From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #222 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 222 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: 7/12-year favorites [Eb ] RE: fegmaniax-digest V9 #220 ["The Rooneys" ] Re: Hmuhs in the ring! - yo "Greens" take note: [Capuchin ] Re: VH1's top 100 rock 'n' roll moments [selected] ["Ben" ] Re: Nader reads "X Men," but only for the articles [Eb ] Re: Hmuhs in the ring! [Capuchin ] eb all over the world ["Proctology Now" ] here's the exact quote ["Proctology Now" ] Re: Hmuhs in the ring! - yo "Greens" take note: ["Yudt.Matthew" Subject: Re: 7/12-year favorites The Keefster: >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. True. (Damn, I really need to hear Bright Eyes.) >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. I can't believe "Figure 8" is still my favorite album of the year. It's good, but not *that* good. What's more, I'm not even aware of any upcoming 2000 releases by my "pet bands," except for PJ Harvey (October 24th, supposedly). >I expect Elastica and Radiohead to go "Top 10 with a bullet" upon their >respective releases :-) Hoo boy, wait until you hear the Elastica album. You're riding for a *big time* letdown. Eb "Where's that new Rufus Wainwright album, darn it?" the Ebster ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:48:40 -0600 From: "The Rooneys" Subject: RE: fegmaniax-digest V9 #220 >A vote for Nader is a vote against both other candidates Silly me, I thought a vote for Harry Browne was a vote against the system. Is no one excited about ending the war on drugs? - - bill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:47:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Hmuhs in the ring! - yo "Greens" take note: On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Yudt.Matthew wrote: > 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. He's not blaming capitalism as a whole. He's blaming a failing of the system to regulate trusts and multi-industry control by a single owner. > IT IS THE GOVERNMENT WHICH SET UP THE SYSTEM WHICH ALLOWS THIS TO > HAPPEN. The government has failed in its responsibility to the people to prevent this from happening, yes. > Therefore get the government OUTof the way and allow free market > capitalism to set the rules for fair play. Does not follow. Capitalism, in my view, has two problems: 1) The value of natural resources is not calculated when determining profitability. Air, water, and minerals are considered free and their only cost is the cost of extracting them. Pollution has no monetary disincentive and so capitalism can ignore it quite handily. The system was essentially devised in 1790 when human resources were scarce (worker productivity was low due to a lack of automation in the workplace) and natural resources were in high supply (low world population and low industrialization meant fewer consumed goods and little pollution beyond that which can be processed naturally in the Earth's systems). 2) In market capitalism, there is a winner. Eventually, with profit as the only motive, somebody ends up with all the money. Young upstart? Buy him out. Competing technology? Buy it out. If your only motive is profit, the big company can pay you far more than the competing idea will earn you just to maintain their control. A little bit of every dollar you spend drifts up to the top and stays there. > Vote libertarian - - not Green. I used to be pretty strongly libertarian and I think some of the ideas are solid. But I don't believe business can be left unchecked. Without government, AOLTime-Warner would merge with PepsiCo (it's starting already with this fucking Pizza Hut/AOL cross promotional bullshit) which will merge with AT&T and Microsoft and that will pretty much be that. We'd have a company rich and powerfull enough to control all media (the smaller ones would fall away rapidly without access to AT&T equipment and Time-Warner/TCI/Cablevision cable) and that would be pretty much that. Without regulation, no competing ideas would end up on television or in the press and any insurrection could be easily squashed with a pile of money (which is just going to spent on the company's products again anyway) and some nice commercials and local events. I'm not saying the government can sit back and play the corporations like pawns. That's exactly the same situation, as far as I'm concerned. But Anti-Trust law and environmental regulation correct basic flaws in market capitalism. Socially, I'm fairly libertarian, I suppose... Go ahead and legalize your drugs and abort your unwanted fetuses and publish your rhetoric and collect your guns and encrypt your email... but don't spew your fumes into the air or dump your shit on the ground or set off a bomb of some kind or own the idea, the means of production of the idea, and the means of distribution of the product to control the whole shebang from start to finish. There are limits to what SHOULD be done to which we cannot guarantee every individual will adhere. These limits are small and reasonable when compared the vast possibilities of human action. Anyway, that's why I'm not a libertarian. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:54:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: I hope I don't regret answering this, but ... On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > 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. [snip] > 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. Wow! Look everybody, I agree with Jason! I agree with Jason! WOW! > 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. As Viv mentioned, when I watched on CSPAN, you could see the back wall from the podium and the folks on the floor couldn't be more than 40 or so people deep. In a rough calculation, I would guess that there weren't more than 2000 people on the floor at that time (and this was during Bush's speech). The back wall was oddly chroma-key blue and that just made the conspiracy-theorist in me froth at the mouth. > 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. If those things are at the Democratic Convention (and certainly they will be), it'd be great to ask them what kind of environmental stance they take. Sheesh, wasteful fucking plastic garbage. > 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. Wait... he didn't say "because Nixon's dead"? Jesus Christ. Wake me in four years. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:05:42 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: remarks > From: "Yudt.Matthew" > 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. I'm surprised this was addressed seriously. I don't understand how anyone could claim with a straight face that under free-market capitalism (a lot of libertarians try to make that sound more populist than it is - -- ooh, freedom! we all want freedom, don't we?) we would have less advertising. Regarding music: it's nice to see _Bloodflowers_ making lists. I have to say that I was disappointed with it, personally -- better than _Wild Mood Swings_, but the magic is still gone. There are only two songs on it that I really like; the rest I tolerate as one would tolerate senile chatter. _All Hands on the Bad One_ is good stuff, too, but really I don't think I've heard too many drop-dead fabulous new albums this year. The new Black Box Recorder is all right. Can't abide the new Belle & Sebastian. Geneva's _Weather Underground_, maybe? The new Autumns record? > From: Capuchin > 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. Assuming that person's mind is Made Up, maybe. But it's clear that most of you are far more educated on politics than I am and I find myself changing my mind every day, reading these arguments. It's true that my political views are pretty well set and haven't changed much in a while...maybe all that's changing is my decision about my presidential vote. 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: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:54:29 -0400 From: "Ben" Subject: Re: VH1's top 100 rock 'n' roll moments [selected] >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 what about The Simpsons, Harry Belafonte, Wayne's World, or Schoolhouse Rock? Why so many comments from Kathy Lee Gifford? Besides the Sex Pistols and Hendrix appearances, why no other moments from UK television? How about Top Of The Pops? Overall I thought this show had the necessary moments, a handful of interesting lesser-known moments, and a lot that made absolutely no sense! This is probably a reflection of the knowledge of music held by the "experts" at VH-1 and ET Weekly. They could have at least included more interesting and obscure TV shows/moments that maybe not many people have seen, but were still great moments for the quality of content. What would YOU have included? One non-musical moment I have heard of but never actually seen is John Lennon on Monday Night Football, I would have liked to have seen that! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 19:49:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Hmuhs in the ring! On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Capuchin 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'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. Maybe no one on the list has said that the Nader campaign will wake up the Democrats; I don't remember. But people are saying it *elsewhere*, out there in that vague undefined space beyond the Feg list. A (more common?) variation is "waking up the left." Of course it's not the *only* reason they support Nader; it's usually mentioned more as the practical result they expect to get, since they don't expect Nader to actually win. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:40:07 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Nader reads "X Men," but only for the articles Ben: >What would YOU have included? One non-musical moment I have heard of but >never actually seen is John Lennon on Monday Night Football, I would have >liked to have seen that! I saw a clip of that once...didn't really seem too "eventful," beyond it just being a fun cameo. I'll say this much: I'm not brimming over with alternate suggestions, to replace the ones which VH1 included -- especially since I'm just not old enough to know all the seminal, pre-'70s scenes. My own personally resonant "moments" would certainly include a few more SNL appearances (Devo, Patti Smith, Elvis Costello, Talking Heads, Kate Bush, maybe even Fear...remember when SNL *introduced* you to bands, rather than booking folks you'd already seen everywhere else?), but it seems like VH1 kinda lumped all the SNL appearances into one entry. So be it.... Another one which would certainly be on my personal list was seeing Conway Twitty sing on the short-lived "Sunday Night" program, as *the Residents* stood behind him and suavely snapped their fingers as if they were the Pips. Oh man, am I glad to have that on tape. Someone really ought to issue a video compilation of that show's highlights -- there was some amazing stuff, if you could get past the painfully banal, nerdboy hosting of David Sanborn.... (Another memory: How about Sonic Youth, Don Fleming, Daniel Lanois and the Indigo Girls all onstage together, trashing "I Wanna Be Your Dog"? Or Bongwater, backing up Screaming Jay Hawkins? On and on....) Eb, who would really like to see a clip of Captain Beefheart's SNL appearance, sometime PS I don't remember the original context, but that video clip you always see of the Beatles performing "Hey Jude" back in the day sure makes me tingle from head to toe.... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:08:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Hmuhs in the ring! On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Christopher Gross wrote: > Maybe no one on the list has said that the Nader campaign will wake up the > Democrats; I don't remember. But people are saying it *elsewhere*, out > there in that vague undefined space beyond the Feg list. A (more common?) > variation is "waking up the left." Of course it's not the *only* reason > they support Nader; it's usually mentioned more as the practical result > they expect to get, since they don't expect Nader to actually win. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's the Nader supporters saying this. Sounds like a bunch of political pundits trying to understand why people would vote outside the two party system that weened them. It's also a convenient way to get people who haven't yet taken a more open look at the issues to stay in the Gore camp. It has nothing to do with why anyone I know is supporting Nader. If Bush wins, the people of opposing views will hopefully wake up, but what will do the waking will not be the outrageous policies implemented, but the similarity to the policies the "other" candidate would have implemented. The fact that we'll get the same shit regardless of who is elected just might wake some people up. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:12:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Hmuhs in the ring! On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Christopher Gross wrote: > A bit off-topic, but this reminds me of the Washington Times's coverage of > NAFTA. (This particular fish-wrapper is known for being not only > conservative but specifically and ardently pro-Republican. It was also > owned by the Moonies until recently.) When NAFTA passed, the Times could > only bring itself to talk about it in terms like "NAFTA, now pushed by > President Clinton but originally conceived by Republican President George > Bush in accordance with Republican principles of free trade, was passed by > Republican votes in both Houses of Congress after being opposed by the > Democratic left wing." As far as the Republicans are concerned, they > *did* pass NAFTA (much to Pat Buchanan's chagrin). Actually, this is perfectly on topic. This is just another example of a BAD policy put into place and claimed as a victory for both parties. It shows that the two have the exact same goals and whether there were Republicans in control or Democrats, the treaty still would have passed. I remember in the '92 debates Perot was the only one against NAFTA, but all he could talk about was exporting American jobs. Very short-sighted and with limited appeal. He would have been more successful just listing off the problems from loss of jobs to the exportation of manufacturing to areas with less environmental regulation to the branding of mandatory product labelling as "unfair". J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:42:23 PDT From: "Proctology Now" Subject: eb all over the world surely, surely. correct again. another triumph of the propaganda model, in other words. here's an even starker example (i may have mentioned this onlist before): a while back, 75% of americans polled thought that the phrase "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" comes from the declaration of independence. but mention the word "socialism" to the same people, and you'll find yourself being wrestled into a manhole. if socialism = stalinism -- as we're supposed to believe it does -- then that's the proper response. but if socialism = something akin to its actual definition, then americans think one of its principle tenets is good enough to have come from the "founding fathers". - --It is conservatively estimated that one in five Medicaid-eligible women who want an abortion cannot obtain one. - --In the U.S., 84% of all counties have no abortion services; of rural counties, 95% have no services. - --Nine in ten abortion providers are located in metropolitan areas. - --Only 17 states fund abortions. - --Only 12% of OB/GYN residency programs train in first-trimester abortions; only 7% in second-trimester abortions. - --Abortion is the most common OB/GYN surgical procedure; yet, almost half of graduating OB/GYN residents have never performed a first-trimester abortion. - --Thirty-nine states have parental involvement laws requiring minors to notify and/or obtain the consent of their parents in order to obtain an abortion. - --Twenty-one states require state-directed counseling before a woman may obtain an abortion. (This is often called "informed consent"; some critics call it a "biased information requirement.") - --Many states require women seeking abortions to receive scripted lectures on fetal development, prenatal care, and adoption. - --Twelve states currently enforce mandatory waiting periods following state- directed counseling; this can result in long delays and higher costs. (Seven more states have delay laws which are enjoined--i.e., not enforced due to court action at the federal or state level.) (from .) this is *after* 