From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #218 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, August 5 2000 Volume 09 : Number 218 Today's Subjects: ----------------- titan up [hbrandt ] Re: Politics Pianoheads and Runes [JEFFB7777@aol.com] new bands ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Our Lady of Eternal Combustion [Michael Wolfe ] Re: Politics Pianoheads and Runes (I'm at it again) [steve ] Re: eb all over the gondolism [steve ] Re: Politics Pianoheads and Runes [steve ] Re: Politics Pinheads and Frank Zappa [JEFFB7777@aol.com] Brazil (0% Robyn Content) ["Ben" ] Re: Weenie-ism (A scenario - I need help) [Bayard ] Re: Politics Pinheads and Frank Zappa ["Noe Shalev" ] Re: Weenie-ism (A scenario - I need help) ["Proctology Now" ] Phew! And I thought WE had alot of spare time on our hands! ["John B" Subject: titan up > I recently saw "Celebrity," and this is one of the few > Woody Allen films I've seen which was just plain *bad*. He has made plenty > of "interesting failures," but this one didn't even deserve that faint > praise. Agreed. > Awfully hard to watch a titan like Kenneth Branagh straining to > duplicate Woody's stammering tics.... A 'titan'?! Granted, his forays into directing the Bard have clicked with the masses, but have you ever seen his "Frankenstein"? If you think Ollie hits us over the head, then Kenny does it times ten and bores us in the process. Zzzz. I'll agree that Branagh's decision to imitate Woody in "Celebrity" was a major miscalculation. > Anyone have an opinion on: ...And They > Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead? http://westword.com/issues/2000-08-03/music3.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 18:46:35 EDT From: JEFFB7777@aol.com Subject: Re: Politics Pianoheads and Runes I agree with any one who says they will vote their conscious, but I doubt Nader will take many votes from Bush. Republicans call Gore a liberal (I'd laugh at that if it weren't so pathetic) so I don't think they would find Nader appealing. I think that a Pat Buchanan type might appeal more to the right wing extremists of the Republican party than Nader would. Did anyone notice last nite that Bush criticized Gore for reinventing himself while Bush himself couldn't get the "inclusion" message out fast enough. Thats rich considering the Bush visit to the Bob Jones university a few months ago. Considering the poor Republican record on civil rights, how can they honestly believe that anyone would take them seriously when they claim to be the party of inclusion? But then, a lot of people seem to get sucked in by Republican propaganda: after all Ronald Reagan got elected....... twice! jeffb currently reading: my recently completed collection of "Fish Police" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 17:32:36 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: new bands > From: Eb > Anyone have an opinion on: Coldplay, How to Build a Rocketship, JJ72, I know of Coldplay and JJ72, but not much about them. Margaret loves both of them. I would say that of the two I prefer JJ72, who are slightly more interesting, but in that melodramatic quasi-glammy way I enjoy and you, I recall, tend not to. That is to say that the vocals are screechier and fruitier. Coldplay don't impress me at all from what little I've heard...yet another sub-Radiohead/sub-Manics flavorless New Britpop band. I've never heard Travis (apart from their worthless Britney Spears "cover," which is neither appealing nor amusing), but I suspect they're similar. Based on my impression of them and my limited knowledge of your tastes I would say: walk, don't run. I'm afraid I can't help you with the others, but I will say that the new Dandy Warhols album is excellent (for the Dandys, anyway). > From: Aaron Mandel > On Fri, 4 Aug 2000 Mark_Gloster@3com.com wrote: > > > >From my viewpoint, the only significant arguments on the side of > > voting Democrat or Republican is over the issues of reproductive > > choice, school funding, and court appointments. I don't see a > > substantial difference otherwise in the policy politics of either. > > you forgot gay rights. Which, along with a generalized impression that the Democrats were the Party of Goodness versus the Republicans' Party of Competence, was the deciding factor in my last few votes. I'm making an effort to apply a marginally more complex thought process this time around. My impression is that a Bush presidency will accomplish nothing good for the Alphabet Soup (GLBTetc.), and in this climate could really set us back in a big way. Like Clinton, Gore probably wouldn't accomplish much of note either, but he might hold back the rising tide of state-level attacks on gay rights. The argument that Bush would just be doing honestly what Gore would be forced into doing doesn't quite hold water for me when it comes to an issue like this, where I could see Bush doing some real harm. Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter might make a slight difference, but did Newt Gingrich's lesbian half-sister? > however, his support for a *ban* on adoptions by gay parents is > appalling. And, unfortunately, I think he might stand a real chance of getting that one through if given the opportunity. Makes me want to puke. > From: "Proctology Now" > MUST include GOTTA LET THIS HEN OUT! in its entirety? i say it's the > third-best egyptians album, after ELEMENT OF LIGHT and RESPECT > (respectively, har har.) I'd go along with that. It would only take a couple of substitutions to make it a viable Portable Hitchcock. Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik: drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 18:06:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: Our Lady of Eternal Combustion Ladies and Gentlemen, May I present to you, my new secret weapon in the war on the internal combustion engine: http://www.challenge-ligfietsen.nl/taifun.htm It arrived yesterday. It's going to take me some time to learn how to ride it, but all I can say is, whew! - -Michael - ----- End forwarded message ----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:30:55 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: Politics Pianoheads and Runes (I'm at it again) Mark_Gloster@3com.com: >Hmmm. I seem to recall somebody on this very list telling >me that I was wasting my vote, when I announced my >intention to vote for Ralph. I didn't say that you would be wasting your vote, only that you might end up in a reeducation camp run by Marvin Olasky (www.bushfiles.com/bushfiles/olasky.html). But I think you're actually pretty safe as long as you don't leave California. Same goes for New York, and maybe a few other states - those that were actually making some progress *before* the US Supreme Court took up the issue of civil rights. >From my viewpoint, the only significant arguments on the >side of voting Democrat or Republican is over the issues >of reproductive choice, school funding, and court >appointments. The Supreme Court is the key. They are the ones that are ultimately blocking campaign reform. And they will ultimately set the field of play for reproductive choice and school funding. If the Renquist/Scalia/Thomas faction can get two more votes, they will waste no time pushing this country right back into the 1950's. Every civil right protection provided by via court case will be gone, and we'll be at the tender mercies of the voters of whatever state we live in. So look around, and figure out if that is a comforting thought. On Roe v. Wade - once it's gone, it's gone. The only way to get it back would be to regain a court majority, and that would take many many years. This country will never pass a reproductive freedom amendment. Raise your hand if you think there will be reproductive freedom in *your* state. >I don't see a substantial difference otherwise in the policy >politics of either. What about environmental policy? Anti-trust, tobacco, peace keeping, labor policy (not trade), etc., etc. >I have even noticed that the Republican convention looks >like the Democratic ones of the past two presidential election >seasons. Big tent, offend noone, say absolutely nothing >specific. Of course it does. Bush has a very savvy team, and they want to package him in a way that will get 51% of the vote. They will take what worked from the last two elections. They have to get enough votes from the mushy middle to put them over, and that's why Bush uses bland generalities to talk about "what's in my heart." It's 100% calculated to pick off votes from A - Z voting demographic. Stinks, doesn't it. >They even try to make George look like Jesus >H. Christ, the same way they did to Bill Clinton- either >being made of the stuff of hysterical comedy material or >insane fiction from L Ron Hubbard. The conventions are now part of the campaign. And you've got to remember that it's the true believers that attend. People have to work to get there, and then they get to bask in the glory of the favorite son of the moment. And maybe hang out with Pat Robertson. Bush doesn't want to look like JHC, that wouldn't sit well with his fellow evangelicals. But he did remind them plenty what a (not Zeus) fearing guy he is. >I do fear the way that the Republicans will address >school funding (vouchers) and reproductive choice in the >supreme court, and maybe congress if they do well, but >try to keep discussion very low key before the election. You should. >I suspect that Bush just can't wait to play with