From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #240 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, August 27 2000 Volume 09 : Number 240 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Gum and beer (ballpark names) ["Russ Reynolds" ] Some Lee Valley Cruise Photos [Yahoo! Clubs: Robyn Hitchcock] [the real d] Speaking of Coliseums... [Vivien Lyon ] Re: bitching about sportscasters who insist lately on calling all teams nicknamed tigers (or bengals, etc) as the "eldricks." [] here's a link [Vivien Lyon ] eb all over the bumbershoot ["Consumer 666" ] Re: Some Lee Valley Cruise Photos [Eb ] Re: Some Lee Valley Cruise Photos ["Randy R." ] Mental Effluent [Michael Wolfe ] More Soft Boy rumours.... [the real dick cheney ] AC [Eb ] this monkey is trouble. [Bayard ] Re: Some Lee Valley Cruise Photos [Jeff Dwarf ] post-trip-blues & health care [*twofangs/randi* & ~tjf/tim~ ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 08:49:34 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Gum and beer (ballpark names) > which is why when people complain about corporate names, they forget > that it's not that new an idea (see Wrigley Field, Busch Stadium). these two stadiums were named after individuals--the teams' owners--rather than the corporations they headed. from ballparks.com > The first park on Chicagošs North Side, Wrigley Field > cost $250,000 when it was built in 1914. Charlie > Weeghman built the park to house his baseball team, the > Chicago Federals (a.k.a. the Chi-Feds and, later, > as the Whales) of the brand-new Federal League, which was > challenging the established major leagues. > The Federal League folded after only two years, so > Weeghman, leading a ten man syndicate which > included chewing gum magnate Willam Wrigley, Jr., > purchased the Cubs of the National League. The team > was moved from West Side Grounds to what was then known > as Weeghman Park. In 1918, Wrigley took > over Weeghman's share of the team and by 1919 had bought > out the shares of the other members of the > syndicate. The name of the stadium was changed to Cubs > Park in time for opening day, 1920. It was > renamed Wrigley Field in his honor in 1926. Meanwhile, in St. Louis... > Located near the banks of the Mississippi River and the majestic Gateway > Arch (and across the street from > the National Bowling Hall of Fame), the ballpark is > actually the second Busch Stadium in St. Louis. The > original was known as Sportsmanšs Park until August > Busch purchased it from the St. Louis Browns in 1953 > and changed the name to Busch Stadium. It served as the > home of the Cardinals until the new Busch > Stadium was opened, as the centerpiece of a downtown > revitalization project. Five World Series have been > played at Busch. The Cardinals won the Series in 1967 > and 1982 but lost in 1968, 1985, and 1987 It should be noted that if it weren't for Atlee Hammaker the Cardinals never would have had the opportunity to lose the 1987 world series. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 11:54:37 -0400 From: the real dick cheney Subject: Some Lee Valley Cruise Photos [Yahoo! Clubs: Robyn Hitchcock] forwarded from the yahoo robyn hitchcock club... >Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 18:13:39 -0400 (EDT) >From: jenrundall >Subject: Some Lee Valley Cruise Photos [Yahoo! Clubs: Robyn Hitchcock] > >Hiya, >Apologies for the delay; and the lame-ass job I've done, but SOME of the >photos from the Lee Valley river cruise are now up. Due to the pathetic >state of the scanner I used, the size I have reduced them to, and the >speed I created this in (the whole page and scanning and image-editing >took 20 minutes!) they are pretty much only an indication of what the >photos are really like (quite good, surprisingly!). But at least you >folks elsewhere get to see SOMETHING. When they download, that is. (hey, >I didn't have enough time to compress them !). > >Without further ado... > >http://www.geocities.com/jenrundall/robyn/robynlee.htm > >I will update with better quality pics, page, words.... the whole darn >lot.. when I have moved job, got my sister married off successfully, and >filled in my visa application for Australia. > >In that order. > >Not necessarily. > >later, fegs. >Jenx ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 09:49:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Vivien Lyon Subject: Speaking of Coliseums... We fucking PACKED the Memorial Coliseum last night!!!!!!! Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke convinced 10,500 people to pay $7 to hear them speak- when George Bush came he spoke to a crowd of less than 2,000, and it was FREE! We blew the lid off the place! It was the largest political rally of this election, of ANY candidate! Hell yes! Now I have to hop on a plane to Chicago, or else I'd lecture you more on how wonderful this was. Vivien __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 09:52:32 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Re: bitching about sportscasters who insist lately on calling all teams nicknamed tigers (or bengals, etc) as the "eldricks." Boy, that Kieth Olberman really drives me up the wall. