From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #221 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, August 7 2000 Volume 09 : Number 221 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: Hmuhs in the ring! [Vivien Lyon ] Re: Half-year favorites [lj lindhurst ] Re: VH1's top 100 rock 'n' roll moments [selected] [Eb ] Vic, Dick, Olivia, reap [Natalie Jacobs ] RE: Hmuhs in the ring! [Christopher Gross ] Re: VH1's top 100 rock 'n' roll moments [selected] [Jeff Dwarf ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:12:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Vivien Lyon Subject: RE: Hmuhs in the ring! - --- The Great Quail wrote: > I agree with Chris and Steve -- four years of GOP rule will > NOT act > as a wake-up to the Dems; and Nader will only take votes away > from > Gore. I still don't see this. They aren't Gore's votes- they're OUR votes. We cast them as we see fit. To speak of Nader taking away Gore's votes is to speak a fallacy. The Dems need serious reforming; but let them reform in > office > rather than out of office. Historically speaking, I think > McGovern > was wonderful; but he was smooshed. Well, we were beaten once- I guess that means we'll always be beaten. Another fallacy. And yet, the Dems have > come a > long way from the days of Wallace and Humphrey and LBJ and > Daley and > their ilk. Reform is a slow process; but I do, however, feel > we are > slowly evolving into a more enlightened society. (Go, Hegel.) You're right- we are. That is why people are so reluctant to vote for Gore- they can see him for what he is. As we become even more enlightened, we will refuse to vote for any evil, no matter how 'lesser.' > Gore is a centrist, and like that or not, he's as far left as > most of > America wants to go right now. Gore TALKS like a centrist, but he sure doesn't act like one. His actions are exactly as regressive as most republicans. > Vivien, please.... This argument is untenable. You can also > eat at a > million other restaurants, or open your own, or be a Vegan. > Hell, I'm > just glad I can even eat. I know it was simplistic. It wasn't an argument, it was an illustration. Of _course_ we have more choices than those presented to us by the media- I just wish we would ACT like we do. And yes, I am aware that multi-nationals are > colonizing > our unconsciousness through constant advertising, which is > certainly > a result of our system. But that is far, far the lesser of > evils, in > my opinion, than a 100% "socially" regulated media. I assume you mean a nominally socially regulated media that is actually regulated by a (corrupt) government. I would actually love to see a socially regulated media- regulated by us, the society. > And besides, goddammit, I love MacDonald's food, and I think > Coca-Cola is the best freaking drink invented since the > Egyptians > first brewed beer. I am not afraid to admit this. That's okay- you make up for your pedestrian taste-buds by being incredibly diverse in your musical and literary tastes. > I do not think I am wrong at all. I am speaking of Americans > in the > most general sense, and most of them are fairly happy with the > system. Oh, of course they bitch about politics, but they vote > by > complacency -- in the absence of a real external threat, a > culture > such as ours is allowed to enter a bit of relaxed decadence. There _are_ external threats, my friend, of many kinds. The media just refuses to report on them because they might shake up our precious complacency. BUT -- The > average > American is the person who probably does not even know Nader > and the > Greens exist. They may not know much about the Greens. But are you kidding me about Nader? The average 18 year-old might not know much about him, but the man has been in the public eye for 40 years! You have to have your head pretty far up your ass not to at least know he exists. And I'll tell you this -- if the average > American were > fully informed of the Green agenda and all its implications, > the > average American would certainly not vote for Nader. There is no such thing as the average American. > -- and Nader would basically sink the boat trying to build a > "better" > one -- something Congress will never allow. I can't imagine what Nader might do in office. I am not really so foolish as to believe it is a possibility. But I do believe that if we sit back and vote Gore, we are basically resigning ourselves to a totally corrupt, empty two-party system, and we are doing ourselves a VAST disservice. Vivien __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:16:02 -0400 From: lj lindhurst Subject: Re: Half-year favorites Oh, you LIAR!! You've been telling me all this time that "Standing On the Shoulder of Giants" is in your Top Ten!!! What, are you afraid your proggie buddies will make fun of you??? >As a break form politics, I thought