army >men, but I don't know that to be true. Actually, his advisors are against the use of the military unless it's to further the economic interests of the U.S. He *will* pour plenty of money into the M/I Complex. >Unfortunately, from my standpoint, the Democrats (my >original party of choice) have abandoned their positions >of what I had once perceived as higher ground. The >politics of the Democratic party have been so muddied by >money and diluted such that to vote for Gore for issues >of judicial appointments make that vot _for me_ (I >criticize nobody else's judgement) to be offensively >hypocritical. Is it the party of less injustice? For me, >that is too sick of a choice. I honestly believe that a >loud voice of protest is more valuable than a voice >guilty of acquiescence. I really can't fault anyone for voting their conscience. But I feel obligated to warn about the possibility of the Republicans controlling both of the elective branches. You may have no idea how bad Dick Armey and Tom Delay will be without anyone to oppose them. Take your worst Republican congressman and multiply by 10. I don't want to have to hope that Republican moderates are all that stands between me and them. >I think we all make individual decisions. I can't be >anyone's conscience but my own. I faced this four years >ago and believe sincerely that I did the wrong thing >_for me_ when I voted for Clinton. And I'd take Clinton over any Republican that could actually get that party's nomination. He fucked up plenty, but he also had plenty of wins - especially considering the 1984 elections (mostly, I think, the fault of the long term Democrats in the Congress). >Nevertheless, I think in the political game of rock, >scissors, paper, wood beats paper mache, and therefore, >Gore will beat Bush. Once again, I *hope* that you are right. >I want to believe that someone >like Nader will get people to register and vote for >the granola parties who have never voted before and >be counted, if for no other reason than to say that we >are here and we give a shit. Ralph is a cool guy, and the granola parties may (nationally) benefit for a while via his candidacy. On their own, they'll never break out of single digits. Not burning down the village to save it (And not having any intent to attack Mark). Steve _______________ We're all Jesus, Buddha, and the Wizard of Oz! - Andy Partridge ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 21:33:46 -0400 From: chrisg Subject: RE: Politics Pianoheads and Runes >===== Original Message From Mark_Gloster@3com.com ===== >Hmmm. I seem to recall somebody on this very list telling >me that I was wasting my vote, when I announced my >intention to vote for Ralph. Woah! You aren't thinking of me, are you? I gave a couple of reasons not to vote for Nader, but "wasting your vote" wasn't one of them. If you honestly think that the likely practical results of a Nader victory would be better than those of a Gore/Bush/Buchanan/whoever victory, then by all means vote for him. Temporarily .sigless, Chris ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:50:27 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: eb all over the gondolism Proctology Now: >i'll say it again: if you really feel a need to vote for the >"lesser of two evils", then the "grand old party" is your clear "choice". Eddie, this is just total utopian horseshit. - - Steve _______________ We're all Jesus, Buddha, and the Wizard of Oz! - Andy Partridge ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:50:29 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: Politics Pianoheads and Runes JEFFB7777@aol.com: >I think that a Pat Buchanan type might appeal more to the >right wing extremists of the Republican party than Nader would. Notice that Buchanan is at zilch in the polls? That shows you how bad the right wingers want Bush to win (and maybe it tells you something about Bush). It also tells you something about a vote for Ralph. - - Steve __________ Iąd sit down and meditate but my ass is on fire. - Bill Nelson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 22:53:38 EDT From: JEFFB7777@aol.com Subject: Re: Politics Pinheads and Frank Zappa I think the right wing wants Bush to win in the same way that the left wants Gore to win: neither are really keen on their candidates but their party taking power is an over riding factor. The right would love to see Buchanan win (or Keyes, except he's black) but they know they have to put on this disguise that they're a "kinder, gentler" and "inclusive" party, at least until after the election; after that, watch out! Most people I know who support Gore don't plan to vote for him because they think he'll be a good leader. A major reason they support him is because he's