From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #47 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, February 9 1999 Volume 08 : Number 047 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: R.E.M. & ["D B" ] Re: R.E.M. & ["D B" ] Re: Atlas Sneezed [Michael Wolfe ] Re: Banjo! [fred is ted ] a slipping-down life [cinders blue ] Re: Atlas Sneezed [amadain ] Re: Atlas Wheezed ["Gregory S. Shell" ] Re: R.E.M. & "Party of Five" ["Michael R. Runion" ] Re: The death of record companies bla bla bla [james.dignan@stonebow.otag] Thank you for the music [james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 18:19:19 PST From: "D B" Subject: Re: R.E.M. & >*I* was thoroughly disappointed when I heard that REM were making an >appearance on the Rosie O'Donnell show. I didn't see the show, but it >would have been a great bit of irony had they performed "It's The End Of >The World As We Know It" -- I certainly took it as some sort of >Apocalyptic prophecy fulfilled. > >Didn't Nostradamus write about this? > >"A triumvirate from a southern land >shares the stage with a jesteress whose voice brings pain to many >The visage of the three is projected as they chant in unison -- >their song brings disgrace to the legacy they had forged." REM is caught in the swell of their own success... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 18:41:24 PST From: "D B" Subject: Re: R.E.M. & > Aw, come on. I really like "Up," so I'm happy that they've finally done >something worthwhile. It's been a while. And playing Rosie seems pretty far >away from "the end of the world as we know it." Rosie's probably pretty cool >(although I've never seen her show). I doubt they'd do it if they didn't >think it would be fun. I like "Up" too, and I like a good chunk of "New Adventures..." But REM has said outright that they've not sold out. And Rosie is the epitome of a certain type of crassness. So whether it was "fun" or not really isn't the issue. What REM does is ultimately nobody's business but their own, and perhaps they donated the money they earned from the appearance to a "Save the Ozone over Athens" fund or something, but still... Robyn would indeed enjoy immense poularity, but not on this planet would it be possible, nor even desirable, I don't think. I'd like for him to make scads of money for what he does, but am quite solidly convinced that he's not willing to sacrifice the amount of personal intregrity that would be exacted by appearing on "Rosie." And even if he did, it would be far less a sell-out than 'mega-stars' REM appearing, since Robyn hasn't achieved nearly the success that they have... I won't stop listening to REM, but did they sell out? No question... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:35:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: Re: Atlas Sneezed >> I have recently noticed a very old trend by people in privileged >> positions towards self-congratulation, and especially among white males. >> How did you get that massive fortune? With elbow grease! I pulled myself >> up by my bootstraps! It's not good enough for us to be fortunate; people >> who have more than others have to be cut of a better cloth, too. I find >> it revolting that these guys not only accumlate so much, but manage to so >> effectively perpetuate this myth through capitalism that they are "worth >> it". I have yet to meet any human being who was worth, in any way, 1000 >> times more than any other human being. As the saying goes, we are all >> just human. > >Michael. You're a rich white kid. You may talk about how much money you >make now or what sacrifices you have to make because of your salary or >whatever... but you're a rich kid. Yes. You will get no argument from me. I AM a rich white kid. I didn't have to make much in the way of sacrifices, but I have never EVER made any comments to you or anyone else to the effect that I had. I happened to be lucky enough to have talent in a field that is currently under-manned in the workforce, and was in the right place at the right time. You will kindly note the use of the first person pronoun "I" in many paragraphs that indict these mindsets (e.g., "And, how can I say that I have "earned" (and thus have an inalienable right to) everything that I have when my environment is so heavily skewed in my favor?") >You probably say your folks are middle class... not where I come from. Uh, this is another story. I don't believe that you've met my parents, and I take it rather personally that you presume to pass judgement on them based MAYBE a glance at a picture of them. While I have been incredibly, mind-manglingly fortunate to get what I have relatively easily, my parents were not quite so lucky as that. Up until probably 10 years ago, they didn't make as much combined (to provide for a family of four) as I did last year (living alone.) Do not speak of what you have not even bothered to ask about, let alone have any knowledge of. I get the impression that yes, your parents were probably worse off than mine. But I'm not here to get into a pissing match over whose parents had to walk further through the snow to school in two left