From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #478 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 478 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Who Hates Love? [Joel Mullins ] Re: We. Snow. Yay. ["Capitalism Blows" ] Unpleasantness [Michael Wolfe ] Pleasantness [Michael Wolfe ] Re: Unpleasantness ["Capitalism Blows" ] Re: We. Snow. Yay. [Eb ] Delete now! More on that Siam off topic sex thing [The Great Quail ] Sludge. I like it. Good for you, good for me, good for AMERICA. [edoxtato] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:07:07 -0800 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: Who Hates Love? Tom Clark wrote: > > On 12/20/98 2:49 AM, Joel Mullins wrote: > > >Has anyone seen the latest video by that sexy horror queen Jennifer Love > >Hewitt? > > Why does anybody on this list even watch videos anymore? I don't know. I guess I just get bored sometimes. - --Joel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:17:52 PST From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: Re: We. Snow. Yay. <>10. crash vegas, STONE whoa! this sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of the stuff on your list, eddie. care to elaborate?> um, i don't know. mcadory has one of the more amazing voices i've ever heard, and the band fucking ROCKS (on this album, anyway. i love RED EARTH and AURORA too, but, lord help me, i'm a metalhead at heart.) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:02:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: Unpleasantness So, I come into work this morning and quite happily find three fegmaniax digests in my in box. Great happiness. Perusing them, I find that most of their bandwidth is taken up by political diatribe. Great sorrow. I'd hoped that Brickhouse's obvious troll (which Susan so efficiently delt with)(thanks Susan) would be ignored, but it was not to be. Thus, in order that my silence not be taken to mean complicity, I feel compelled to join the fray. Mark Gloster delineated as ensues: >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. As incisive an appraisal of the situation as I have ever read. Thank you, Mark. You are both a witty and gentle soul -- two qualities which are rare enough in isolation, to say nothing of the combination. I don't attribute the following quote because I wish to address the sentiment more than any particular person: >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? Well, why don't you volunteer? Do you really know what you're asking for, here? The reason I bring this up is because people talk about killing someone, and they talk about it like it's a video game, or like turning off a tv set, for crying out loud. "Nip this thing in the bud," indeed! Isn't like, civilized society supposed to be about due process and respect for human life? I don't intend to imply that, deep down, Hussein's just a big lovable teddy bear, not at all (even IF most of our international news these days comes right from white house press releases.) But I get really worried when people start throwing around statements like "just kill the bastard" casually. I have to wonder just what level of inconvience someone has to attain before we can dispense with the judge and jury and move straight to the hangman. It just seems to me that once we get in the habit of looking at human beings as machines to be turned off when they start to bug us, it can get kind of hard to stop. Just reboot the computer, install a new operating system, and everything is going to be OK. Just kill Saddam, install a new government, and everything is going to be OK. As much as I hate to put myself into the cineaste pigeon hole, I happen to think that Krzysztof Kieslowski's "A Short Film About Killing", made from one of the episodes of his Dekalogue, is the definitive treatment of the subject. Highly recomended viewing. Re: Clinton and the impeachment circus, see Johnson, Andrew. The parallels are eerie, although back then if there was even less justification, at least the Republican party had a conscience. Checks and balances? What's that? Oh, and by the way, for the person that said that the members of Congress were OK in voting as they saw fit, constuency be damned, that's not really true. The House of Representatives is supposed to reflect the constituency. Hence, the 2 year term; they are meant to be almost immediately accountable to the voters. The SENATE is supposed to vote according to its "conscience", which is why they get six years. The idea being yet another product of the germinal status of the idea of representative government in our founding fathers' heads. They wanted the government to be representative, but not too representative because they didn't actually trust people. They based their reasoning on the premise that the people who could manage (ie, were rich enough) to get elected to the Senate