From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #476 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, December 21 1998 Volume 07 : Number 476 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Robyn in BT [JH3 ] Re: Last words on the Sex-type thing [amadain ] Re: 90% (Reply rant) + a little note [Ethyl Ketone ] Anarchy in the USA [Natalie Jacobs ] painful burning itching peeling sex with iraq... [Mark_Gloster@3com.com] Re: 90% political rant. please ignore. [Christopher Gross ] Re: Storefront "Best of Month" in SR [Tom Clark ] king of siam/ I got the trouble frying/ I'm not the devil [lj lindhurst <] Re: Anarchy in the USA ["JH3" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 01:05:16 -0600 (CST) From: JH3 Subject: Robyn in BT Fegs... Storefront Hitchcock (the CD) also made Jack Rabid's Top 40 (#32, to be exact) in the latest issue of The Big Takeover, which I just got yesterday (REM on the cover). There's also a glowing review of the June 12 gig at the Bottom Line, and several other mentions... I think Jack's becoming more of a Hitchcock fan. And he also seems to like Elliot Smith (#11) and Rufus Wainwright (#12) a lot these days. And (finally!) a whole page on the Loud Family! But like all BT subscribers that I know of, I like Jack and his work so much that I would never post any of it publicly, since that might reduce the number of reasons others might have for actually seeking out and (hopefully) buying the magazine. Sorry! John "I bombed Iraq before bombing Iraq was cool" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 01:35:43 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: Last words on the Sex-type thing >Here's my last words on the subject. > >Susan writes, > >>I'm not "into s/m". I'm a pervert, and actually, I didn't choose to be, I >>just am. > >Is that supposed to be funny? Or sarcastic? I honestly can't tell. I >certainly don't think you are a pervert I use the term ironically. >just because you like nonstandard sex; but I also don't buy the "I'm not >bad I'm >just drawn that way" routine of our increasingly Victimized >Society. What you don't seem to understand is that for some it can be a choice to engage in or not, and for some it is just the relational style which is more natural to us. Yes, I said relational style. Have you ever heard the term "power exchange"? If you had, you might understand that this is about more than occasionally tying people up and fucking them. More below. >home with consenting men, women, and goats. I just don't place the need >for public ACCEPTANCE of my sexual proclivities on the level of Martin >Luther King Jr. Who said anything about MLK? Again, you are attributing motives and drives to me which I do not have. I would simply like to be tolerated and for people to be able to have the safety information necessary to do s/m safely, whether they are "weekend warriors" or hardwired for d/s. I'm not asking for affirmative action for pervs. I'm asking not to be the butt of jokes. >know oodles of gay folks, including my best friend, whom I watched >struggle with it as far back as grade school. You think I never struggled with being a submissive? You think it never bothered my conscience to be a person who considered herself a feminist, to discover that? You think I -wanted- to be something that a lot of people consider diseased? It didn't work that way for me, and doesn't for a lot of people, though I suppose it may for the people who merely do it as a pastime. I for one, was NOT excited to figure out that these emotional tendencies, these desires I'd had since I was at least 12 years old, waaayyy before I knew what "bondage" or "bdsm" was, meant this. Or didn't you know that there are people who felt d/s emotions at this age or even younger? >believe, that being into S/M is a *genetic* orientation on that same >level of profundity, Part of the reason I mentioned gay rights, well, it was in part because you brought it up, but partly because 30 years ago, the standard thinking on it was that it was a psychological deviation. This "genetic orientation" thinking is relatively new. There are still some people who think homosexuality is a choice. I think it's quite possible that a d/s gene may be found, or at the very least, that a proclivity gene may be. There's still a lot that science doesn't know about the brain or genetics. > and I am uncomfortable with the way you reduce my >comments down to a level at which I look like a lazy reactionary >do-nothing. I did not say that, nor did I mean to imply it. I do think there are things you don't understand, namely the differences between power exchange relationships (and innate tendencies thereto) and occasionally playing around at a club. >it is more than what you do in the bedroom, it is more than being into >pussy/dick, and it impacts a field of relationships far more public and >profound than does the erotic proclivity to tie up your lover. This is way more than pussy/dick as well. Or didn't you know that