neither Bush nor a Republican. My big fear is that a President Bush undoubtedly will become more conservative than he is now, which would be scary but expected (put on a mask, win the election, take off the mask), but a President Gore will undoubtedly become more conservative than he is now as well (sell out Democratic values, win the election, continue to sell out Democratic values). As someone who has voted Democratic all my life, this is a big let down for me. I know this isn't directly Gore's responsibility but I'll never forget Tippers crusade to put warning labels on records. The only good thing about that episode was Frank Zappa's testimony at the congressional hearings. Personally, I'm very disappointed with the Democrats moving so far to the right, whether it be "welfare reform" or Clinton's support of children wearing uniforms to school, or any number of other things in between. If I vote for Nader, and he fails to win the election, at least I know I voted for a candidate who more closely represents my views. I'm not voting for him because he's the Anti- Bush or the Anti- Gore, but because I like most of what he stands for. I'd hate to see Bush or any Republican win, but to me that's what an election is about. Don't forget, once you get behind that curtain, you can pull any lever you want, and no one will be the wiser. jeffb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:29:54 -0400 From: "Ben" Subject: Brazil (0% Robyn Content) >Subject: Re: Taxi Driver (0% Robyn Content) >> I've heard such good things about this movie, and it really >> failed to live up to the hype. It was a boring re-hash of a >> hundred tired sci-fi cliches. There were a few funny moments >> (the funniest of which being when the waiter *demanded* that >> the patron say the number of the entree that he was ordering), >> and Gilliam certainly knows how to create and control the mood >> of his films, but overall this flick just didn't work for me. >> Maybe I was just in a pissy mood when I watched it, but I was >> really expecting to be wowed; I wasn't. 1 star (out of 4). "Brazil" a Sci-Fi movie? I can't think of any elements of the film that would qualify it as such... besides that it takes place in the future, but it's a future that isn't "futuristic" in typical Sci-Fi fashion, no cool flying cars, lasers and technology. Where are the Sci-Fi cliches? I guess the opressive, totalitarian government could qualify as one, but overall I'd say "Brazil" is an extremely unconventional movie to have come out of a Hollywood studio. I think it's a very good movie, especially if you like black humor and you hate happy endings - and that should apply to anyone on a Robyn Hitchcock list!!!! :). Personally I have only seen it twice, I rented it a long time ago then not too long ago I saw it in a class, well at the end of the movie some girl in the room started yelling stuff like "No! This can't be the end!", she was seriously *offended* by the end of the movie!!! It was great! Maybe they should have offered a seperate viewing of the edited studio cut, for the faint of heart! On a different subject, since I know we all LOVE lists :) Did anyone happen to see any of the VH-1 top 100 Greatest Rock Moments on TV? Well I thought there was a few interesting events spotlighted that I never heard of, about all the "must have" moments that I could think of they had on there... but there were a lot where I was just thinking "Huh???". P.S. Robyn's appearance on VH-1's Midnight Minute apparantly made number 101... damn!!!! :) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 00:12:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: Weenie-ism (A scenario - I need help) include raw cuts, but not the entirety of GLtHO? is this wise? am i not remembering the greatness of raw cuts? one possible option - put all the soft boys and egyptians stuff on one volume, all the rest on the other. i really like gotta let this hen out. maybe b/c it was one of the first ones i got, though. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 07:29:31 +0200 From: "Noe Shalev" Subject: Re: Politics Pinheads and Frank Zappa >I know this isn't directly Gore's responsibility but I'll never forget >Tippers crusade to put warning labels on records. Is it not? "On september 19, 1985, the Senate Commerce, Technology and Transportation Committee held a day of highly publicized hearings to discuss the PMRC's proposal [i.e. ID records] (a kangaroo court--five of the committee's members had wives in the PMRC" (The Real Frank Zappa Book, 267). >The only good thing about >that episode was Frank Zappa's testimony at the congressional hearings. and for a little bitching: Don't you all feel strange bout Gail Zappa becoming Tippers close friend? As for my self I'm in favour of Tipper's two 12 year old neices ;-))) All the best (and so is music) NOE ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 22:49:07 PDT From: "Proctology Now" Subject: Re: Weenie-ism (A scenario - I need help) <>i'll say it again: if you really feel a need to vote for the >"lesser of two evils", then the "grand old party" is your clear "choice". Eddie, this is just total utopian horseshit.