shoes. >You and I are not the same. I look at >what you have and get SO frustrated at how it was all handed to you. If I actually took your mindset and claimed that what I have came from all hard work and sacrifice, that'd probably piss you off royally, wouldn't it? And for good reason. I KNOW how much of the process is luck, I've experienced that luck. And I have a strong, very strong suspicion that, had I been just a little bit darker skinned, a little bit darker haired, my luck would have been different. That's why it pisses me off when I see so many folks who quite clearly had all of the breaks that I had congratulating themselves on their "accomplishments". >And then I look at myself and think about what I DO have and how hard I worked >to get it and, yeah, it makes me feel pretty good. I can't very chalk up >my standing in life to good fortune. I mean, I'm a pretty bright person >and that's luck, but there are heaps of failing, miserable bright people >in this country. Exactly. And there are some people out there, particularly those in positions of privilege (remember the guy in the Woody Guthrie documentary?), that would say to those perfectly competent, motivated, energetic, bright people who are just kept down by circumstances and bad luck: "Well boy, what the heck is the matter with you? You make your own luck. You're obviously not trying hard enough." >I'm of a particular hue and gender and that's not my >fault, either. Who said anything about fault? I'm not interested in placing blame, except inasmuch as it helps diagnose (and correct) the problem. >But I am not about to say that those things brought me >from my origin to where I am. I'm no different from my siblings in those >respects. I'm no different from my neighbors, even. But I'm better off. >And it's because I work hard at it every day. And I deserve a better >life. Does my brother deserve more money because he has three children >and a wife? Absolutely not. He doesn't contribute (unless fucking his >girlfriend without protection is considered a contribution). He doesn't >care. He doesn't help. Well, there you are. You are not rich. Okay, fair enough. You don't believe that you deserve to be in the situation that you are in, and that you haven't had huge breaks to get even as far as you've gotten. Also, (if one makes an exception for the (semi-) old boy's network that had a hand in getting you your current job) fair enough. This doesn't contradict anything I've said. What I've said is that I've noticed a peculiar mindset of the privileged that often they believe they deserve their success, whether it's true or not. They will fail to note the "lucky" chances that got them where they are. I doubt sincerely, Jeme, that you will fail to note any breaks you get on your way up the "ladder", nor fail to vigorously seize any opportunities that come your way. What I do think though, is that the correlation between a) who wrote the rules and b) who is rich, powerful, and privileged is too strong to ignore. I think that in examining those "lucky chances" (that many don't even notice at all), you will find, more often than not that very little actual luck is involved. You yourself argued to me, in discussing the Voyager probe and Sagan's folly that mathematics wasn't the language of nature, but rather that it was the language of how humans understand nature. That's a very astute observation. I think that what you said can be refined even further, though; that it's the language of how humans who are socialized the way white male humans are socialized understand nature. And, hey! What do you know, folks who can think mathematically are making bundles in the computer industry! Before that, they were making bundles as engineers! Being as I am, fully socialized as a white male, I had a running start in taking advantage of these opportunities. That's "lucky break" number one, for me. >I'm not a rich person. I don't have any more power or greater wealth than >anything like a majority of the people (OK, I think I'm above the median >income, but not for my region). But if I ever do have those things, I >will definitely say "With elbow grease!" and "I pulled myself up by my >bootstraps!" because that's what it feels like every day. And when the day >comes when I don't feel like I have to push hard against yesterday in >order to keep tomorrow like today, then I'm going sit down and smile and >pat myself on the back. Self-congratulation at its best. And you won't owe a word of thanks to anyone around you, because you're an island, living in a vacuum. There's no such thing as community, or at least there's no strength to be derived from it. And everyone could have what you will eventually, inevitably accomplish if they REALLY wanted it bad enough. >So, I politely say "Fuck you". But don't take it personally. Oh, not at all. Similarly, I hope that you won't take anything I say personally. I still count you as a good friend. >> The flip side of the semi-conscious attitude that rich people >> are hard working, upstanding, and deserving is that poor people are >> stupid, slothful, and morally questionable. How many of us have >> travelled through a run-down section of town and actively thought about >> the location of our tire iron (or kryptonite lock, in my case), should >> we need it in the case that we were mugged or assaulted or something? I >> am afraid to say that I have to raise my hand here. This seems to be the >> way of things in a society that asks questions like: "What were you >> wearing the night he raped you? Did you tease or incite him?" Our >> Calvinism runs deep, and it tells us that the victims are deserving of >> their fate. > >Woah woah woah. First, nobody is saying that all rich people are all of >those things. Oh, I disagree. I think rich people are saying all of those things. Have you paid any attention at all to the rhetoric surrounding welfare reform? >We say that some people are and we say that some people are >robber barons and we say that some people are lucky heirs, etc. I don't >think it's inherent in our society at all. I never said it was. Again, I was talking about the views of the privileged. Of themselves and of those "beneath" them. Not the views of society as a whole. >For every example from popular >culture, I can point to a counter-example. Second, the "flip side" you >address is probably LESS commonly held. I would point to the strong >American Myth of the hard-working, upstanding man who does what he can to >provide for his family, but never quite gets his two ends to meet. Again, look at welfare rhetoric. The state of Connecticut spent 2 million dollars on a system for tracking recipients to root out fraud, and they found 3 instances. That is CLEARLY the product of a mindset that equates poverty with immorality. >I think the fear of mugging in a run down neighborhood (as opposed to an >upper-class one) is utterly unrelated and completely understandable. >There's less money in the neighborhood for police (this is a constant >political debate and rightly so... there is better police response in rich >neighborhoods, so if you're mugged in a poor one, you'd best defend >yourself). The sort of criminal one might encounter in a wealthy >neighborhood probably won't nail a kid on a bike for the twelve bucks in >his pocket when he can pop into the next house over (or grab the >breadwinner leaving his two car garage) and get ten times as much. >Whereas, in a poor neighborhood, the gettin' isn't so good for thieves, so >a random mugging is just as lucrative (and better since there're no cops) >as and easy as breaking into an empty home or grabbing a fellow close to >home. That may be. But how does it rub off on me, as the person travelling through said neighborhood, or on someone like me? Regardless of WHY I might be more likely to get mugged in a poor neighborhood, it just doesn't strike me as a huge leap to start distrusting poor people in general. But I don't think that it is at all a fair or correct judgement to say that people without money are also without morals. >And what does any of that have to do with a victim deserving his fate? I >feel like those last two paragraphs are just tacked onto your argument. >I'm sort of at a loss. Certainly you're not saying that you aren't a >better mugging candidate than the average person in a poor neighborhood? >Because you are. Oh, I could have phrased that better. I meant that because of the distrust that the privileged have of poor people, they think that the poor deserve to be in poverty. The victims of poverty deserving their fate. It is a theme that underlies rhetoric on crime, education, welfare reform, taxation -- heck, you name it. "Capital gains tax cuts for the rich, to spur investment. The poor would just squander it at the track, spendthrifts that they are." >> If a rich person got to be that way completely from blood and >> sweat and sacrifice, I agree that it would not sit well with me to deny >> him what he had earned. I think, though, that even in the best of >> circumstances what gets someone a 20 million per annum salary is mostly >> luck. > >Absolutely. The CEO of my company isn't less intelligent or savvy or >courageous than the CEO of Glaxo, but he makes a whole lot less. The >difference is chance. The only people that would disagree are the CEO of >Glaxo and his ilk... that's a very small minority. But I don't deserve >the money either one makes. There isn't that kind of demand for my >skills. And as I've tried to argue above, a great deal of what we call "luck" has very, very little to do with random chance and a great deal to do with history/sociology. I do think, though, that commerce has been held immune to ethics for far too long, and that even if there is a demand for the CEO of Glaxo's skills that warrants paying him 20 million a year, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider whether or not to do so is just. Even if it is just "natural economics" I don't think that excuses us from looking at it from an ethical standpoint. Remember, who wrote the economics textbooks? Before the American Civil War, slavery was legal in this country. The accepted justification for this practice was that a slave was not a man, but the property of his owner. This is, of course, exactly how