8 years of clinton/gore. say what you will about it not being their fault, but if either one really gave two fucks, it wouldn't be the case. from : By debating, phoning, e-mailing, and marching during the next four months, we the people will grow a new political start, a green plant pushing up between the two fossil parties. With a new progressive movement, we the people have the ability to vastly improve our lives and to help shape the world’s course to one of justice and peace for years to come. you've gotta start somewhere. read orwell's "Not Counting Niggers", then get back to me. (can't find the essay online, which is a damned shame.) come on. that's the worst symptom of "late capitalism" you can possibly think of? note that these are de rigueur occurences in the capitalist "periphery". if not directly by the u.s. military, then usually with u.s.-supplied weaponry (and probably a u.n. veto or three), and quite often by butchers having been trained at the school of the americas. well factually, the dissident soviet press was read by a much greater percentage of the population than is dissident american press -- even though you got your brains bashed in for publishing it there. also, exposure to foreign media was much, much greater in the soviet union than it is here. and this is a reasonable argument because? americans' "love" of beef is turning forests into deserts, and causing hundreds of millions of people to starve. if somebody "loved" lobbing bombs into your apartment, would that make it okay? "we can take in an old steve reeves movie." -- frank n. furter. being sensible about resources is "a very capitalistic thing"? how's that? i still don't follow your logic. really, capitalism is just using your monopolisation of public resources (also known as "owning property") to exploit labour and thereby turn a profit. attempting, by hook or crook (or state intervention in the economy), to increase one's "market share" is quite endemic to the system. if you mean to say "free market", fine. but remember, a corner grocery store is in violation of "free market" principles. so long as you're white. agreed. i really can't understand why gore fans are getting so bent out of shape. eisenhower's "military-industrial complex". also, i'm sure they've all let slip without even knowing it. bush sr.'s "what we say goes" during the build-up to the gulf war is about as fine an example as you could ever hope to hear. what *you* think is irrelevant, finally. if woj fails to find any gems, you'll find your walking papers at your doorstep tomorrow morning. god dammit! how am i supposed to get anything done *now*? KEN "I'm paying nineteen-five for this vehicle, here" THE KENSTER ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:56:12 PDT From: "Proctology Now" Subject: here's the exact quote What happened to Wangbo? Well, it was like if the Stones had kicked out Brian Jones and put Jimi Hendrix in. It was, sort of, greed. We saw this guy Kimberley [Rew], and we thought, "What a performer! Let's have him. Give ol' Wangbo the boot." Wangbo didn't have much stage-presence, and he was a rather hapless person. But in fact, it was much better with me and Wangbo than it was with me and Kimberley because we didn't really clash that much. We were quite complementary-sounding. You know, it was like television: Kimberley went into overkill. And I've never liked A Can Of Bees much. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 22:00:02 -0400 From: "Yudt.Matthew" Subject: Re: Hmuhs in the ring! - yo "Greens" take note: > >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. > NO of course I don't. THis is probably the biggest problem we face. And it wouldn't happen in a libertarian sytem. > 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. > If you think that is true, try and go start one. Who will stop your first? The big corporation? or the government? In the way of licensing fees, taxes, lawyer fees etc.- even if you CAN legally start one - these things will destroy your chances long before ATT or NewsCorp will (although I admit they will be the next ones if you get past the government first). I KNOW those companies paid the politicians to make it that way - but who can change it now? NOT the corporation. Yes, corparations are too big, but it is the government - - our political system - which made it so. > 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? > Government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WITHOUT A DOUBT IN THE WORLD! Come on - we supposedly elected these people. ITs supposed to be OUR government. But it aint so. And its not the corporations fault. It didn't happen overnight, but the companies are trying to do what nearly everyone else is - survive, comfortably. > 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. > Obviously I'll never change your mind. But it isn't capitalism that sucks - its government in generla and a socialism that pretends its not in particular. > i welcome a national debate with all parties, rather than the > two-headed > republicrat monster sidesteping the real issues. > here, here! At least 4 people up there - Get Harry Browne and Ralph Nader to bring up things the Bushgore would NEVER want to hear. > > yo, i'm voting for ralph. > And I'm voting for Harry. Yay for us! > ken "follow the money" the kenster > Matt "earn the money" Yudt PS : EVERYONE should read Capuchin's last post again. It may be the longest, but one of the best political posts I've seen on this board. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #222 *******************************