there are relationships which go well beyond pleasure and restraint? If you think sex is all there is to it for every single person, you simply don't know very much about it. There are a whole lot of people, in fact, who engage in non-sexual, non-romantic d/s relationships. Loads of 'em. >don't blather on about whips and chains; in which case, as a former >school teacher, let's just say that though I support marijuana >legalization and smoked more reefer than Tim Leary, I *understood* that >this wasn't the sort of thing to mention during a PTA conference. Who said they blathered on about it at work? In both of the cases I know of where someone was fired and that was specifically mentioned as a reason, it was an outside party who took it up with the workplace. You honestly think that this happens because people have chatty conversations about it around the water cooler? That's pretty insulting. >being gay? Being afraid to bring your lover/spouse/mate to a public >function? Being denied basic legal rights of marraige because your true >love is of the same sex? Having to worry about getting beaten up at a bar >just because you "look gay?" Actually, I've known of people getting harassed simply because it was known about them and not because they "walked down the street in bondage gear". I've also known of people having to fight in court to get their children back because an enterprising social worker decided they were sicko. Sure, you can get legal rights of marriage (that is, if you're not also gay), that is admittedly one difference. I don't believe I ever said the two were - -exactly- the same, I merely drew a few parallels. >where Kindergarten teachers don't fear losing their jobs because they >bring their bedroom habits into the faculty room. Again, I restate, that this is considerably more complicated than "bedroom habits", and people don't fear losing their jobs because they themselves are chatting about it in inappropriate places. I'm not sure where you derived the latter assumption. >with me or you don't; and I am content to let Susan respond and then put >this thing to bed. Absolutely. I've said what I've had to say and cleared up some points that I believe were unclear, and I'm happy to leave the argument here. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 00:04:04 -0800 From: Ethyl Ketone Subject: Re: 90% (Reply rant) + a little note At 6.54 PM -0800 12/20/98, James Dignan wrote: >>4) most importantly, for congress (what an apt name!) to go against the >wishes of the vast majority of the people of the US is undemocratic Here comes the rant... Can you say "treason". I can. And I think these impeachment proceedings are treason. The republican majority *BECAUSE THEY CAN* go forward with impeachment proceedings against a man they hate *BECAUSE THEY CAN* even though the OVERWHEMING majority of the populace has voiced its opinion in favor of the president and against the proceedings. Hey, I don't like Bill Clinton, but this public "in-fighting" based on majority votes to "get" the other party pisses me off. OK, so he fucked someone not his wife. Well, let's do a poll on the rest of Congress, shall we??? All those who practice fideltiy say "aye". This is not about "family values" and lying. God, how many of our civil liberties ar stripped away for "our own good" and "family values"? What pisses me off, as a voting american, is that these idiot politicans, president on down, play their little power plays openly and they think (and it seems to be true) that the american public won't sit up and tell them "No!". Yeah, I'm tired of apologizing for being an american. Hell, I won't apologize for that. My family arrived in this country in 1672 and moved west with the frontier and I won't apologize for that! But I'll be dammed if these assholes in Washington can shred the constitution to suit their needs. Treason. Hang the bastards. Unfortunately, the constitution and what this country was based on is not taught much in school anymore. It's easy to pull the wool over the uneducated american public. (And I get labeled a Libertarian for bringing up the constitution all the time!) One of my friends just naturalized as a citizen. She went around asking all the "americans" she knew the questions she was asked in the interview to become a citizen. Guess what??? Yeah, very few knew the answers... Thanks, end of rant. I needed that. On another note: Happy Hanukah Ramadan Kareem Happy Solstice Merry Christmas Happy Kwanza Happy New Year... ...to all you fegs (and you too Eb), regardless of sexual or political orientation. I'll be off line for the next few weeks, enjoying a warm ;-) Transylvanian Christmas, but I'll catch you all in '99 where it begins to get only crazier... Be Seeing You, - - Carrie ps: New Year, good time to revisit Robyns work. It's all good... "Questions are a burden for others. Answers are a prison for oneself." **************************************************************************** M.E.Ketone/C.Galbraith