I would follow up a recent >Eb-post with a half-year favorite list of my own.... > >1. Silence is Sexy, Einsturzende Neubauten >2. Gung Ho, Patti Smith >3. Punishing Kiss, Ute Lemper >4. ConstruKCtion of Light, King Crimson >5. Star for Bram, that quirky Syd-Barret guy >6. Fold Your Hands Child You Walk Like a Quail, Belle & Sebastian >7. Million Dollar Hotel, U2 & others >8. Farmhouse, Phish >9. Ecstasy, Lou Reed >10. Bloodflowers, The Cure > >--Quail >-- >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >The Great Quail, K.S.C. >(riverrun Discordian Society, Kibroth-hattaavah Branch) > >http://www.w-rabbit.com/gerbils.html > >"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have >a tremendous impact on history." > --Vice President Dan Quayle ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:44:06 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: VH1's top 100 rock 'n' roll moments [selected] (Awwww, Alec....) Jeff: >what i thought was peculiar were there were several things that, while >i would consider them plausible great MUSICAL moments in tv history, >but weren't rock'n'roll in the slightest. i mean, the Nat King Cole >Show? certainly an important cultural occurance, both in terms of him >getting a show and in it's failure, and Cole is one of the greatest >singers of the 20th century, if not the best, but he didn't rock. >Sinatra being cut off at the Grammy's? tacky, but sinatra not only >wasn't rock'n'roll, he was openly hostile until he realized being so >was damaging to his career. You didn't mention maybe the least "rock 'n' roll" moment of all: the Bette Midler appearance on "The Tonight Show." That was sooooooo old-school.... As for the Sinatra thing, that was really more about Bono than Sinatra. And I'm not a U2 fan, but I gotta admit that Bono's intro made my hair stand on end. That was definitely a "moment." Give Quail hell, LJ! The list is short on lovers' dirty laundry, since Viv and Jeme have been keeping their fights off-list, lately. ;) Eb, who has Silence is Sexy but hasn't played it yet np: Chris Knox/Beat (Thirsty Ear sure has a lot of great music in its catalog, considering what a low-profile label it is...bravo!) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:56:36 -0400 From: "Yudt.Matthew" Subject: Re: Hmuhs in the ring! - yo "Greens" take note: > And yes, I am aware that multi-nationals are colonizing > our unconsciousness through constant advertising, which is certainly > a result of our system. Great point. Take note all you Nader fans. Although I do think Nader is a far better choice than Gorebush, his major problem is blaming capitalism and corporate interests for our problems. IT IS THE GOVERNMENT WHICH SET UP THE SYSTEM WHICH ALLOWS THIS TO HAPPEN. Therefore get the government OUTof the way and allow free market capitalism to set the rules for fair play. Not this two party $y$tem we have now. Vote libertarian - - not Green. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:02:01 -0700 From: Eb Subject: I hope I don't regret asking, but... ...but what do you political hound dogs think of Joseph Lieberman? I really don't know a thing about him, myself. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:12:55 -0700 From: Natalie Jacobs Subject: Vic, Dick, Olivia, reap p.s. Anyone else grooving on the new Vic Chesnutt album yet? Delightfully loopy I think. Huh? What? New Vic Chesnutt? When did this happen? Gosh, with no television I'm so out of the loop... Olivia Tremor Control B-sides compilation is out tomorrow. Been reading "Divine Invasions," a bio of Philip K. Dick. Boy howdy, was he fucked up. After reading about how crazy his life was up until 1974, the "pink laser" experience comes as little surprise. Reap: Steve Reeves, a.k.a. Hercules. "His chest looks like split-top bread!" - MST3K n. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:50:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: RE: Hmuhs in the ring! On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Vivien Lyon wrote: > > system. Oh, of course they bitch about politics, but they vote > > by > > complacency -- in the absence of a real external threat, a > > culture > > such as ours is allowed to enter a bit of relaxed decadence. > > There _are_ external threats, my friend, of many kinds. The > media just refuses to report on them because they might shake up > our precious complacency. WHAT!? I knew it -- those damn Canadian bastards are about to stab us in the back, aren't they? James Madison, come back -- we need you! - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:48:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: VH1's top 100 rock 'n' roll moments [selected] Eb wrote: > (Awwww, Alec....) > > Jeff: > >what i thought was peculiar were there were several things that, > while > >i would consider them plausible great MUSICAL moments in tv