were expected to be somehow of a higher moral order than the rest of us. The electoral college is, of course, the most classic example of their schizophrenia. - -Michael Wolfe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 21:10:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: Pleasantness Mark Gloster pontificated: >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. I agree. I love Moss Elixir. The best part of it is that every track is exceptional in some way, and there aren't any cringe-inducing moments. As much as I love Eye and I Often Dream Of Trains (to cite two well-loved works), for me they also have between them some of the lowest points in Robyn's ouevre. I can't listen to Agony of Pleasure, Clean Steve, or Sometimes I Wish I Was A Pretty Girl (I'm gonna come off sounding like a prig, but oh well.) Uncorrected Personality Traits has worn pretty thin for me, too. So while nothing on Elixir approaches the sheer pop joy of My Wife, or the emotional nakedness of Autumn Is You Last Chance, or the genius combination of both that is Airscape, for me, the album comes so close so consistently, without "bursting the bubble" even once, that I would have to rate the disk taken as whole very high up on the totem pole indeed. On the recomendation of this list as a body, I bought Dan Bern's Fifty Eggs (got it at Django for 6.95. Sweet!) You know what, I really dig it! I was somewhat skeptical, because I until very recently was vehemently anti- Ani DiFranco (for no good reason, I will be the first to admit; it was because of an unpleasant personal association.) But aside from the fact that I really couldn't care less about the size of the man's balls, the rest of the album was really top notch. Standouts for me: One Thing Real, Different Worlds, Monica, Suzanne. Monica is especially brilliant, though it's a shame that that particular name on its own has assumed different connotations (for the uninitiated out there, the song is about Monica Seles, not the other one.) One small observation, though: Dan's voice reminds me of the tenor singer for the Dead Milkmen (Watching Scotty Die, Punk Rock Girl), especially on Chick Singers and Different Worlds. This is not a bad thing (I actually kind of enjoy the deceased dairy deliverers.) It's just weird. But, yes, thanks for the recomend! Saw Babe: Pig in the City. Really enjoyed myself quite a bit. It is dark, but not necessarily in a visual sense. And not really in the sense that it deals with crime, or the "evil in men's souls." It's dark in a more elemental sense than that. I love stories and story-telling; I have a book of folk tales from around the world, and it has a character similar to those. Many of the folk tales I've read feature people doing rash and unjust things, sometimes getting away with them (I wish I could come up with an example.) This film has the same sort of underlying feeling that those stories have, of bad things happening for little or no reason, and of general helplessness in the face of a vast and ambivalent world. And like those stories, it makes the happy ending that much more satisfying because it's so hard-earned (goddamn, I'm starting to sound like Joseph Fucking Campbell.) A good example of this feeling in the film is Mickey Rooney's strange and lyrical cameo. Makes it perhaps too potent for children in some people's view, but I don't buy it; kids have grown up with these sorts of themes for as long as we've had story-telling, and to deny them is to take something away from their growth (but that's another argument for another time.) A rewarding film, and what's more it pushes Private Ryan from my top 10 for 1998, taking the 7th spot. Upcoming hopefuls: Hurlburly, Shakespeare in Love, A Thin Red Line I have the untrammeled pleasure of reporting that I never saw Where The Air Is Cool And Dark. Capuchin scrawled: >This is where the line wrapped on my screen and I put my hand to my mouth >in shock before seeing the line that followed. Ha. You character assassin! You didn't even put the next line in, so now people will assume that that was the extent of what I actually said! Punk. - -Michael Wolfe (wondering how well he remembers how to bike in the snow...) np: The Pixies - Trompe Le Monde ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:04:55 PST From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: Re: Unpleasantness i completely agree with everything you say here, michael. but i'm about 97% sure that lj wasn't implying that we *should* do something like that, or that if we *were* to do something like that that it would be in any way right or just. it sure sounded to me like she was just asking, as a practical matter, if we want so badly to get rid of this guy, why haven't we done it? the answer, again, is that he serves a political purpose, and that, after having cut him down to size in the gulf war, we really don't have any problems with him (although we might, in the end, prefer a less outspoken dictator on the throne.) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:19:49 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: We. Snow. Yay. Someone: >ps. do fans of claudine longet have a communal nickname? Not until I get around to inventing one. ;) LORDK: >I have alot of respect for Quail, and alot of respect and affection for Susan Oho. Intriguing contrast. Michael: >I love Moss Elixir. The best part of it is that every track is >exceptional in some way, and there aren't any cringe-inducing moments. I definitely would call "Devil's Radio" a cringe-inducing moment for me. Hitchcock's worst single ever? (Speaking of crummy attempts to be "topical"....) Ignorant question: Why was Andrew Johnson impeached? I forgit. Eb, who finally saw "City of Lost Children" last night and is still struggling to assimilate its brilliance ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 98 18:45:26 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Delete now! More on that Siam off topic sex thing If you are reading this and rolling your eyes because this is a big off-topic political thing, then you should have followed the suject header's instructions! Woj says, >this sounds suspiciously like black civil rights leaders stating that >equating gay rights with racial equality is insulting. one can claim that >the color of your skin or even whom you fuck is somehow more important than >how you fuck, but the fact is that people are hurt for all three reasons. >the first reason may be more common than others, perhaps, but that doesn't >lessen the pain. > >i just don't buy this some-rights-are-more-civil-than-others nonsense. OK, I must admit, I have recieved a lot of personal mail in support of Susan and critisizing my comments. But I would like to say a few things to clear up the air around me, lest I be tar and feathered as some conservative anti-progress reactionary or something. I know I said I would put it to bed, but the issue has broadened and changed scope a bit. I warn you, this is a long post, and I have *tried* to be as clear as possible. I may not have always succeeded, especially in my discussion about genetics. I think what I am trying to say here is that this issue is more complicated than any of us has yet admitted. I advocate equal right for EVERYONE who does not impinge on another's rights. However, I do not believe, for a second, that human rights are "natural" or "God-given." They are, in my opinion, very artificial -- very contrary to our baser animal natures. This is why they must be fought for; they must be forced into creation, they must be forged from a combination of blood, steel, sweat, vigilance, and work; and they should be guided by our most noble aspirations. No one *automatically* has a "right." A "right" is a human invention -- and one of our best -- and once purchased, they must be protected and nurtured. We CREATE a human consciousness, we created the mass reality in which rights even *exist.* This is why I think we, as a species, are getting better and better. There is, of course, terrible things and injustices in the world, but I think the course of human progress is towards bettering ourselves. I've read a good deal of history, and I am very impressed at how far we have come as a race. Especially in the last hundred years; ESPECIALLY in the Western world, and though this may piss a lot of you off, ESPECIALLY in "modern" democracies -- whether Republic/Democracy hybrids like the US or social democracies like Sweden. (I say modern democracies to differentiate them from a true utter democracy, which would probably not be a very good thing.) So I am quite the advocate for rights of all kind. We must continue to strive, to struggle; we must bring this experiment that is modernity to fruition, we must make a world where Martin Luther King Jr can kick back and have a beer and smile. And then we must defend it. A few people, mostly in private email, ostensibly have the idea that I am against S/M rights or something like that. Not true. I say to the government, get ye out of my house unless I am truly infringing on my neighbors. Indeed, I am all for exploring the while erotic spectrum, as seriously or as frivolously as you want. I have been getting a bit offended by the people who have acted like I am dealing with Susan harshly because I think sex is a bad thing; especially because I have never talked about my own sex life on the list. (Thank God, most of you mutter.) But other than essentially unenforceable "blue laws," two consenting adults *can* practice S/M all they want, in the privacy of their own homes. There is no "S/M rights issue" on the same scope as the civil rights movements of the sixties, or the gay rights movement of the latter two decades. (I will, however, say