meketone@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 00:08:22 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: 90% (Reply rant) + a little note >...to all you fegs (and you too Eb), regardless of sexual or political >orientation. The correct phrase is "even Eb," not "and you too Eb." ;) Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 00:34:30 -0800 From: Ethyl Ketone Subject: Re: 90% (Reply rant) + a little note At 12.08 AM -0800 12/21/98, Eb wrote: >>...to all you fegs (and you too Eb), regardless of sexual or political >>orientation. > >The correct phrase is "even Eb," not "and you too Eb." ;) > I stand corrected - Happy whatever... - - c "Questions are a burden for others. Answers are a prison for oneself." **************************************************************************** M.E.Ketone/C.Galbraith meketone@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 06:22:32 -0800 From: mrrunion@palmnet.net Subject: Re: Last words on the Sex-type thing Quail spewed: > Stopping the bombing of civilians and changing the nature of government > are franky... That's funny. I always thought they were steve-y. Mike __________________________________________ Sent using WebInbox. "Your email gateway." Check us out at http://www.webinbox.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:30:09 -0500 From: desmond in a tutu Subject: Re: Robyn in BT also sprach JH3: >But like all BT subscribers that I know of, I like Jack and >his work so much that I would never post any of it publicly, >since that might reduce the number of reasons others might >have for actually seeking out and (hopefully) buying the >magazine. Sorry! but unlike all big takeover subscribers, you forgot to post details about subscribing! the big takeover's web site is at (surprise!). a four issue subscription costs $18 (usa), $20 (canada), $22 (everywhere else). send a check payable to jack rabid to the big takeover 249 eldrige st. #14 new york, ny 10002 if you have any questions (like, i assume, about how to deal with international currency), direct them to . woj, who recently found out that a friend used to be springhouse's chief roadie n.p. band of susans -- the peel sessions ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:53:07 -0400 From: Natalie Jacobs Subject: Anarchy in the USA >apart from vivien and michael; >> rosso, miles, bayard, danielle, susie, james, commander lang, randi, >> lobstie, "red' natalie, glostie seem to be at least as far left as >> myself. > So >all you socialists out there -- what exactly do you mean by calling >yourselves socialists? I seem to have been lumped in with Eddie as a socialist, here, so I should probably clarify that I am an anarchist, not a socialist, and I don't consider myself a leftie. Although my views might be regarded as left wing in some respects (capitalism does, indeed, blow), I don't think that government control of the economy (or of anything) is the ultimate solution, nor do I believe that violent revolution is the key to achieving an ideal society. (It's never worked before, has it?) I'm probably closer to Eddie's viewpoint than to that of other people on the list, but I wouldn't say I was "as far left" as him. I'm far in some direction, but I'm not sure if I could point to it. n., political non-Euclidean ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:45:48 -0800 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: painful burning itching peeling sex with iraq... Hi. A few sharkadian thotz: Iraq: Saddam H. is the out-of-wedlock love child of a perverse incestuous love triangle between R. Reagan, M. Thatcher, and G. Bush (oddly, all men.) As this was a huge embarrassment, the families have been sworn to carry out a hundredth trimester abortion, for which, for some reason they have to use very expensive surgical tools. Americans: I am constantly embarrassed by the conduct of some of my fellow countrypersons. It would be a bigger deal if I wasn't also embarrassed by my fellow worldpersons and, of course, myself. I don't remember choosing to be born in America. In some ways I'm really glad to be here. If I had my 'druthers I probably would have been born in 'Zeeeeland, where the migraines come less often to people who look like me. Sex: I'm with Susan here, that is to say that I agree with Susan. I don't know or care if it's genetic, but I really believe that some personal "ways of life" views happen early in life. It's kind of too bad that Susan's personal sex life has to be under such scrutiny here from time to time. It is ridiculous that she is forced to defend doing what she wants to with other consenting adults. I think I'm going to listen to Oingo Boingo's "Nasty Habits" about eleven times today to celebrate general "perversion." Quail, don't you think we should all talk about you climbing the walls of the Empire State building naked as a jaybird except the birdhead mask? Speaking of perversions, I would love to go down to Dizzyland to see the wild west show again. To