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 10:07:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Vivien Lyon Subject: here's a link For more info on Nader at the Coliseum last night, go to: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf?/news/oregonian/00/08/lc_73nades26.frame __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 14:10:34 PDT From: "Consumer 666" Subject: eb all over the bumbershoot i'm thinking something like this: SUNDAY casey neill trio, mountain con, sleater-kinney, ani difranco MONDAY joan osborne/martha wainwright/kristin hersh, death cab for cutie, quasi, kristin hersh happy to meet fegs along the way.... ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 15:01:51 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Some Lee Valley Cruise Photos >>http://www.geocities.com/jenrundall/robyn/robynlee.htm Doze are some right purty pictures. I do feel like I'm essentially "done" with seeing Robyn Hitchcock perform, but I *would* go see one of those boat/gondola shows, if I had the chance (not likely). Speaking of disappointing progeny, I heard the new Teddy Thompson album this morning. I can't remember who, but it seems like a couple of Fgz have raved about him in the past. I didn't like the album much at all, sorry to say. It features a roomful of wonderful guest musicians (daddy Richard, Rufus Wainwright, Greg Leisz, Jane Scarpantoni and Jon Brion, most notably) and they almost make the album worthwhile, but the songs simply aren't very good. None of the lyrics made any impression on me whatsoever, the melodies are strictly ordinary, and worst of all, Teddy's prime vocal inspiration seems to be...James Taylor. Every song has the same reedy, relaxed, even-keel vibrato, and lots and lots and lots of drawn-out notes. Totally anesthesizing. This disc would be straight out of the sleepy singer-songwriter days of the early '70s, if not for the sharpness of the backing players. Oh, and Joe Henry produced the album, by the way. Someone else whose albums have really strong musicianship, and really uninvolving tunes. Even the song ("Missing Children") which Rufus Wainwright co-wrote was dull, dull, dull. You know, I'm starting to have dire fears that Wainwright's second album will be focused on guitar over piano.... Speaking of baseball stadiums, I caught some really peculiar bit on a Fox baseball game, this morning. They apparently have this gimmick called "Turn Back the Clock" games, where they simulate the graphics/effects/sound/photography of old-time baseball games, and then gradually advance the quality up to the present? Has this been done many times before? First I'd seen of it. I think I'm going to see the Sugarplastic play at Spaceland, tonight. Haven't seen them in awhile. Paging Randi, Eb http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/ebmaniax ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:34:22 -0700 From: "Randy R." Subject: Re: Some Lee Valley Cruise Photos From: Eb > Speaking of baseball stadiums, I caught some really peculiar bit on a Fox > baseball game, this morning. They apparently have this gimmick called "Turn > Back the Clock" games, where they simulate the > graphics/effects/sound/photography of old-time baseball games, and then > gradually advance the quality up to the present? Has this been done many > times before? First I'd seen of it. It's not nearly as horrid as the "turn ahead the clock" games. The players dress in these sort of "Jane Jetson" costumes, and they flash scores of futuristic baseball games on the scoreboard (Mars 7-Venus 5). The Mariners participated in one last year I believe, and it was very difficult to watch. The page for "Rush ate my Balls". Damn funny. http://home.sprynet.com/~tst4echo/homepage.htm Vince ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:22:21 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: Mental Effluent Okay. I hope you don't mind, but I've had something of a revelation. I'm currently reading a review of a film called 30 Frames a Second: The WTO in Seattle which was written by Jonathan Rosenbaum (the film will show up at the film center here in a couple months) and I... my mind just clicked. (note: I started this earlier, and then I finished up after the rally tonight.) So I hope you won't mind if I share my epiphany with you, who I think might be interested in this semi-political discourse. There's an old feminist aphorism that posits that "the personal is political." I agree, but I have to be careful, because you can go one step further by putting forward that the inversion is also true: "the political is personal." I realize that talking politics with people can be an awful lot like talking religion; it can make people very uncomfortable, and it can be very difficult to find common ground, even between people who like and respect each