Susan brings up some good points about the unfairness of our court systems and the petty provinciality of co-workers. I am not debating that. But I do see a scale, a spectrum, that I do not think Susan, Vivien, or Woj accept. I do not think all pain is equal; nor am I a moral/cultural relativist. I think that forcing women to have clitorectmies or gassing your minorites is bad no matter what your cultural norms are.) I resist, as has been done on the List, blowing it up to the level of *civil* rights; it removes the focus from areas where there actually are social injustices of a more profound magnitude. It is more a matter of private rights. (As you can see, I do not advocate the dreaded French Leftist slogan "The personal is political.") Now, private rights are important too -- I wish I could smoke various things in my own home -- but I do not say to myself, "I have been born with the desire to explore my consciousness, and even though I can GO TO JAIL for this, even though I can't admit I do this at work, the fact that the government and my neighbors do not understand my desire places my personal struggle on the level of gays and blacks and Kurds and whatnot, who are often fighting for their very EXISTENCE in their societies." Indeed, I may sound like the biggest Leftist on the List now, but I think this whole S/M controversy is rather a sign of a culture in leisurely decadence. The fact that we can afford to debate this issue means that we have a culture that is relatively stable; we all choose our battles, but if we were all in another country, say Iraq or East Timor or Kosovo or Somalia or Rwanda; we would have bigger fish to fry. So more power to Susan -- let her fight for S/M, I'll give money to NORML. Rights, however, are complicated by a dialectic between what we are by nature and what we choose to be by our actions. Human rights imply that we are all *created* equal but not the same; therefore the color of my skin should not ideally determine what water fountain I may drink at. But this begs the issue, what is beyond human control and what is a matter of choice? (And those of you seeing the dread spectre of Freewill vs. Determinism raising its ugly head, rest assured; I will be brief.) Being gay was once, in Western society, considered a psychological deviance. Later, it was removed from that unhappy stable and put into the nebulous pasture of "lifestyle choice." But more and more evidence shows it is now as genetic a thing as hair color. Now, this is actually very very important to some people. Many folks think, as I do, that it shouldn't matter -- two gay men or two lesbians in love do not impact any other's rights to any significant extent, and if our society limits them that is a flaw in our society in my mind. But it is hard to convince some people of that -- tolerance of the "other" is not a human strength. But what if it *is* genetic? That provides an entirely different lever to shift the argument towards Gay Rights, doesn't it? It removes it from being a matter of lifestyle tolerance to a matter of recognizing something as, dare I say, "natural" in the mainstream sense of the word. And for many, that swings the vote . . . I, too, have heard too many intelligent black activists trash gays, saying "It's not the same, they chose to be that way." But I've seen some people reluctantly admit that if being gay is something you are born with, it should be at least legally tolerated! And that's a big step for some people. So the whole "what can you and can't you control" debate is very very important to us humans when we form our systems of rights and responsibilites. But here comes Pandora's Box. What *is* or is *not* genetically wired? Some of you believe that being into S/M is a sexual orientation, something on the same plane as being straight, gay, black, white. Well, I don't know about that; in fact, I disagree. Being a person is not the summation of a bunch of switches in your DNA; and not all of your personality, I like to believe, is the result of genetics. I tend to shy away from BF Skinner's world of complete predeterminism. I am not denying the role of DNA in anything, but to me a lot of people these days are staking out claims in the DNA Wild West, looking for that gold nugget that absolves themselves of responsibility and brings them to the land of special priviledges. (Emphasis: I do NOT at ALL believe that Susan is like this. As she said, she just wants tolerance.) OK, so S/M is an orienation. Does that mean if I favor two women at once, that too is an orientation? Does that give me the right to marry them both? Should it? That is an issue we actually grapple with here in the US; some countries of course consider it a non-issue. Is all sexual proclivities a matter of blind genetic orientation? What about someting actually perverse like pedophila? Or something as ludicrous