one would treat slavery in a legal sense. Anyone arguing against it was blown off; would you deny a man the use of his oxen? His shovel? Look at the Dred Scott case to see just how firmly entrenched into the system this mode of thought was. I think that we all agree that one of this society's basic assumptions was "off". >> In the more shady instances it involves robbery from society on a >> massive scale, including subsidized grazing land (often ruining it, >> destroying fish habitat), late 19th century prices for mineral rights on >> federal land (gold mines, in particular, being notorious for leaving >> behind pools of concentrated cyanide), exploitation of the workforce (the >> fed actively attempts to keep the unemployment rate up to give companies >> a buyers' market for labor, allowing companies to foster environments in >> which forced, unpaid overtime and paranoia over job security are rampant), >> and other acts of questionable benefit to more than a small subset of >> people. > >If your average person was willing to pay out to every person that >benefits him, we might be able to rearrange things so that people who >benefit many can make more money than people who benefit few. However, >those who benefit the poor or the selfish could never make a penny. Uh, okay. I'm not entirely sure we're on the same wavelength, here. What I was trying to say here, is that the wealth that the privileged so often congratulate themselves on does not just come from the phlogiston of their productivity. That at BEST it came, in no small part from sources not under their control, and at worst it is wholesale robbery from the rest of us. >> As the paragraph above implied, the government has a pretty big >> hand in all of this. It's a given that the government has been monopolized >> by wealthy white men for as long as this country has existed. Is it a >> coincidence that it's policies benefit rich white men? Similarly with >> academia; who came up with those economic theories that describe these >> imbalanced conditions as "normal"? And, how can I say that I have "earned" >> (and thus have an inalienable right to) everything that I have when my >> environment is so heavily skewed in my favor? > >And who came up with the standard that says you should get a good >education and send your kid to college? Rich white people. Damn straight. And I'm a huge beneficiary of that. That's "lucky break" number two. >It's a mess. We know that. We can't just knock it down tomorrow and >start over. And even if we could, we wouldn't. Too much mess. You are, alas, probably right on, here. >The best way to fight racism is to not be racist. The best way to fight >sexism is to not be sexist. Live it and teach by example. There are >things you can help and things you can't. You can't feel guilty about >those things you can't help. Rubbish. Race matters. Sex matters. To pretend that they don't is ridiculous. To pretend that they don't is to let "luck" decide how they matter, and the dice are loaded. >I was watching a rerun of Dennis Miller Live last night. He had ten ways >you can make a better America. Only maybe three of them were kidding. >But the very best was, I think, number one. > >If you want to make things better, don't count on any politician or >legislation to fix it. Get up off your Snackwells ass and DO something. > >I'm not saying you're all bitch and no bite, not at all. I'm just tossing >out a general sentiment. Fix the things you can and mind you own >business. That will make the world a better place for sure. Again, damn straight. I do get off my ass and do something; I don't do it nearly as much as I would like. In addition to volunteering my time and money, I try to form good habits that do a little bit at a time, because I see systematicity as being the thing that propagates a bunch of small injustices so that they become a big injustice. I figure that if I can act systematically in a good way, maybe that can also build up momentum. I don't think that in any of my writings here I have appealed to politicians (or anyone else, for that matter) to swoop in and just take care of things for me. I do think though, that humans have a wonderful and unique ability to communicate, and that if I can persuade one or two other people to see things a little differently, then maybe we can work together, and be that much more effective. I think that maybe I have some talent as a writer; it certainly brings me joy. But all evidence here to the contrary, I'm not as assertive about that as I would like to be, either. >> When I look at this, it >> seems to me that being in a position of privilege means that there is no >> such thing as a "neutral" interaction. If I'm not actively helping, I'm >> screwing someone over. > >That's called White Man's Guilt. I think you have to grow up with a >certain standard of living in order to feel it. Not sure, though. Gee doctor, thanks for the diagnosis. Can you prescribe something for it? Your powers are truly amazing, to know what standard of living I grew up with. You seem to resent the fact that I seem to have stumbled into everything that I have, and yet you