> how in the motherFUCK can a "lesser of two evils" suggestion be considered "utopian"??? as for "horseshit": i cannot think of a single issue -- MOST ESPECIALLY including civil rights -- for which one could say greater damage to the cause of justice was suffered in the reagan/bush years than the clinton years. moreover, unlike the clinton apologists and republican-doomsday-specialists on this list, i have demonstrated on numerous occasions, using tonnes of examples, that it is indeed the case. bill clinton is the worst president in american history -- and NOT because he "fucked up" or "sold out" or "got pushed around" by those big, mean republicans. do you really want to line up for four more years? perhaps not. robyn himself has declared on many an occasion that the wangbo era was when the soft boys was "at its best". as brilliant as whatever came after RAW CUTS is, it's difficult to understate the grandeur of the spaceward sessions. The Face Of Death! Ventilator/Vyrna Knowl! Hear My Brane! Give It To The Soft Boys! and, most impressively, The Yodelling Hoover! (my vote for second-greatest soft boys song of all, after the *impossibly* bitchin' Underwater Moonlight.) KEN "Total Commitment" THE KENSTER ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:26:59 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: Weenie-ism (A scenario - I need help) >>i'll say it again: if you really feel a need to vote for the >>"lesser of two evils", then the "grand old party" is your clear "choice". >Eddie, this is just total utopian horseshit. Proctology Now: >how in the motherFUCK can a "lesser of two evils" suggestion be considered >"utopian"??? Because your angle of attack is so far out there that the resulting analysis lacks merit. And your expectations are unrealistic. I'm not saying that you shouldn't hold them, but you'll never get anything close to what you want. That's excluding a crisis scenario. >as for "horseshit": i cannot think of a single issue -- MOST ESPECIALLY >including civil rights -- for which one could say greater damage to the >cause of justice was suffered in the reagan/bush years than the clinton >years. See the above. >moreover, unlike the clinton apologists and >republican-doomsday-specialists on this list, i have demonstrated on >numerous occasions, using tonnes of examples, that it is indeed the case. >bill clinton is the worst president in american history - Maybe three percent of the American populace would agree with your analysis. A much larger percentage might think he's the worst president for other reasons. As for Clinton apologist-ism, I merely think he's better than any Republican that could get that party's nomination. My Republican warnings are against the worse case scenario. This is what they *want*, it might not be what they get. The hardcore right hates Clinton because he is a constant reminder of their lost social hegemony. Their ultimate goal is a return to what they see as America's Golden Age - - the 1950s. They won't be able to do that on a nationwide basis, but there are a good number of states where they could. This will require a "Federalist" Supreme Court - exactly the kind Bush has said he wants. >-- and NOT because he "fucked up" or "sold out" or "got pushed around" by >those big, mean republicans. The simple fact is that Clinton has been working against a Republican congress for the last six years. In that context, he probably did a little selling out, but he didn't get pushed around. In fact, he did a good bit of pushing around himself. But he did fuck up - he couldn't resist getting a blowjob from an idiot bimbo - and that gave power to his enemies *and* created a political climate in which an empty suit like George W. Bush is considered to be a viable candidate for President. >do you really want to line up for four more years? Vs. a Bush administration? FUCK yes! Not letting the perfect be the enemy of the fairly good - Steve _______________ We're all Jesus, Buddha, and the Wizard of Oz! - Andy Partridge ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 2000 17:12:05 -0700 From: "John B" Subject: Phew! And I thought WE had alot of spare time on our hands! http://www.egroups.com/files/billybragg/Announcements/ruling080200.html =jbj= ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #218 *******************************