as "I Can't Fall in Love with Anyone Who Doesn't Have Ten Cats?" Or what about REAL S&M, of the truly scary kind, with clinical sadism? Are all these, too, orientations? And does that mean we have to tolerate these behaviors or make special dispensations? No, of course not. Some of them impact non-consenting individuals. But what about this scary tendency towards "But your honor, I'm this way because my parents beat me and the doctor says I am genetically inclined to beat my wife?" Should that mitigate the offender's sentencing? Yes or no? And what about "victimless orientations." I have had many many students who were labelled Attention Deficit Disorder, and they were given so many special dispensations it made me ill. Was that fair to the other students who had to follow all the rules as written? What I am saying here is that I think making statements like "I am X because I just am X" leads into a very shaky zone that is not easily put to bed by some high-sounding moral commentary from either "sides." That is why I feel the need to draw a few lines. I feel the need to place things on some sort of perspective; and I do not think that every struggle is as moral important as every other struggle. And that is the reason why I had issue with Susan's post. She said "I don't see Eddie fighting for S/M education and rights." I felt like we were all supposed to tacitly assume that any good "radical" would automatically agree that S/M education was (a) truly radical, and (b) on the same moral plane as civil rights. Of course, I know that most of you probably disagree with me, as this List lists towards moral relativism. (Except Capuchin, who pretty much dislikes everything policical.) But I do *not* think it is just nonsense. Truly, I think this can of worms has many more squiggly paths than may be apparent at first, and I just dislike seeing conflicting viewpoints bowled over as being simple "nonsense," or having the argument reduced to a few pithy and dismissive comments. . . something which I admit that I, too, am guilty of. Well, there are my essentailly libertarian views, take them or leave them. I still consider myself a humanist; and I honestly want us all to treat each other with dignity, respect, and compassion. Susan, Woj, Vivien, and all you others who didn't post on the List, I still love you, and you are all more than welcome to drop by for a few pints of beer and another round of discussions. Just don't bring Eddie; I'm afraid he'll convert me to a socialist if I get too knackered. . . . - --Quail ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth: http://www.rpg.net/quail/libyrinth "Countlessness of livestories have netherfallen by this plage, flick as flowflakes, litters from aloft, like a waast wizzard all of whirlworlds. Now are all tombed to the mound, isges to isges, erde from erde . . . (Stoop) if you are abcedminded, to this claybook, what curious of signs (please stoop) in this allaphbed! Can you rede (since We and Thou had it out already) its world? . . . Speak to us of Emailia!" --James Joyce, Finnegans Wake ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:58:53 -0500 (EST) From: Bayard Catron Subject: Feb Egg On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Eb wrote: > > >more capable of writing songs which comment on today's culture and > >society, and better able to put aside the "here's my own weird little > >universe" > >tactic.> I have a couplethree things to say about this. To me, this is like saying "Dylan writes some good songs,and can put a good band together, but I wish his voice and harmonica playing didn't suck so bad. He's not that great a guitar player either." To focus on the negative like this seems pointless. I know you think highly of RH in other respects, but you keep bringing this damn gripe, which isn't even accurate! Which brings me to my next point: You're not even right! I wonder if you're just trying to get Eddie and me to write back to you. Robyn writes a lot of songs about the "real" world. He often does so using what Nabokov might call "dream logic", which you might feel obfuscates the whole point of writing "on topic" songs, but Robyn's not "point-less" as often as you assert. Any feg worth his or her salted spicy prawns could name you 2-5 songs per album (even more perhaps, including non-album tracks from the same era) that are arguably valid examples of "culturally relevant" pieces. I say "Arguably" b/c you're on the other end of the debate. :) And again, it's a matter of interpretation with many of the songs. Now, the "straightforwardness" is another issue, and yes, this is a rare trait in RH's work, which I don't feel is a bad thing. Not at all. It's an integral part of Robyn's unique style. As to whether songs like "filthy bird", "brenda's iron sledge", "ted woody and junior", "devil's radio" which i know you dislike, etc