history, > >but weren't rock'n'roll in the slightest. i mean, the Nat King Cole > >Show? certainly an important cultural occurance, both in terms of > him > >getting a show and in it's failure, and Cole is one of the greatest > >singers of the 20th century, if not the best, but he didn't rock. > >Sinatra being cut off at the Grammy's? tacky, but sinatra not only > >wasn't rock'n'roll, he was openly hostile until he realized being so > >was damaging to his career. > > You didn't mention maybe the least "rock 'n' roll" moment of all: the > Bette Midler appearance on "The Tonight Show." That was sooooooo > old-school.... and very touching (and i pretty much can't stand bette midler), but definitely not rock'n'roll... > As for the Sinatra thing, that was really more about Bono than > Sinatra. And I'm not a U2 fan, but I gotta admit that Bono's intro > made my hair stand on end. That was definitely a "moment." they didn't even allude to Bono's introduction; the closest thing to rock'n'roll they got with that one was billy joel stopping mid-song later in the broadcast, and milking it for all it was worth. > Give Quail hell, LJ! The list is short on lovers' dirty laundry, > since Viv > and Jeme have been keeping their fights off-list, lately. ;) > > Eb, who has Silence is Sexy but hasn't played it yet > > np: Chris Knox/Beat (Thirsty Ear sure has a lot of great music in its > catalog, considering what a low-profile label it is...bravo!) ===== "Life is just a series of dogs." -- George Carlin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:55:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Hmuhs in the ring! - yo "Greens" take note: "Yudt.Matthew" wrote: > > > And yes, I am aware that multi-nationals are colonizing > > our unconsciousness through constant advertising, which is > > certainly a result of our system. > > Great point. Take note all you Nader fans. Although I do think > Nader > is a far better choice than Gorebush, his major problem is blaming > capitalism and corporate interests for our problems. IT IS THE > GOVERNMENT WHICH SET UP THE SYSTEM WHICH ALLOWS THIS TO HAPPEN. > Therefore get the government OUT of the way and allow free market > capitalism to set the rules for fair play. Not this two party $y$tem > we have now. Vote libertarian - - not Green. that's like saying we should get rid of the fire division of the forestry service because of those fires near los alamos. i don't believe that capitalism is evil, but sorry, if it isn't under the control of the government (like it really is now), it becomes feudalism. capitalism is like fire in that when it's under control, it can be a great asset (as long as you remember all it's capable of doing is raising money; it's not capable of anything else); but when it's left along it'll scorch the earth and destroy you. as annoying as it is, government is the only means we have of controlling the flames; the problem is we've had a bunch of pyromaniacs supposedly looking out to make sure the flames remain under control. hell, lots of them are arsonists. ===== "Life is just a series of dogs." -- George Carlin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:00:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: I hope I don't regret asking, but... Eb wrote: > ...but what do you political hound dogs think of Joseph Lieberman? I > really don't know a thing about him, myself. if al gore was sincere and genuine, he'd be joseph lieberman. ===== "Life is just a series of dogs." -- George Carlin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:03:51 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: Half-year favorites 1. Bright Eyes: "Fevers and Mirrors" 2. Sleater-Kinney: "All Hands on the Bad One" 3. The The: "NakedSelf" 4. Elliott Smith: "Figure Eight" 5. Babybird: "Bugged" 6. Robyn Hitchcock: "A Star for Bram" 7. "Million Dollar Hotel" soundtrack 8. Dirty Three: "Whatever You Love, You Are" 9. Cure: "Bloodflowers" 10. DJ Food: "Kaliedoscope" Not a very good year so far, IMO. And I won't consider it a good year (musically) unless some as-yet-unheard-by-me 2000 release ends up at #1, because, while I pretty much equally like all of my top 5 albums quite well, there hasn't been that one album that really makes the year for me. But I expect Elastica and Radiohead to go "Top 10 with a bullet" upon their respective releases :-) Maybe one of those will be *the* album of 2000 (in my own little world, anyway). - -----Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:02:50 -0400 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: Re: Hmuhs in the ring! - yo "Greens" take note: >> And yes, I am aware that multi-nationals are colonizing >> our unconsciousness through constant advertising, which is certainly >> a result of our system. > >Great point. Take note all you Nader fans. Although I do think Nader >is a far better choice than Gorebush, his