eyes? You have to suspect an apology speech that uses none of the words "apology", "apologize" or "sorry". The speech was a "butt out" speech, not an apology speech. > Do you think his private life is *his private life* - or does being > President allow everyone in the country to be a party to all he does? It's not his private life if it happens with a white house intern. I don't scope out my underlings for possible sex in the back offices. > To me, he did lie...on the other hand...it's his wife's problem. The lie may or may not be his wife's problem (who says he ever lied to his wife? and who says he legally lied?). He only admits to being misleading. > I realize that if Clinton was in his first term, he'd never get elected > for a second term - but do you think he should resign? I'd be for resignation if it didn't mean Tipper Gore would be first lady. > Does the lying bug you? Not as much as the sexual harassment. (But is it sexual harassment if the girl wants it? We all know it was her plan all along. She practically said that blowing the president was her whole reason for getting the internship. Did I ever tell you guys about that party at Lewis & Clark...?) > If he still does his job, does it matter what he does in his private life > - or does it make him less of a President? Yipes. No. I don't think his private life matters. But this is his public life. She wasn't some chick he picked up in a bar. This was an employee. > I think if one took a survey, there would be a percentage of married men > who have had adulterous relationships. > There would be a percentage of women who had done the same thing. > So, do you see the President as someone who is more than human, someone > who should be able to rise and meet the highest degree of morality - or do > you give him a break because he is just a man? We knew he had affairs. That came out pretty clearly during the '92 election and I think it became very clear that the american public doesn't care about sex offenses in Democratic candidates (Republican candidates have to answer to the Christian Right so they have no chance of being accepted as an adulterer). I'm cool with it. Whatever. His wife knows what's going on... his kids know what's going on... so be it. Personally, I don't think he's done much as a president, but he hasn't made things worse, which is a hell of a lot more than I could say for George Bush. > Has he abused his presidential power - as happened during the Watergate > scandal - or is he some guy who cheats on his wife? He abused his power, sure. And yeah, he's just some guy who cheats on his wife. It's ludicrous to make a case comparison between Watergate and this mess, but I'm the sort of person to believe that if a crime is commited, you should be treated appropriately. If the president of my company was doing a kick ass job and making us all kinds of money, but then went out and broke the law, would the police say "oh, he's doing such a good job, I don't think we should bring charges against him." Absolutely not. I'm not saying that Clinton broke the law because I'm not an expert in that sort of thing, but if it looks very much like he did, he should be tried. That's impeachment. If he's not guilty (or, more correctly, if congress doesn't vote guilty), then let him finish his job like Andrew Johnson. If he is voted guilty, that would decide that, wouldn't it? See, Johnson didn't get re-elected because of this scandal and impeachment process. Clinton, we all know, wouldn't be re-elected after this mess. But does he have to worry about it? Nope. That's what term limitations do; they make an office holder no longer liable to the public. That means he can do whatever he likes as long as he doesn't break the law. And I guess some folks think he can even do that. > I didn't really like his speech tonight, mixing politics with personal > details - but on the other hand - was he pushed into doing that because > of Kenneth Starr? The speech last night was all about counter-attack and not at all about explanation or apology. yeah, he was pushed to responding, but not necessarily in that manner. That was a choice. Could he have done anything else? I don't know. I think bringing up the time and expense of the Starr investigation was pure bullshit. If someone broke the law, does it matter how much it costs to bring them to justice? > Does it make you afraid that he's lied about the politics of his > Presidency - or does his personal life mean nothing to you? Of course he's lied about politics and policies. We all know that about everyone who's ever decided to run for elected office (ok, that's maybe a touch cynical, but I think it's mostly true). I won't answer to the repeated "personal life" line. > It's not like other Presidents haven't lied - it's just that they were > policy lies - rather than personal life lies. Um... and most of them weren't under oath. If a person lies under oath, it had better be a matter of national security. Is it ok to lie under oath in a service station hold-up trial because it would mean your brother would go to jail? Nope. He says he misled the investigators (he didn't say he lied) because he wanted to protect his wife and daughter. That's not ok in my book. He wasn't protecting lives or anything. He was protecting the feelings of his wife and daughter. I'm not a cold person, but I don't think someone who cares more about their family's emotional state than the law should be running the country. That's just me. And that's just if the law was broken. > I guess I'll shut up now, but I'm really interested in what you think > about the American people's right to know about their President's private > life, or are policy issues the only thing you take into consideration? Lying under oath isn't a private life issue. Having sex with someone who sees you as an authority figure is not a private issue (takes two to tango... you're hurting somebody). That's that. Not as grumpy today (if a bit cynical about politics), Je. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 20:45:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: fegring - ohh yeah. I vote "Yay" for a fegring, but only if I can be "in" it. I'm working on my site tons more than ever, which is not necessarily saying much, but progress is happening. There are lots of other plans in the works too. Dlang dlang, if you could write me with the lowdown on what you're doing that would be great, just so i don't duplicate it. (And if your pal with the server is not able to host you for whatever reason, i can do it.) Last night i dreamed i was hangin' with the fegs... i guess i will be soon fer real. Please come to Mark's house. Eb, was it Blurp? I thought it was Glurp (and Slurp)? Blurp DOES get over 200 more hits.... Quail, some robynesque stuff in that gossip column on your site at work. A giant frozen squid arrives in NY- are you going to go see it (eat it?) =b ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:04:51 +1200 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: Politics & gaffer tape, Celine & Peter >I have a question for all fegs, but especially those who live in the >States, and those who voted for Bill Clinton. > >Does his speech make any difference to any of you? > >Do you care? America's most respected presidents have often been known philanderers. Ask anyone to name a post WWII US president, and the name Kennedy will be high on their list of memorable names. And ISTR that a president from early this century (Teddy Roosevelt, perhaps?) was involved in a scandal involving his mistress having a baby...during his election campaign! >The biggest "sex scandal" we ever had in Canada was when Maggie Trudeau - > >{the now ex-wife of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who may be >one of the few PMs anyone outside of Canada has ever heard of ;} :) Smith, Mackenzie King, John A Macdonald, Cretin...uh...Chretien >I cannot even imagine the same thing happening in Canada - maybe our >Prime Ministers are past the age of "sowing their oats." ;} one of NZ's most respected PMs (or hated, depending on who you talk to), David Lange, divorced his wife and married his press secretary after strong rumours that something had been going on between them for some time. Didn't really raise much of a fuss. In Australia Bob Hawke broke down in tears when he admitted his extramarital dalliances on TV, but I don't think it affected his political popularity. The media always hypes up potential political leaders [1] as being rugged, sport-loving, red blooded 'men of the people'. Which usually means having that high-testosterone, virile appeal. If that's what you want to elect, of course that's what you'll get. The question is, has it affected their ability to lead a nation? >It's not like other Presidents haven't lied - it's just that they were >policy lies - rather than personal life lies. which is more important as a judge of the ability to lead a government? ><a Celine Dion record?>> > > Soccer moms -- present, future and past. If all you want from music is >something that doesn't make you feel edgy (since you're pretty stressed out to >beign with), and you have no real taste in music, then Celine Dion is probably >a good choice. Celine Dion's 'music' sure the hell makes ME edgy! > e> gaffer tape = masking tape > >Duct tape, actually. Real 'Gaffer' brand tape is/was a bit more like >masking tape than duct tape, but every stage engineer knows it as that >half-silver gooey stuff. not duct or masking, but closer to duct tape, which will do as an emergency. But all recording engineers know that Gaffer tape is like the force in Star Wars.It has a dark side and a light side, and it holds the universe together. James [1] since both our main political parties in NZ are led by women, this may not apply so much here at the moment. PS Latest NZ political news, the National/NZ First coalition is officially over, but PM Jenny Shipley will struggle on supported by a ragtag assortment of ACT, United NZ, Independent, and rebel NZ First MPs. She desperately needs some gaffer tape, and pundits predict an election within six months (the next one's not due until November '99). PPS wasn't Robeson eventually hounded into retirement by Joe McCarthy? PPPS combining political and movie threads: if you can find it (and I'm not sure it's ever been released on video, sadly), seek out (the one known as...) Peter Cook's great political satire "The rise and rise of Jonathan Rimmer" PPPPS sorry - got a job lot of PS's, and decided to use them all up at once. "Buy four, get one free!" Here's the free one: PPPPPS. Use it at your own leisure. James Dignan___________________________________ You talk to me Deptmt of Psychology, Otago University As if from a distance ya zhivu v' 50 Norfolk Street And I reply. . . . . . . . . . Dunedin, New Zealand with impressions chosen from another time steam megaphone (03) 455-7807 (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 19:04:46 -0700 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: Re: from randi - presidential content - sorry, no Robyn I have an opinion on this matter, and I think you are all entitled to it. ;) If you haven't deleted this message