other. I hope that I haven't in the past bothered any of you with unsolicited political diatribes, and do not have any plans to do so again in the future -- that this shall be my first and last. Turnabout is fair play, and I invite you to consider this a solicitation for any and all future political diatribes that you feel like sending in *my* direction. I send this to some of you because I think it might give you hope, to some because I hope that it might create some distinctions and maybe invite some new ways of seeing, and to some to highlight my positions as I've stated them in earlier conversations. So please, though, know that my friendship to you is the most important thing to me, and that if you think that a possible disagreement on politics between us could sour that, then I ask you to commit a supreme act of willpower now and delete this message. I don't think that I'm confrontational or condecsending or anything like that at all in this, but you never can tell with email. Okay. Now, I presume that everyone left wants to be here. Right? Good. On with the show! As Ralph Nader points out, the largest corporations have, as a matter of public record, given huge sums of money to *both* major political parties, thus ensuring that whoever wins will be beholden to them. People have been saying it around me for years, but I had never fully felt the extent to which it was true that there really is no *fundamental* difference between the two until I figured out what the *superficial* differences between them meant. And it breaks my liberal heart to say this, but abortion, gay rights, gun control, and the death penalty are all just basically marketing when it comes to the major parties. That's easy for me to say, being an affluent straight white male, I know. I happen to think that all of those things are horrendously important. Heck, that's why I refused to see the same-ness in the parties for so long -- because those issues matter to me, and because there is a stark difference between the two's demagoguery on those subjects. Believe me when I say that I'm not blowing off those issues, by saying, "Pshaw! Abortion doesn't matter! It's just marketing!" What I *am* saying is that this is how the two major parties treat those issues. They are all issues on which people are "single issue" voters, and it makes it *very* easy to carve people up into nice, bite-sized demographic targets. But there's one thing that pro-abortion and anti-abortion, pro-gun and anti-gun, pro-gay rights and anti-gay rights voters all have in common: they're all voting pro-corporation. What the corporations have done is create the illusion of opposition. Obviously, nature abhors a vacuum, and so big business has forestalled any mounting of opposition to itself by maintaining two parties with opposite relationships on these other fronts. But all the while, the major parties are always agreeing on, and indeed, never even mentioning their common ground in an unabashed pro-big business agenda. It's ingenius; a single party would both leave room for an opposition party and at the same time create an ambiguity in the discourse which might not divert attention from big business's monopoly on politics so effectively. With two parties you get a fantastic smokescreen, you get the illusion of choice (Coke or Pepsi anyone?), you can weave the impression that any third voice would be superfluous, and you can easily control the lines of debate. As I see it, this all makes it very dangerous to cast one's ballot solely on the basis of these other issues (abortion, gay rights, gun control), even if they are terribly important, because the candidates are always willing to subordinate their positions on these issues to their underlying pro-big business interests. You have no way of relying on politicians to stick to their campaign stance. Sure, they'll make the occasional vote in office for those other issues, and justify all of their corporate whoring to themselves on the basis of those few votes, saying that some compromises are necessary to get them into a position to cast those couple of votes that are actually based on the principles that got them into office. The rest of their votes though, are, effectively, for sale. This is what makes the Nader candidacy so exciting for me. He offers me the choice of voting *against* big business. Gore's running mate is responsible for some of the biggest pro- insurance, pro- pharmaceutical industry legislation in congress over the last 10 years, and Gore can get up, with a straight face, and proclaim that he will fight for us against these very interests? Yeah, right! That load of mulch would grow some nice tomatoes, but I find it pretty hard to swallow. Does anyone actually think that we'll get the meaningful health care reform we desperately need from these two? As one of my heroes, William McDonough, put it, there's no longer any room to claim that it wasn't part of your plan to vote for corporate dominance. Because when you don't have a