major problem is blaming >capitalism and corporate interests for our problems. IT IS THE >GOVERNMENT WHICH SET UP THE SYSTEM WHICH ALLOWS THIS TO HAPPEN. >Therefore get the government OUTof the way and allow free market >capitalism to set the rules for fair play. Not this two party $y$tem >we have now. Vote libertarian - - not Green. do you doubt that corporate interests influence our government with intensive lobbying, campaign donations, and the threat of leaving certain areas (and taking jobs and tax dollars [albeit a smaller amount with special deals provided as incentive to stay] with them) altogether? the republicrats are essentially vying for the chance to suck the corporate teat and keep the juices flowing. several large corporations have given the maximum campaign donation allowable to both parties to ensure special consideration from whichever actually wins. it is corporations that own and control the vast majority of the media in the form of newspapers, magazines, radio, and television. the presidential debates are now controlled by corporations which require participants to have fifteen percent of the vote as determined by several polls. the government has consistantly served the interests of big money since its inception with few exceptions. this is the major problem. do we place the blame on the corporations or the government? i don't doubt that libertarians could make some beneficial changes. i do wonder if a free market will bring about fair play because capitalism sucks. i welcome a national debate with all parties, rather than the two-headed republicrat monster sidesteping the real issues. yo, i'm voting for ralph. ken "follow the money" the kenster ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 15:20:30 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: I hope I don't regret answering this, but ... At 02:02 PM 8/7/00 -0700, Eb wrote: >...but what do you political hound dogs think of Joseph Lieberman? I really >don't know a thing about him, myself. ...Lieberman is one of the most dangerous men active in American politics right now. Lieberman is one of those pro-censorship "family values" conservative Democrats that is hip on blaming the nebulous "influence" of video games, movies, rock songs and internet mailing lists for all of society's ills. Basically a male version of Al's wife. What should bother people most about Lieberman was the way in which he threatened the arts after the Columbine incident. The Senator, in a manner akin to a two-bit dictator, attempted to use his position of power to blackmail the media - threatening free speech with suggestions of Congressional investigations and then vowing to pass legislation and re-evaluate broadcast licences if the media did not "self censor." In other words, oppressing with the promise to oppress. With Lieberman on the ticket, I'm almost willing to agree with Eddie that the Republicans are actually the "lesser" of the two "big party" evils this time around. There's no way in freaking hades that I'll vote for Gore with Lieberman as a running mate. Then again, there's probably no way I'd vote for Gore with Gore on the ticket. Expect a further erosion of your basic freedoms, whatever the outcome of this election... as long as serious menaces like Hillary Clinton (who has been a major threat to the rights of the accused) have a chance of obtaining Senate seats, I wouldn't really expect much along the lines of protection of personal liberties. Anyhow, speaking of politics, I couldn't stomach any of the speeches for more than two minutes, but I did watch some of the GOP Convention coverage on various networks. My favorite GOP Convention moment was an MSNBC camera shot of ex-President George Bush Sr. blowing (up) one of those big red phallic sausage-shaped balloons. Oh, baby. I also liked one delegate's "I wasn't the one in charge of making those arrangements" shift-the-blame answer when asked by Comedy Central why Richard Nixon wasn't invited to the Tribute to Past Republican Presidents Night. - --Jason "The monkey catches a Greyhound bus from Wyoming to Utah" Thornton http://www.snowplow.org/cgi-bin/george.pl "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:23:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Hmuhs in the ring! Just a few words... I'm really busy today and it's still true that changing a person's mind on politics is just about impossible. But to share... On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, The Great Quail wrote: > And, I am not thinking like a defeatist; but like a realist. Politics > is the art of the possible -- not that idealism does not have a place, > but I for one am going to utilize my vote effectively. And using your vote "effectively" means voting for someone you're already told CAN win? In one sense, you're right. Voting for anyone outside of Gore or Bush is voting for