etc, are "any good", well that's a matter of opinion and it makes little sense to debate that. Finally, why should Robyn write songs about what *you're* interested in, in the style *you* prefer? Seems a bit presumptuous, no? Aren't you trying to fit round Robynpeg into the square Ebhole of music? Again, I know you're just stating your feelings on the matter, and you wouldn't have brought it up if not for the EvenEbThread, but as a DiehardFeg, I am compelled to respond L-: > ><> >>contains the phrase "...even Eb"? ;)> Because in spite of your spending so much time with us every day, you still seem to think of yourself as an outsider. > I make a comment that implies some other posters perceive me as a Feg. No no no, other posters perceive you as a FROG! (my very favorite animal, I hasten to add, and Quail's second favorite.) But don't worry Ebbie, you will find your princess, and be transformed, and we will all live happily ever after. Of this I am certain! from The Mountain, - --Eva Neb np. _Go 2_ (come on JH3, admit it, you just like the cover!) ps. "Los Clodinos"? ps. np.: _Bringing it All Back Home_ (thanks for the recommendation, Lobstie!!! {I know, I know, I'm late on this one}) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:21:59 -0600 From: edoxtato@ssax.com Subject: Sludge. I like it. Good for you, good for me, good for AMERICA. >Isn't it predictable that after Danny Barkhouse launched all this political >sludge, he has contributed absolutely nothing to the debate? >Ebby Cos Danny is Roger Jackson, aka William Safire. It's a huge conspiracy, I tellyer, a huge conspiracy. - ----------- My real problem with William Jefferson Clintstone is that he's committed an offence (perjury), but it's not a "high" offence. He didn't betray the country to the Germans or Brits or Atlanteans or whomever. He did what a lot of people have done-- cheated on their spouse. Impeachment is NOT for bedroom trysts. It's for guys like Alexander Hamilton, who did try to betray the country way back when, or Nixon, who tried to throw an election, or Reagan, who did the arms-for-hostages deals. If anything, I think Bill should pay back the $40 million that was spent on the Starr investigation. I think he should mow my lawn to make up for the wasted time and effort. But that's not gonna happen, is it? If he had just said, "YES I DID THIS", it woulda saved us all a lot of time... and a perjury charge. So... now... what? Looks like it's "impeach the infidel" time. It's so fucking ironic... the party of "less government, less intrusion in people's lives", the Republicans, is the party who's ramming the whole impeachment process down this country's throat. I suppose if Bill Clinton had been caught in a nudie bookshop or the equivalent, it'd be OK cos he's contributing to the local economy and supporting business. Bill, you gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em... Bob Livingstone's grandstand stunt was just priceless but valueless. The "See how noble _I_ am, Bill?" speech really didn't help matters much. If all Republicans were so high-minded, Henry Hyde wouldn't have chaired the House Judiciary committee in the first place because of his adulterous past. It was all a big power play, but to what end? There would still be a Democratic president in the White House. Granted, Al Gore is about as dynamic as milky tea, but he's still a Democrat. Having said that, the whole partisanship issue was interesting (well, to me at least). I took a look on the ABC News Web site a little while ago, and the summary of Saturday's proceedings included a tally of which Representatives voted which way for the various Articles Of Impeachment. Although partisan, it was very interesting, the way the voting worked out. Not surprisingly, almost (I say "almost" cos I didn't look that closely-- I just scanned the list) all of the Democratic reps voted NO on all four articles. However, almost all (with the same "I didn't look at every vote" qualification) of the Republican didn't vote YES across the board. The vast majority voted YES on the purjury charge, and the of the voting on the other charges looked like a real mess. I was really surprised about that. I figured they'd just rubber stamp it and send it on to the Senate. - -------- I dunno exactly _why_ we haven't removed Sadaam... I think the idea that it's against international law is probably a strong argument. And, considering our history of installing governments in the past 80 or 90 years... I don't think many of them have survived. The only one I can think of is Japan, post WWII. And that one's not in the best shape. - -------- And Robyn Hitchcock writing songs that show "his weird little universe" isn't a tactic. It's a style. - -Doc, soon to be free from work for the rest of the year! ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #478 *******************************