plan, you have a de facto plan. It's what happens because you failed to plan. And, fortunately for me, Ralph's got all of the window dressing, too. I can vote against business's control of politics and for gay rights, reproductive choice, and the environment all at the same time. And I don't have to worry about how dedicated he will be to those ancilliary issues, or that he'll drop the ball on them because his corporate masters dictate that he trade his positions on them for political clout so that he can better enact their agendas. I don't know if he'll win. I don't know if the ideas that he brings up will enter the national debate. After seeing 10,000 people *pay* to hear him speak tonight, after Bush couldn't quite fill the 2,000 seat Chiles Center for free, I think he can, and I think his ideas might get a good amount of exposure. But what I realized in reading the review of the WTO film is that, as things now stand, we are no longer the mainstream politicians' constituency. Of course, nothing's black and white, and feel free to translate my blanket pronouncements into matters of degree, but in many ways, and in a very real sense, the corporations are who gets represented in the halls of power these days. So, in speaking loudly to our representatives in government and in the political process, our voices are muted. Even the 10,000 folks at the Memorial Colisseum here in Portland tonight might not be enough to get Ralph recognized by the process to the point where is voice is included in the debates. The flip side of my epiphany, though, was the bit that raised the hackles on my neck, and sent a shiver of excitement down my back. It was this: big business may be the politicians' new constituents, but *we* are big business's constituents. Think about it: now, more than ever, are we subject to marketing demography, a statistical pursuit if there ever was one. In such a relationship between consumer and corporation, one voice makes a great deal of noise, because if your voice shows up on their statistical radar, it is assumed to speak for not only you, but also for a percentage of your peers. Furthermore, the strategy in advertising is to associate your product with images, auras, and warm fuzzy relationships. As the images get warmer and fuzzier and the corporate excesses get bigger and bigger, pointing out the prevaling hypocrisy gets easier and easier. Look at the fury against Nike. Even at their depths, they weren't the absolute worst exploiter of the third world (Union Carbide, anyone?), and yet the backlash against them was huge. In large part this was due to the inspirational, almost spiritual tone of their advertising -- no one likes a self-righteous hypocrite. But Nike was and is very sensitive to having their veneer stripped away, *because the veneer is so much of their product*!! I mean, they're just shoes, for christ's sake. They don't jump, run, or hike for you. The reasons to buy a $200 pair of Nikes over a $25 pair of Chuck Taylors are quite slim -- certainly not $175 worth! Durability is not a factor -- you'll be expected to buy a new pair in a year in either case. The difference comes down to image. That's how Coke can sell sugar water at $3 a gallon. When you point out the difference between the images they market and the ugly reality, you might as well be breaking into their production warehouse and napalming the place. You're damaging the commodity that they sell. So while our representatives might not be listening so closely to us anymore, big business is listening a *lot* harder than the politicians ever did. They've got to worry about how we perceive them at all times, and because of that, we've got 'em by the balls. Who needs to legislate corporate behavior when, if we are diligent enough and LOUD enough, we can make them jump through hoops. They've put themselves in a position of incredible strategic weakness, and it's up to us to learn as much as possible about the atrocities that they're committing and to report them as loudly as possible, to our peers, yes, but most importantly to the corporations themselves. To call them on the carpet, and to let them know that we're onto them. One voice won't do it, just as one vote won't do it. But every time you use your voice, as far as the corporations are concerned, you're voting. And with this voting, your vote counts a lot more (because of demography), you can vote as often as you like, and you don't even have to wait until November. So let's get out there and vote. If you liked this, feel free to quote, revise, and forward any and all of this that you like. Thank you for reading. - -Michael ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:02:43 -0400 From: the real dick cheney Subject: More Soft Boy rumours.... more rumors from the yahoo club. there were originally posted on the portland online music network by someone named "rumour mill". no idea who that might be. woj n.p. spoonfed hybrid >Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:12:54 -0400 (EDT) >From: theodius65 >Reply-To: clubs-mail@yahoo-inc.com >Subject: More Soft Boy rumours.... [Yahoo! Clubs: Robyn Hitchcock] > >I don't know how valid these rumours are, but it sure sound good. Source: >pomn.com >pasting (heh heh): > >RUMOUR MILL: >Word is the Boys are in studio right now laying down tracks, co-written >by Hitchcock and Selligman. "It will be lound and combative" says Hitchcock. >- Friday, August 25, 2000 at 12:47:00 (PDT) > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >RUMOUR MILL: >27 City Tour of the US starting in March 2001 featuring songs from a new >Soft Boys Ablum on Sony entitled Fresh Creme Rinse, no release date set. >- Friday, August 25, 2000 at 12:43:53 (PDT) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:09:16 -0700 From: Eb Subject: AC http://hollywoodandvine.com/amycorreia/ Amy Correia's Capitol site has recently had a major overhaul...lyrics, soundclips, pictures, etc. available now. (Uhh...presumably, they still have some work to do on the "News" link.) Eb, noting that her email address was removed ;) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 00:29:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: this monkey is trouble. http://www.discovery.com/news/briefs/20000825/an_monkeys.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:38:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Some Lee Valley Cruise Photos Eb wrote: > Speaking of baseball stadiums, I caught some really peculiar bit on a > Fox baseball game, this morning. They apparently have this gimmick > called "Turn Back the Clock" games, where they simulate the > graphics/effects/sound/photography of old-time baseball games, and > then gradually advance the quality up to the present? Has this been > done many times before? First I'd seen of it. it was a one time only thing to celebrate the 60th or so anniversary of the first baseball game on TV, and it only for the eastern/central time zone's game of the week. ===== "Life is just a series of dogs." -- George Carlin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:42:48 -0400 From: *twofangs/randi* & ~tjf/tim~ Subject: post-trip-blues & health care Hi all, I miss you fegs ... :-( :-( I'm in a bit of a "post-trip-depression" but I'm trying to get back into the swing of things :-} I had the best trip EVER. Didn't realize what a high I was coming down from ... it was quite the high :-) Okay - non-robyn-related ... but very Ontario and probably Quebec and maybe even all the other provinces related ... and let me say from personal experience this "draft for Canadian Survivor" is not far off from 'our' health care reality. I have never seen the "survivor" show ... though I read the following editorial in The Globe And Mail ... Canada's national newspaper ... It also made me consider heath care in the States, from minimal personal experience, (seeing as I went to the hospital in Portland,) and - well - read this... ......................................................................................... Survivor, Canadian Version 1) scenario Sixteen seriously ill Canadians are waiting together for specialists' appointments, six months hence (setting may be an abandoned emergency facility) 2) tribal council Every week someone is voted out. That means the specialist decides to leave for the U.S. before the date of the appointment and the contestant must return to the family doctor to begin again. 3) immunity challenge Each person is given a phone to call whomever they know who might be able to get them a contact in the medical system. The one who gets the first contact wins and cannot be voted out by the Tribal Council. 4) reward challenges This varies each week. Sample challenges: ... how quickly the contestants can get out of bed, dressed, and leave the building while heavily drugged ... ... how effectively they can change their own dressings after simulated brain surgery. Sample prizes: at least 15 minutes with the specialists when they get their appointments; a bed in a room, not a cot in a hallway if they go to hospital. 5) grand prize: The grand-prize winner goes directly to the specialist and then begins the wait for tests and treatments. This may lead to "Survivor II" and "Survivor III" ......................................................................................... A wonderfully truthful and sarcastic editorial that I just had to pass on. Does this ring true in the U.S. ... or is the situation more like U.K. health care? just a wonderin' fading back into yesterday before tomorrow comes, Randi *what scares you most will set you free* ~ robyn hitchcock *and the longer you hide ... the more you deny* ~ neil finn *acting steady always ready to defend your fears* ~ aimee mann *when I've got nothing left I find I've got it all* ~ michael penn ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:38:08 PDT From: "Consumer 666" Subject: ebsworth all over the world . _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #240 *******************************