someone that will not win. This election was decided some time ago. The corporate powers, through their media outlets, have filtered out everyone in the two major parties to bring us down to the two they're most comfortable with. Yeah, they're almost identical. One is more blatantly religious, sure. One talks about environmentalism (but for heaven's sake doesn't DO anything about it... nothing good anyway). One has dark hair, the other lighter. There's your choice. I honestly don't believe there is enough difference to matter. The broadcasters have an enormous amount of control. And those broadcasters are AT&T, Disney, GE, and CBS. Those are the only voices on television (outside those kooky public access people and the occasionally non-corporate funded PBS show... McNeil-Lehrer, for example, is a joint product of GE and AT&T). If it's not good for the broadcasters (and their numerous other interests), it will not become an issue in the election. Nader will not get coverage because Nader opposes the control of these massive corporations over the public airwaves. McCain was pushed out because he opposed the corporate welfare broadcasters received in the form of free spectrum for digital broadcasting (Viv and I just saw the clip again last night where McCain said to Congress something very much like "I'd like to congratulate the broadcasting industry and their surrogates and representatives here in Congress on the receipt of their billions of dollars of free goods from the people of the United States of America". Fucking inspiring). I would have voted for McCain in a heartbeat. Even if the whole race were McCain v. Nader and both had huge budgets and popular support. (Just to make up numbers, I believe in about 75% of what McCain said, 60% of Nader's words, 6% of what comes out of Gore's mouth and maybe 3% from Bush... this is entirely independent of my belief in their actual stance and record, where Gore slips to zero instantly.) I told a Democrat yesterday (who tried to feed me the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush line") that I'd probably vote for Bush over Gore if I really only had two choices. You see, the Democrats talk the talk, but in practice, they're exactly like the Republicans. So you can vote Republican and be somewhat outraged by the policies, or you can vote Democrat and be both betrayed and outraged. I think in the actual policy making, there is nothing that party affiliation really tells you. There are good Democrats and bad ones, good Republicans and bad ones. I love Ron Wyden and John McCain, I hate Al Gore and George W. Bush. I'm not a Democrat and never have been (I don't even particularly believe in democracy). I'm certainly not what any thinking person would consider leftist. Environmentalism isn't "lefty" as much as it's realistic and practical and just being sensible about resources (a very capitalistic thing, if you ask me). I oppose today's huge corporations and megamergers under similarly capitalistic reasoning (trusts restrict consumer choice and information). And my vote for Nader is largely because of my understanding of his views on those sorts of issues. I'm not on the right, either, strictly speaking. I'm rather socially liberal. I believe in individual choices and restricting only external effects of those choice (and abortion is an understandably sticky situation because it has an apparently external effect as well as being a deeply personal choice... and that's why I think it's impossible to legislate and best left to individuals). So I believe in some regulation of industry, yes. But I also believe in limiting governmental power (government control of ANYTHING is just ASKING for corruption... same goes for a single private controller. If you concentrate power, you will have corruption). > Not to mention the fact that, in all honesty, I don't like the Green > party. While I am no rampant capitalist, I am neither a Marxist nor an > idealist. I really don't like the Green Party, either. Nader has given the Green Party nomination but did not seek it. He's not one of them. I'm not a socialist of any kind (but I do believe people vote from their bread-basket and that most changes come from economic motivators, which, strictly speaking, is a Marxist view), but I'm certainly a kind of idealist. The reason the extremely damaging status quo stays static is that a majority are generally personally prosperous and options exist to be culturally well-developed as well. The long-view is fucked. The big picture is one of rape and destruction (of the third world, of the planet, of the underprivileged Americans), but that isn't happening to your general American public so it's not an issue. > I agree with Chris and Steve -- four years of GOP rule will NOT act as > a wake-up to the Dems; and Nader will only take votes away from Gore. I'd just like to note that