already, it could be too late for you. Randi types with the grace of many fingers like this: >I have a question for all fegs, but especially those who live in the >States, and those who voted for Bill Clinton. I voted for him. I've been a member of the Green party for ten years. I have had a measurable degree of regret about not having voted for the candidate of my own party in the last election. >Does his speech make any difference to any of you? Yea. I think he should have said something and pretty much said the minimum. I would have probably included some of his message about Kenneth "Vitriolic Egomaniac Showboat" Starr. >Do you care? Yes. >The biggest "sex scandal" we ever had in Canada was when Maggie Trudeau - >{the now ex-wife of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who may be >one of the few PMs anyone outside of Canada has ever heard of ;} >- *hung out* with the Rolling Stones..while Pierre and Maggie were still >married. I certainly hope she didn't try to get Keith Richards to have sex with her due to her high place in politics. Come to think of it, I don't want to have those kinds of pictures in my head. >I'm not sure what the President's speech does for those of you who are >American. The whole sharade is an embarrassment. Billy "boyo I display some poor judgement at times" Pres Clinton should not have been so pathetically weak as to share "DNA material" with an employee. This is all after he's been under constant attack on "character issues" Monica "I'm going off to Washington with my presidential knee pads so I can give ol' Billy-Poor-Judgement a hummer" Lewinski saved her dress for her own gains later. Kenneth "Robert Dornan's mad dog twin" Starr has been beyond evil in going everywhere he could in trying to find anything to _get_ Billy "Mr. HappyPants" Clinton. Almost anyone from our government who speaks publicly about this episode is stricken with a bizzarre inability to acknowledge the bile of the side he or she is taking. This makes the matter more and more circuslike and further erodes America's ability to set this matter aside and move onward. I am not proud of the fact that I almost look forward to the backlash by the Democrats at Kenneth Starr's, Orrin Hatch's, and Dan "I can't believe we're quoting this guy in the press" QuaYlE's vitriolic spew. It won't be healthy for the country, but neither has the last six years of reviling the President. >I cannot even imagine the same thing happening in Canada - maybe our >Prime Ministers are past the age of "sowing their oats." ;} Billy "Would You Like Some Candy Little Girl" Clinton will probably still have "sex issues" after he's ninety. >If Jean Chreten {our Prime Minister} had an extra-marital affair - I think >the Canadian people would be severely disappointed - but I can't imagine >it escalating to the point it has in the States. I think it is more than just an extramarital affair in the appearance of obvious impropriety. I wouldn't date a subordinate when I was a manager, and would feel pretty weird about someone who did. Even though, in this case, I don't think he was a predator who stole the soul of a virtuous woman, as his detractors would like you to believe. >I understand Watergate, because that was *abuse* of the powers of presidency. Watergate was felony conspiracy. This is only pathetic weak stupidity. >Do you feel Clinton has abused the power of his presidency? Well, I think a strong case has been made for her throwing herself at him. He has probably used his power of celebrity, and certainly violated the sacred trust of sacrosanct employer/employee relations. >Has he committed perjury and should be impeached? Perjury, probably. Impeachment no way. As this involved generally a private matter, though a huge mistake, I have a lot of compassion for his decision to lie under oath, which is the crime that he would be charged with. I'm sure he felt that he was protecting his daughter, his wife, and the US economy. Of course, the whole matter could have been prevented by him using some of his other brain in the first place. >Did you believe his speech tonight - was he really remorseful in your eyes? I probably do think he's remorseful. He has paid dearly for his errors. He's got to be remorseful for his own difficulties. I don't know how he feels about others. >Do you think his private life is *his private life* - or does being >President allow everyone in the country to be a party to all he does? This is one of the sick artifacts of the ways we feed on celebrity here. Our selective proctoscopy of our public servants, and our need to deem them saviours or saints has led us to force them to lose most of their blood on the altar of television, thus making the job of public service completely unpalatable to those who for the right reasons would consider entering public office. >To me, he did lie...on the other hand...it's his wife's problem. Hillary is one of the strongest women in world history. She has held up under the fiercest attacks anyone in public life has had to endure in my memory. She probably is relieved that this takes some of the focus off her. I feel sorry for Chelsea, who is trying to get an education while people around her pin~atize her about her parents. I also think that this business has hurt the womens' movement. The American political system has been stuck for 7 months over dick juice. This chapter has become the world's problem. >I realize that if Clinton was in his first term, he'd never get elected >for a second term - but do you think he should resign? Not a chance. >Does the lying bug you? Yes, but I