expose a wee bit of my own p'version, can-can is one of my favorite things to look at. Jeme, Eddie gimme a little notice, and I'll be there too. Politics: I've always considered myself a kind of wishy-washy moderate. I feel like I look at both sides carefully, but tend to lean toward the side with the most compassion. This to most people means that I am an evil satanic tax'n'spend pinko liberal and should be shot. I guess I am a liberal. I can't really make apologies about that, considering that I don't feel bad about it. Robyn Hitchcock: (Using high tech- instant replay) After further review, I think Moss Elyxir is, or is nearly Robyn's best album so far. As far as a work that can be taken as a whole, I would have trouble putting anything ahead of it, though I think he's made some stronger singles. All the best, I'm sure I've said enough for now. - -Markg I owe everybody a note, and I'm getting further and further behind. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:58:49 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: 90% political rant. please ignore. On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, James Dignan wrote: > Iraq: I'm not happy with the situation. I probably wouldn't be that happy > even if it were UN sanctioned, but it ain't - the US just moved on in > uninvited. Agreed -- this is one of my biggest problems with the whole thing. (And the lack of UN authorization reminds me of one of my biggest problems with the UN: its habit of taking stands and issuing orders, then failing to enforce them. Remember Srebrenica!) > And it won't matter a fuck to Saddam - it's only the people of > the country getting hurt, after all. There are no good solutions, but there > are several which sound much more appealing than random military target > (and surrounding residential area) bombings: Minor quibble: the bombings weren't "random." It is true though that innocent people/stuff near the targets were also killed/destroyed. > what about sending in a > commando force to take Saddam himself? Believe it or not, the US government is not allowed to do this. Back in the 1970s, after the CIA's old schemes to assassinate Castro were revealed, a law was passed forbidding the government from engaging in assassination. Yes, by law Clinton can bomb a country, but he's not allowed to target an individual. (Of course the government might be secretly breaking this law even as I write....) > Or - and here's one the US has used > frewquently elsewhere - funding his political foes. If - as the US claims - > significant sections of the Iraq people hate Saddam, then surely the US can > stir those sections fo the populace up. The Amercian military hasn't been > above giving a helping hand towards starting rebellions in the past... If I'm not mistaken we *are* doing that. For example the US has set up a "Radio Free Iraq" to beam anti-Saddam propaganda into the country. (They claim that they're just sending factual news broadcasts, not propaganda; but face it, telling the truth about Iraq is anti-Saddam propaganda in effect.) We also dropped leaflets on Iraqi military units helpfully pointing out that "only units loyal to Saddam's government" were at risk of being bombed.... We probably should be doing more in this regard, but the sad fact is that Saddam Hussein will probably never be overthrown by the people of Iraq. He's just too ruthless and his repressive apparatus is just too strong. The *best* we could probably hope for is a military coup that might later lead to democratization. > Re: Clinton: Grrrrr! This whole situation *really* honks me off. > FWIW (very little) the majority of people I've heard speak about it here in > NZ seem to think that > 1) Clinton did wrong but did not act illegally Well, technically he did break the law -- not by getting blowjobs from someone other than his wife (or the press), but by lying under oath in a legal proceeding. I used to buy the argument that he just bent the truth without breaking it, but now I believe that he bent the truth so far that it was effectively a lie. However, I'm still furious about his impeachment -- see below. > 3) Impeaching a president for doing what a vast proportion of the > population does is silly Here, here! What's Clinton being persecuted for -- sex or perjury? Sex: Unless he's telling his girlfriend how to launch nuclear missiles, the President's sex life should be no more important than anyone else's. As for perjury: if it was anyone but Clinton, no prosecutor would have wasted his/her time with bringing charges. All Clinton did was tell a few fuzzy lies, to defend himself rather than implicate an innocent person, on a question that was later ruled irrelevent, in a suit that was later thrown out of court. Technically it was perjury, sure; but it was also probably the mildest case of perjury in the history of American jurisprudence. This whole case is an obvious ploy to get Clinton out of the White House and wound the Democratic party. Look at the history: Clinton was facing two separate investigations, Starr's probe into Whitewater and Paula Jones' civil suit for sexual harrassment. Starr didn't find anything and PJ's suit was dismissed (all that she proved was that Clinton hit on her, not that she suffered in any way for saying no). HOWEVER, Monica Lewinsky told her (and Starr's) friend Linda Tripp that she played the presidential flute. Tripp told Starr. Starr told Paula Jones' lawyers (and remember, the PJ suit was separate from and legally unrelated to Starr's probe). PJ's lawyers asked Clinton under oath if he had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton fudged out a "no" and bing!, he was guilty of perjury. In short, they set him up. Though Clinton did indeed lie under oath, Starr manipulated him into doing it. This does not legally excuse Clinton, but it does make me angry enough at Starr and the Republicans that I would rather see Clinton get off (heh) scott-free than let the Republicans have the satisfaction of convicting him. Finally, I don't think perjury in a matter unrelated to the duties of his office counts as a "high crime and misdemeanor," the Consitutional requirement for impeachment. And I'm sure he won't be convicted after his Senate trial. That's why all those Republicans have been saying that "for the good of the country he should resign" -- not because they want to spare the country a trial but because they know they won't have the votes to remove him from office. > 4) most importantly, for congress (what an apt name!) to go against the > wishes of the vast majority of the people of the US is undemocratic Well, I guess they have to follow their own consciences no matter what their constituents think. The catch is, I doubt that they *are* following their consciences. At best, they honestly think that Clinton is so evil that they have to take any opportunity, no matter how contrived, to kick him out of office. At worst, they are completely cynical and see nothing but political gain. > 6) the more hype it is given (that includes through discussion on email), > the more ridiculous the US is looking I think that's true to. The ironic thing is that, within the US, the Republicans are making themselves look ridiculous. How do they think this is going to play in the history books? They're hurting themselves far more than the Democrats. Maybe we'll see something like what happened in Italy, where one of the two major parties completely recast itself and the other one simply fell apart? 'Course this was followed by a revival of far-right parties in Italy. Uh, oh.... > basically, in summary, the view here is "America's government has proved > how ridiculous it can make itself and has become a complete laughing stock. > Any mature country would have shrugged its shoulders and said "so, our > leader is human. We'll remember that next time we vote". It has also shown > just how far from its democratic ideals it has gone. The people of the > country no longer have any say. Call yourselves a democracy? hah!" > > Of course, that's just how it appeards to the rest of the world. You > probably have a completely different view of it at home. No, that's not too far from what the average American feels. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:11:46 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Anarchy in the USA On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Natalie Jacobs wrote: > I'm probably closer > to Eddie's viewpoint than to that of other people on the list, but I > wouldn't say I was "as far left" as him. I'm far in some direction, but > I'm not sure if I could point to it. This brings up a whole 'nother can of worms (you thought I'd say "bees," didn't you?). That is that the old traditional left-to-right political spectrum is pretty meaningless. For example, Anarchists, Communists, and Social Democrats, all supposedly on the left, don't have much in common other than a shared antipathy to capitalism. Same thing with Conservatives, Libertarians and Fascists, all generally lumped together on the right. Communists are closer to Social Democrats in their economic policies (government control of the economy) and to Fascists in their political philosophy (one-party dictatorship, politics as struggle). And things get even more confused when you realize that there's often a big difference between ideology and policy -- eg, Communists are internationalist in theory, like many "leftists," but usually rabid nationalists in practice, like many "rightists." The whole spectrum idea is more of a hindrance to understanding than a help and it should be abandoned. - --Politics Boy ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 09:23:00 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Storefront "Best of Month" in SR On 12/20/98 9:54 AM, steve wrote: >STOREFRONT HITCHCOCK gets a long (for SR) and laudatory review from Brett >Milano in the January '99 issue of Stereo Review. He also mentions how >much he is looking forward to the "heavier pop" of JEWELS FOR SOPHIA. Damn Steve, you beat me to the punch! I also liked Corey Greenberg's article about the Dylan '66 CD. Now I'm definitely gonna get it. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:37:21 -0500 From: lj lindhurst Subject: king of siam/ I got the trouble frying/ I'm not the devil responding to things Mark Gloster said: >Iraq: Saddam H. is the out-of-wedlock love child of a perverse >incestuous love triangle.... Here is my question: Why hasn't someone KILLED Saddam Hussein yet? I mean, hell, the US gov't has all kinds of covert and evil activities going on around the world, why couldn't we get a sniper, or a double agent or a smart bomb or SOMETHING to just nip this thing in the bud once and for all? Or if not us, why hasn't some kind of nutty fundamentalist group gotten rid of him yet? >Americans: I am constantly embarrassed by the conduct of some >of my fellow countrypersons. Americans behave horribly, I agree! My favorite example of this was when I was touring the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam, and this fatassed American with a CAMCORDER in front of me turns to his wife and says, "Oh, this doesn't look so bad." Oy! I didn't speak another word for an hour for fear that someone would find out I was an American! >Sex: I'm with Susan here, that is to say that I agree with >Susan. I don't know or care if it's genetic, but I really >believe that some personal "ways of life" views happen early in >life. I agree on that point-- I think some people are predisposed to particular tendencies from birth. And I do believe this includes dominant and submissive traits. But I will have to side with the Quail here though-- it is insulting to equate the struggle for b/d/s/m "acceptance" ("education"?) with homosexuality. It is NOT the same thing. It sounds like Susan has run across some cranks and some ne'er-do-wells who are trying to use any excuse possible to cause trouble for neighbors or ex-spouses, but overall it is INSULTING to equate that sort of thing with the hostility and backlash your average homosexual has to contend with in this lifetime. Oh, and as far as being "radical" or "perverse", come on! Please-- maybe b/d/s/m was radical in 1974, but I think it is a pretty well-accepted sexual practice these days. It's kind of too bad that Susan's personal sex life has >to be under such scrutiny here from time to time. It is >ridiculous that she is forced to defend doing what she wants to >with other consenting adults. Let me say **oh please** once again-- no one is FORCING HER to constantly bring up her sexual preferences-- she has made it very clear that this is the sort of thing she likes to talk about a LOT. bon jour! - -msr. stinky pantaloons ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:59:10 -0600 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: Anarchy in the USA Chris G. wrote: >The whole spectrum idea is more of a hindrance to understanding >than a help and it should be abandoned. Absolutely! It was once explained to me that it made more sense to view the political "spectrum" as more of a circle, in which moderates appear at the top, liberals and conservatives at either side, and communists/fascists down at the bottom - in other words, the further you go to either extreme, the more you become like the extremists on the other side until you become indistinguishable from them. In other words, communists are really no different from fascists, they simply come at the same conclusion from another direction. But as sensible as that might seem, it doesn't help explain the views of philosophical anarchists like myself (and, I guess, Natalie Jacobs) or even political libertarians whose basic goal seems to be just to reduce (or eliminate) government involvement and interference in people's lives, something I can certainly sympathize with. Nor does it help anyone understand the Green platform, which is often painted as just another form of liberalism when it's actually far more complex than that. The sad fact is that it's in the best interests of the two-party establishment in the West to perpetuate the old right/left "spectrum" concept, because by confusing people into thinking the choices are vastly more simple than they actually are, their competition for elected offices as well as campaign donations and other forms of bribery are considerably reduced. It's something we (even Eb!) should all be fighting (or at last speaking out) against, to our very last breath. ljlindhurst writes: >I was touring the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam, and this fatassed American >with a CAMCORDER in front of me turns to his wife and says, "Oh, this >doesn't look so bad." Oy! I didn't speak another word for an hour for >fear that someone would find out I was an American! Yow, that IS bad! But I'll bet he wouldn't have said that if it had been a DAT recorder... John H. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #476 *******************************