nobody on this list in the Nader camp has suggested for one second that they are working to "wake up the Dems" nor that they would otherwise vote for Gore. This is Chris and Steve's work and needs no rebuttal from someone with whom they agree. You've invented an argument with no opposition. > Gore is a centrist, and like that or not, he's as far left as most of > America wants to go right now. He's not in any particular direction. He's what the press will let him be in the press and he's what the corporations will let him be in office. Gore and Bush belong to the money and nobody else. The Greens offered up an enlightening piece of literature the other day: Sixty-Six corporations that have given more than US$50,000 to BOTH Gore and Bush campaigns. Trust that these corporations will be well-represented regardless of which major party candidate wins. > Don't confuse late capitalism with totalitarianism. There is a big, > big difference between feeling that pop stars are being foisted on > you, and having your political party outlawed, or your printing press > closed down, or having tanks roll over you in a public square, for > that matter. How about having your television station shut down because your license fees were too high while the networks are given meter upon meter of free bandwidth? How about having your website shut down because AT&T's service agreement doesn't allow cable modem subscribers to run services (only surfing cattle, please, do not talk to anyone -- this, combined with their understandable and good restrictions on bulk email, ensures that no AT&T customer will be able to communicate with more than four or five others at any given time. It's economic restriction of assembly). Most DSL providers have similar rules and in some areas it's impossible to get a connection that WILL allow you to run services unless you have "legitimate commercial interest". Yeah, you can run your printing press and you can have people over to your house to discuss any sort of subversive thing that you like... but get more than about fifty people in a public space and the police show up. Demonstrate without a PERMIT and you'll go to jail (remember, this is a PERMITTED demonstration... we don't PERMIT just any ol' demonstration)... but try and communicate with a large number of people and you will be shut down. We are free to speak... as long as not very many people can hear. And if certain cases currently running through the judicial system go the way of the plaintiffs (as nearly all corporate complaints do... seeing how nearly every judge sent up to the bench in the past twenty years was formerly a corporate attorney), a whole new kind of speech will be ILLEGAL. Computer programs that might be used to do things against corporate policy (I'm not exaggerating or kidding... these are CORPORATE rules, not the public's being violated by these programs) will be ILLEGAL to traffic, possess or use. No thing should be illegal, only its use in a particular manner. Any computer program that communicates can be used to attack just as any heavy object can be used to bludgeon. Outlawing certain strings of words words is a very, very bad step for civil rights. > And yes, I am aware that multi-nationals are colonizing our > unconsciousness through constant advertising, which is certainly a > result of our system. But that is far, far the lesser of evils, in my > opinion, than a 100% "socially" regulated media. I've stated my views on a single controlling body (be that the government or the company that ends up with the most money). But are you saying that there is no BETTER way? That we must choose between this and a totalitarian society and that's that? I think there are infinite options. I do not believe this is the best of all possible worlds. > I do not think I am wrong at all. I am speaking of Americans in the > most general sense, and most of them are fairly happy with the system. I would probably argue that people are fairly happy with their own lives and so they don't really judge the "system" at all. They're content with their TV and their cars and all that and so everything else is just peripheral and not that important. They don't think about what damage their cars do or the source of their television programs. As long as they can be personally prosperous and their god is not defiled, they're fine. They're fine getting all their news from NewsCorp and AOL. They're fine getting all their entertainment from Disney. They're fine with the FBI reading email of "suspected" criminals. They're fine with not being able to host a website on their PC. They're fine with it mostly because they don't know and don't see the need to learn. They don't know how to run a website. They don't know how Carnvore works. They don't know that Disney owns everything from ABC to The History Channel to Touchstone and Buena Vista pictures. They