don't seem to acknowledge that everything that I have came from SOMEWHERE. If I can just blunder around blindly, flourishing on bits of wealth that I don't even KNOW the origin of, I think that there's a good chance that when you trace it back to its origin, at least some of it is ill gotten. It's irresponsible to assume otherwise, and I can't NOT try to put some of it back where it belongs. - -Michael Wolfe ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:51:07 -0800 (PST) From: fred is ted Subject: Re: Banjo! - ---Capuchin wrote: (in ref to La Belle Guillotine) > > The thing that disturbs me most about this site is... well, all of it. I> don't think it's odd that someone digs the guillotine. It's a pretty> fucked up old machine, but it's kinda weird and cool if you're all goth> and stuff. But engaged to an inanimate object? >This woman has some reality issues. Roger that, Houston. What really got me was that Abba's "Waterloo" was playing in the background. I mean, how inappropriate is that?!! Students of the French Rev. may recall that "La Guillotine" was the object of reverence, even idolization, and as Dickens tells us in "A Tale of Two Cities," was often feminized, for obvious Freudian reasons. So our Web friend is in good company, her inamorata excepted. Ted "Yeah, we get high on music" Kim Deal _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 21:53:16 -0500 From: cinders blue Subject: a slipping-down life fegs, received the following note from someone who saw "a slipping-down life" (that new film which robyn allegedly wrote three new songs for) at sundance: >I saw this film at the Sundance Film Festival. The only RH-penned song I >noticed in the soundtrack was Elizabeth Jade. woj ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:21:10 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: Atlas Sneezed >You've got a good point here. The money didn't just materialize. It >came from the pockets of everyone on this list and everyone else in the >world who are reaping the benefits of Microsoft. Let's be honest about >who gave Bill Gates his money. We did. It didn't come from my pockets. I have never bought a Microsoft product and have used Macintoshes for 10 years thankyouverymuch. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who can say this. Bill Gates deserving? SNARF! Sun might have a few words to say about that (as did the judge who awarded them mucho damages)- can we say "backstab" boys and girls? I knew we could! Digital Research might have a few words to say about that as well. And that's the proverbial iceberg tip. He's a weasel. I don't even wanna get started on that, and what's more, you don't want me to start either. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 20:59:47 -0600 From: "Gregory S. Shell" Subject: Re: Atlas Wheezed Michael Wolfe rolled: > I have recently noticed a very old trend by people in privileged > positions towards self-congratulation, and especially among white > males. How did you get that massive fortune? With elbow grease! I > pulled myself up by my bootstraps! Give yourself a big kiss and then get back to work. > The flip side of the semi-conscious attitude that rich people > are hard working, upstanding, and deserving is that poor people are > stupid, slothful, and morally questionable. How many of us have > travelled through a run-down section of town and actively thought How many people do you personally know that feel this way? You may need to change friends. > This seems to be the way of things in a society that asks questions like: > "What were you wearing the night he raped you? Did you tease or incite him?" You must be completly unfamiliar with our judicial system. Are we supposed to determine guilt and execute punishment because someone tells a judge that someone else comitted a crime? Why don't we all just carry death rays. No judge, no jury, no defense, just pure law. If it is the rich white men you don't like, why don't you hang around with rich off-white men, unless you can't find any and then you should move to somewhere along the Yangtze. They got a real smooth system over there. Get some of those shirts like Stipe wears and you'll be a star in the land where religious freedom is encouraged and student protests are welcomed by the state. > society on a massive scale, including subsidized grazing land (often > ruining it, destroying fish habitat), late 19th century prices for > mineral rights on federal land (gold mines, in particular, being notorious > for leaving behind pools of concentrated cyanide), exploitation of the workforce I think it is the smell of the Yangtze that I remember most of all. It's all a fucking struggle. RWMs beat there wives, rape their neighbors sons and kick cats, but then so do the others. Any spew, has anyone been watching 'Neverwhere"? Eno did the music and it is pretty cool. It is being shown on PBS in Dallas and I have recorded the first four episodes. Any Brits know how long the series runs? Regards, Gregory S. Shell Subversive Specialist Capitalist ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 22:06:28 -0800 From: "Michael R. Runion" Subject: Re: R.E.M. & "Party of Five" MARKEEFE@aol.com wrote: > Aw, come on. I second that c'mon. C'mon! While the thought of REM appearing on Party Of Five does worry me ever so slightly, I don't really see it as this drastic "sell-out" thing, if there is really such a thing. Remember, REM's sorta been doing this stuff on and off for their whole career. Appearing on Letterman back in '83 or so (when Letterman was sorta the hip show to watch). Slipping onto MTV all the time. Doing their stint on Arsenio back in '89. Stipe popping up in Nick's Pete & Pete (hey man, that was one cool ass show!) in the early 90's. Hell, giving "Stand" to Chris Elliott for "Get A Life" (another totally favorite show of mine...no flames please). If REM is "selling out" by doing Rosie (which, like it or not, is sorta the only hip talk show these days...even if it does sorta suck), then they've always been sell-outs. Snore. Time to move on... I saw the Rosie performance (it aired again recently whilst Ms. Rosie was sick or something) and it was fine. Give 'em a break. The album's not selling so well, and Warner's is probably breathing down their necks trying to recoup on that $80 million deal. Hell, they're getting old. The band is falling apart. Would I have liked it better if they'd just split up after Bill left, like they always said they would? I honestly don't know. Part of me likes the drama and finale that thought implies, but this is reality. Hell, keep at it guys... Beside, I'm sure Robyn still digs ya. Mike (wow, posting from home at night! It's been ages...) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:17:11 +1300 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: Re: The death of record companies bla bla bla As the ad says, it will happen, but it won't happen overnight. Sure it's fine to start going 'give it five years anmd CDs will start to be phased out because all music will be downloadable". And it's probably true that web-related music transfer will be a major part of music exchange by then. Currently there are probably about 80 million internet accounts. Thats what - - 1.5%? - of the world that has access to the web, assuming of course that each person has only one account. And of that small fraction of people, would even half be able to download music? Even at the current extraordinary growth in the internet, I can't honestly see more than a small fraction of the world being able to download music if and when they want to even in five years time. CDs will continue to have their place as a handy, portable source for some time yet, I would think, much like Cassettes have their place. James ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:19:47 +1300 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: Thank you for the music I want to thank all of you for indirectly inspiring my latest song. I wrote it last night in the shed(? Perhaps it's an old English folk-song), and it's still a little rough around the edges. I present it here for your perusal and edification. (PS - royalties for the first line, distributed among 150+ Fegmaniax, would come out at about one virtual pobble-bead each. Wear it in good health). Style? Think vague tongue-in-cheek c&w, like "Sleeping Knights" "I know the felt of Judas" I know the felt of Judas, and the time is coming soon It's rising in the atmosphere just like a toy balloon It's listening to the solar wind that's blowing through your hair It's playing in the smoky bar when everyone is there And when it's finally written and the day is nearly done, It's setting in the west just like a large unholy sun I feel the warp of Moses it's sleeping in a cot It's drawing through the asteroids in a twentyfive foot yacht You see it with your telescope a glowing yellow star You follow it for miles in your cousin Martin's car And when you finally get to it your disappointment shows When you realise it's just an insect climbing on a rose I taste the weight of Zebedee I hear he came to town Carrying a carpet with the pattern upside down He tried to sell it quickly to a sailor from Taiwan But when he went to fetch it he discovered it was gone And you don't think I know this but I saw your Auntie Jane She was dragging that old carpet to a dealer down the lane I smell the hands of Abraham I know he's always here Disseminating wisdom as he draws a pint of beer It's nearly half past seven and he knows its time to go He's packed his bags and checking on a late flight to Heathrow And after all the messages I've hidden in this song You may not realise if you are hearing right or wrong Some of them are in the words and some are in the tune For I know the felt of Judas and its time is coming soon... I know the felt of Judas, and the time is coming soon It's rising in the atmosphere just like a toy balloon It's listening to the solar wind that's blowing through your hair It's playing in the smoky bar when everyone is there And when it's finally written and the day is nearly done, It's setting in the west just like a large unholy sun. James PS - who came up with that line anyway? ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #47 ******************************