honestly do understand it. >If he still does his job, does it matter what he does in his private life >- or does it make him less of a President? It matters. I think I will throw it onto the pile of my disappointments about the man. I do believe that people can't completely divorce what they do away from their work from their work. It does seem that in contrast to Kennedy, he is being roasted for being caught. It seems that the lesson, right or wrong, is that one simply shouldn't get caught. Kennedy, Johnson, and Bush all had pretty well-documented affairs. Kennedy is known for being shot in office and his great legislation that he tried to pass (unsuccessfully- it was Johnson that got it passed after JFK died.) It seems that Johnson had some prior knowledge of Kennedy's assassination, though history will generally remember him for escalating the war. Bush will go down in history for blowing chunx on the Japanese PM, rather than having much to do with Iran-Contra. Bill "I Can't Seem To Keep My Pants Up" Clinton will probably be considered a lame duck now, not to say that it wasn't going to begin soon. He will also go down in history with the disgrace of doing Ms. "Kneepadded DNA Splashwoman" Lewinski. I don't think you can completely separate the man from how the world takes him, even if you believe that his biggest mark is blown out of proportion. >I think if one took a survey, there would be a percentage of married men >who have had adulterous relationships. >There would be a percentage of women who had done the same thing. Many people. I'm sure statistically, it would lean toward the men doing this, but that means that there must be some females who are working overtime to service that population. I just realized that unless there is significant one-sex percentages, "adulterous relationships" will work out evenly. I also think I should say at this point that some people have arrangements about this. Not everybody has the same feelings about what love needs to mean. >So, do you see the President as someone who is more than human, someone >who should be able to rise and meet the highest degree of morality - or do >you give him a break because he is just a man? Yes and yes. I think he should see his actions as having an effect on others. I also think that people should stop making gods out of public figures, only to feel shattered when they murder their girlfriends or strangle their coaches. If we all spent 1% of the time we currently do examining at our celebrities making our own lives and those our loved ones, we'd all be much better off. >Has he abused his presidential power - as happened during the Watergate >scandal - or is he some guy who cheats on his wife? Some of each. The reality here is that it is only a sin if you get caught with your "DNA material" on somebody's dress that they kept in safe hiding in case they were ever in trouble. >I didn't really like his speech tonight, mixing politics with personal >details - but on the other hand - was he pushed into doing that because >of Kenneth Starr? I think he should have said that he was sorry. He should have been very specific with the people to whom he was sorry. Kenneth Starr would have leaked every possible detail of his testimony by now if Billy "Happy Pants that like to dance" Clinton hadn't spoken. >Does it make you afraid that he's lied about the politics of his >Presidency - or does his personal life mean nothing to you? Every president has lied. Bill didn't invent it. I'm much more disturbed by his judgement in the liason matter than by his efforts to keep it mum. >It's not like other Presidents haven't lied - it's just that they were >policy lies - rather than personal life lies. Probably every one of them lied about both. I think it would be silly of me to be crestfallen about someone in public office not being perfect. I really have come prepared in life to hold people with respect, yet not have high expectations that they will act to my own expectations of myself. I'd be a great deal less happy if I did. >I guess I'll shut up now, but I'm really interested in what you think >about the American people's right to know about their President's private >life, or are policy issues the only thing you take into consideration? I think people should get a life. We, the world, the stock market, and our artistic efforts should not live or die on the behavior of one man. It is hard to separate a person from what he does, but we can take the whole judgement thing so far in was that come back to hurt ourselves. I don't ever want to be looked at with the kind of scrutiny that Bill "DNA Love Material Gunman" Clinton has had. >I don't know if this should be a list topic or not - so if it isn't, >please email me with your thoughts - otherwise - I'll read it one the list :} I would rather talk about this than argue about what gauge strings with which to garotte the surviving members of the Grateful Dead. Anyday. - -Markg (who has not slept with Ms. Lewinski, though would not be inclined to admit it, except at gunpoint.) ps. I should put up some RH content on tigermonkey.com, so I can join the ring. I'll probably do some new GF stuff on it soooooon. pps. I saw _Evil Dead_, _Evil Dead II_, and _Army of Darkness_ over the weekend. I really like the latter two, and if you can handle comic gore, these are the best I've seen. Plus chyx dig Bruce Campbell, who's in all three. I also saw some previously taped South Park episodes. ppps. we lost one partygoer. More room for more fegs! ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #312 *******************************