don't know that NewsCorp owns Fox (including Fox News) and the publishers of all the books in the window at Barnes & Noble and that AOL runs CNN. They don't know enough to worry because the information distribution networks are controlled tightly. There's no guessing what would happen if they could know. They might still enjoy their prosperity or they might take to the streets in anger or they might just start voting more properly and supporting new ideas. There's no way to tell and what you THINK might happen shows your optimism or pessimism. In this hypothetical case, the realist has no answer and must take sides. > Do you think Clinton's Big Blowjob would be so important if we were in > World War III? Do you think the broadcast spectrum giveaway would have been in the Telecommunicaions Act of 1996 if there had been more than three major broadcasters? Do you think the Digital Millenium Copyright Act would contain section 1201(a) or (b) at all if the motion picture and recording industries weren't owned by the hardware manufacturers Sony and Phillips? Do you think Clinton would be sanctioning Iraq so heavily if there were a single news international news outlet that didn't also own trucking and other oil-consumptive distribution companies? There are ifs all over. The Big Blowjob is just a little dance they all did. In the most optimistic world, it was an attempt by some people in Congress to oust a dangerous president on some grounds that could be understood and fully realized by the American public and didn't implicate Congress as well. > Well, we'll see if I am wrong in November, at least. You won't be wrong in November. One of the major party candidates will win, surely. If it's Bush, you can say you're right and the Nader supporters fucked you over and split the party and gave a big no-confidence to Gore. If it's Gore, you can say that you were right and the Americans got the left-most president they wanted. I believe Gore will be the next President of the United States of American and I hate it. I know he will win. It's very clear. Gore talks the talk of "realism" to Americans... he's an environmentalist that believes in business' right to make money off the land (contradiction)... he's for health care reform and would like managed care to replace the HMOs (What's the difference again?)... he plays both sides of the issues and emphasizes the side that gets the most applause. I don't think people really look at policies, only talk. Bush's only talk is directed at traditionalists; old people and the religious. The policies that will come out will be functionally identical, but the talk is in Gore's favor. > There's the key, Vivien. Do you really, honestly, think that the > people you know -- Naderites and Greens -- represent the average > American? I don't care about the Average American's view. I care about who I'd like to see in the White House of the offered choices (six or so, at last count). The Average American doesn't come into it. > BUT -- The average American is the person who probably does not even > know Nader and the Greens exist. And I'll tell you this -- if the > average American were fully informed of the Green agenda and all its > implications, the average American would certainly not vote for Nader. That's why I liked the New Republic article. It showed that Nader is not a kooky Green. He's something else. He's a smart, capable man whom the Greens happen to endorse. If he were President, he'd probably be the most qualified person ever to hold the job (barely edging out Woodrow Wilson) (and that's not to say a qualified man always does the best job). > We are a fairly complacent culture, and while part of that means > boredom with politics, it also means we don't want the boat rocked to > vigorously -- and Nader would basically sink the boat trying to build > a "better" one -- something Congress will never allow. I don't see what you're talking about here. Nader would sink the boat how? By drawing votes away from Gore, as you insist he's doing? I'd say the veto power would be Nader's best tool (along with the option of appointing a judge or two... maybe). Vetoes would force Congress to go back to the drawing board and come up with better legislation or at least rally to a higher majority. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the President veto just about everything that comes across his desk to limit the majority-rule that hurts so many. I would also LOVE to see a President that spoke candidly about what was going on in the government. I love it when a congressperson says something exposing the underbelly of the system and it's a rare thing. I don't think I remember a President every doing so. I'll cool it for now. Much of this was rambling, but I think there are gems in it. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #221 *******************************