From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #294 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, October 20 2000 Volume 09 : Number 294 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Purely political parley (Nader content 99.44%) [Tom Clark ] Re: Decent Covers [was RE: Review of 10-16-2000 gig] [Tom Clark ] my first name pollyjean ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: heifer project international (NR) ["J. Brown" ] Re: my first name pollyjean ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Chris: You can read this. [Capuchin ] Re: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. [Tom Clark ] Me am dumb (re: electoral college) [Viv Lyon ] Re: my first name pollyjean [Capuchin ] Re: Chris: You can read this. [Christopher Gross ] another (a bit more personal) reap [Eb ] Mom Foils Son's 'N Sync Murder Plot ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Boom!Boom!/Der lingo [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] seeking art [Eclipse ] Re: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. [steve ] Hitchcock & Grant Lee Phillips ["Marc Holden" ] Re: heifer project international [Asshole Motherfucker Subject: Re: Purely political parley (Nader content 99.44%) on 10/18/00 8:25 PM, Russ Reynolds at rcreation@earthlink.net wrote: > Viv: >> If Bush wins, I'll eat my shorts. That's a guarantee. > > Hey, if Bush wins I'll eat Vivien's shorts too. If Vivien wins, I'll eat Bush. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:23:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: vocab rehab On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, drop the holupki wrote: > the phrase i used -- "what troopers" -- is a cliche which implies (not > infers) continuing effort despite adversity. given that, "trooper" (i.e., a > soldier) makes more sense than "trouper" in my mind anyways. "The show must go on" not "Never give up the ship". But I don't know for sure. I just acknowledge that I've understood it as trouper, too. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:27:03 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Decent Covers [was RE: Review of 10-16-2000 gig] on 10/19/00 6:19 AM, Thomas, Ferris at Ferris_Thomas@mcgraw-hill.com wrote: > Probably one (all right, two) of the best I've heard: 'Waterloo Sunset' at > the Knitting Factory in '97 and 'Silver Dagger' from the Bottom Line in '98. > > I've since seen him do 'Waterloo' with Tim as well as the Rock and Roll > Armada and he never came close to the solo version from the KF. > Beeee-utiful. A very good rendition of a very good song. Ah, I remember him doing WS with the Egyptians at the spontaneous T.T. The Bears Place (Cambridge, MA) show in '90 ('89?). It was a thing of remarkable beauty. I think my recording of it is on the Glass Hotel site. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:48:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: lobsterboy and nader go to the zoo I've only been skimming these political posts (I'm behind at work and it's too frustrating to read shit you don't have time to reply to), but a couple of quick things: Ken: > There will be a presidential debate this Friday, 8-930pm, sponsored by > Judicial Watch. All 7 candidatse on the ballot in enough states to win > the electoral college were invited; all except for Bush accepted. Al > Gore, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Jim Hagelin, Harry Brown (libertarian), > and Howard Phillips will participate. Sounds interesting; I hope it actually happens. Will (would) it be televised or broadcast on the radio or internet? And who's Howard Phillips? The name sounds familiar, but maybe that's just because it's the first and middle name of one of my favorite writers.... Some valid criticisms of the Clinton/Gore record, but at least one is completely unfair: > and the number of executions went from 14 in 1991 to 98 in 1999. Virtually all executions are carried out by *state* governments, not the feds. (In fact George W "Eddie likes me better than Gore" Bush is the one who signed off on a large fraction of the executions performed during the Clinton administration.) Clinto did sign a lot of laws extending the death penalty for various federal crimes (like killing a mailman, etc.), but in practice no one has yet been executed under them. In general, I don't buy the argument that because [economic/social stat] has deteriorated more under Clinton/Gore than under Reagan or Bush, therefore Gore would be worse than Bush II. For one thing, the context is different now: for various reasons, the whole country has moved right, so now Bush II could be far more right-wing than his predecessors. For another, remember that Reagan and Bush had a Democratic House to deal with, while Clinton/Gore have had a Republican Senate and (since '94) House as well. This complicates the question of which party is to blame for anything that happened under any of these administrations. Viv: > Nader, as has already been pointed out, is a capitalist. Never said he > wasn't. But let's think about what he does with his money. Does he spend > it on private planes and yachts, does he have a palatial estate, does he > have a fleet of luxury vehicles? No. He uses the money to fund his many > public interest groups, groups that do inestimably valuable work as > watchdogs on industry, research on public policy, and getting > disenchanted and disenfranchised people involved in the politcal process. Which is good to remember when someone starts saying that anyone who accepts capitalism or has a lot of money is ipso facto evil. One pro-Nader concession: I've read the platform he has endorsed and it's actually much different (and more reasonable, IMHO) than the Greens/Green Party USA party platform. I don't agree with all of it, by any means; but if the Greens would ditch their own platform and adopt Nader's, I for one would be more likely to vote Green in the future. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:31:52 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: Purely sexual parley (chelsey content 7.32%) > If Vivien wins, I'll eat Bush. that sounds really freudian. if bush and gore lose, i'll eat whoever lets me,,, conditionally. gss ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:56:20 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. Subject: Re: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. >> http://us.imdb.com/Title?0262265 >No. But y'know, when Jane Fonda was cast as Barbarella back in the 60's, people said it could never work, there'd be panic and rioting in the streets, that this would mean the end of western culture as we know it, etc. And you know what? They were *right*! So what's the problem with Drew Barrymore as Barbarella? The new version probably won't have any of the kitschy charm of the original, so maybe it will do us all the favor of killing her career off once and for all. The movie *I* want to see is "Barbaralien," starring Sigourney Weaver as an interstellar sexpot whose bed-hopping escapades are constantly being interrupted by slimy creatures who keep popping out of her chest precisely at the most embarrassing possible moment. JH3 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:01:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: my first name pollyjean > From: Eb > I *did* see PJ perform on Leno last night, and I was really disturbed at > how mainstream the song (and its presentation) were. As much Patty > Smythe > as Patti Smith, if you know what I mean. Her outfit and stage moves were > notably showbiz, too. I hope this isn't an accurate indicator of the new > album's sound. Bad news indeed. Is this maybe a reaction to Nick Cave in some way? A rapid motion in the opposite direction? The new Placebo is shockingly mediocre as well. I mean, they were never the most original or sophisticated of bands, but this time around pretty little Brian Molko has ironed all variation out of his tiny bag of vocal mannerisms and the songs sound like all the boring ones from the last two albums. It's sad that "Taste In Men" is the best song. Not that I imagine there are many fegs who would be caught dead buying a Placebo album anyway, but just in case you were thinking about it, listen first. > From: Bayard > Subject: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. > > http://us.imdb.com/Title?0262265 Perhaps it's the next move in a game to see who can miscast Drew Barrymore most inappropriately. [Jeme said:] >(He was pretty strongly > anti-abortion > before he was nominated to VP and did some work in that respect. Read something on Drudge's site this morning about some anti-homosexuality remarks Gore allegedly made in the 80s. > Seriously though, offlist or on (preferably on because there's education > in it), respond to the direct questions. I have to agree. There _is_ education in it, one way or the other. > From: Ken Ostrander > we'll see about what gore will do for campaign finance reform. as far > as your > estimation of ralph's chances, if he could get 34% of a state where the > other > candidates got 33%...well, you do the math. But would the math do you? I hate to ask stupid grade-school questions like this, but would the electoral college really allow Nader to win, unless there were a true popular landslide? Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik: drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:11:23 -0700 (PDT) From: "J. Brown" Subject: Re: heifer project international (NR) On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Capuchin wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, steve wrote: > > No Eddie, you haven't demonstrated that Gore would be worse than Bush. > > You've stated your political opinion, and that's cool. > > Well, he showed that Clinton/Gore was worse than Bush/Quayle. That's > pretty impressive on its own. But he is leaving out the important fact that for the last 6 years there has been a Republican congress. There is no telling what Bush/Quayle would have accomplished with a Republican congress. Bush/Cheney with a Republican Congress would far worse than Clinton/Gore. If there is a Democratic Congress it will be better regardless whoever is president. Unfortunately that is very unlikely to happen. I like Nader and i would vote for him if it werent for the electoral college (or if i lived in a safe gore state). But as that isnt the case i'll happily vote for gore. Jason Wilson Brown - University of Washington - Seattle, WA USA "Monkey in a Turban, Oh What Does it Mean?" -Frank Black ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:12:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: my first name pollyjean Drew wrote: > But would the math do you? I hate to ask stupid grade-school questions > like this, but would the electoral college really allow Nader to win, > unless there were a true popular landslide? I read on Mother Jones a proposal that the US needs international election monitors, and I'm inclined to agree. This isn't really what you're getting at, I realize, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. I hate the electoral college system. I hated it when I first learned about in fourth grade, and I hate it now. We have GOT to reform the electoral system in this country. What I see happening is Nader getting some tiny fraction of the electoral college and getting a huge amount of the popular vote. It will make me sick to see, but I'm preparing myself. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:21:48 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: my first name pollyjean At 01:01 PM 10/19/00 -0700, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > > From: Bayard > > Subject: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. > > > > http://us.imdb.com/Title?0262265 > >Perhaps it's the next move in a game to see who can miscast Drew >Barrymore most inappropriately. Well, Drew Barrymore is one of the producers, so I guess she gets first prize. >[Jeme said:] > >(He was pretty strongly > > anti-abortion > > before he was nominated to VP and did some work in that respect. > >Read something on Drudge's site this morning about some anti-homosexuality >remarks Gore allegedly made in the 80s. What about the one he made during the second debate? http://www.edibleundies.com/ - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:27:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Chris: You can read this. On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Christopher Gross wrote: > One pro-Nader concession: I've read the platform he has endorsed and it's > actually much different (and more reasonable, IMHO) than the Greens/Green > Party USA party platform. I don't agree with all of it, by any means; but > if the Greens would ditch their own platform and adopt Nader's, I for one > would be more likely to vote Green in the future. I think it was said here before (or should have been) that Nader does not necessarily represent Green Party USA and Green Party USA is not the party that nominated Nader as candidate for President. It is the Association of State Green Parties that nominated Nader. Green Party USA is a fairly radical and (in my opinion) nonsensical faction. The platform you railed against, Chris, was Green Party USA. I haven't, for example, run across anyone in the Pacific Green Party that supports the dissolution of the Senate. It's very confusing. Right now, lots of things are. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:37:23 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. on 10/19/00 12:56 PM, JH3 at jh3@winco.net wrote: > Subject: Re: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. >>> http://us.imdb.com/Title?0262265 >> No. > > > So what's the problem with Drew Barrymore as Barbarella? > The new version probably won't have any of the kitschy > charm of the original, so maybe it will do us all the favor > of killing her career off once and for all. > Anybody see Kate Hudson's spot on imitation of Drew on last week's SNL? I thought she did a great job. And Radiohead was awesome. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:41:03 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: an elite, secret show I WON'T be seeing >I missed [PJ's] Leno appearance (damn!), but hasn't she always flirted with >that 'showbiz/glam' approach? Yes. But this time, it didn't seem so ironic. Eb, who really prefers PJH when she plays guitar along with her singing ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:42:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Me am dumb (re: electoral college) Apparently I hate the electoral college so much I can't even think clearly about it. Of course Nader isn't going to win _any_ electoral college votes- it's highyl unlikely he'll win even one state. Fortunately, all we need is 5% of the popular vote, and I cannot imagine we won't get that. If we don't, I again promise to eat my shorts. I hope I don't have to eat more than one pair of shorts. That would suck. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:43:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: my first name pollyjean Drew wrote: > But would the math do you? I hate to ask stupid grade-school > questions like this, but would the electoral college really allow > Nader to win, unless there were a true popular landslide? A few tiny things: As I understand most of these things, ALL of a state's electoral votes go toward the candidate with the most popular votes. Electoral votes are tallied and if there is a majority (somebody got strictly more than 50% of the total number of electoral votes cast), then we have ourselves a new president. If there isn't a majority, then the Senate chooses a President from the two candidates with the highest number of votes. Please correct me if I'm wrong. And Dear Lord, I hope I am. On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Viv Lyon wrote: > I read on Mother Jones a proposal that the US needs international election > monitors, and I'm inclined to agree. This isn't really what you're getting > at, I realize, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. I agree with this. I don't trust the media to report the numbers correctly and, quite horrifyingly, I don't trust the electoral system to release proper information. We need election monitors from public and private groups from around the world. If you have a candidate representing your party, you should have an election monitor. (Of course I, having no party affiliation, would probably be underrepresented.) > I hate the electoral college system. I hated it when I first learned > about in fourth grade, and I hate it now. We have GOT to reform the > electoral system in this country. What I see happening is Nader > getting some tiny fraction of the electoral college and getting a huge > amount of the popular vote. It will make me sick to see, but I'm > preparing myself. I don't think we'll SEE that. I think we'll SEE Gore taking a large majority of the states. The popular votes that we are shown will show just what the polls showed a few days before the election. I don't believe this will be an accurate reflection of what happened, however. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:18:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Chris: You can read this. Not, of course, that I have time to do email.... On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Capuchin wrote: > I think it was said here before (or should have been) that Nader does not > necessarily represent Green Party USA and Green Party USA is not the party > that nominated Nader as candidate for President. It is the Association of > State Green Parties that nominated Nader. Green Party USA is a fairly > radical and (in my opinion) nonsensical faction. I already knew that Nader wasn't a member of the Green Party, but rather a non-member whom the GP is asking its members to vote for in lieu of running their own candidate. But the Association of State Green Parties is not part of the Greens/Green Party USA? That part I didn't know. How many Green parties *are* there? ... At any rate, the GP USA seems to think that Nader has accepted their nomination, just as much as the ASGP's. > As I understand most of these things, ALL of a state's electoral votes go > toward the candidate with the most popular votes. > > Electoral votes are tallied and if there is a majority (somebody got > strictly more than 50% of the total number of electoral votes cast), then > we have ourselves a new president. If there isn't a majority, then the > Senate chooses a President from the two candidates with the highest number > of votes. Ugh! Are your line-length settings bad, or mine? ... At any rate, you have it right, except I think it's the House, not the Senate, who decides the election if no one gets an Electoral majority. This actually happened once, in ... 1828? Something like that. Electoral trivia: In the election of 1864, during the Civil War, Lincoln won a large majority of the votes cast by soldiers. In later years some suspected fraud. Eventually (in the 1940s, I think), some historians put it to the test by re-opening the vote returns for troops from Ohio, which had been kept sealed in the state archives. It turned out that the Lincoln votes had actually been UNDERcounted. Not relevant to this election, but I found it interesting. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:31:41 +0200 From: "Noe Shalev" Subject: Re: vocab rehab > Maybe this is a difference in language. In the UK, the normal meaning of > 'disinterested' is 'unbiased'. I would have thought it was wrong to use it > for "not interested". > > - Mike Godwin And your'e pprobably right ;-) oxford dictionary: 1. impartial, unbiased.... 2.uninterested, uncaring (This use is regarded as unacceptable because it obscures a useful distinction between disinterested and uniterested) all the best (and so is music) NOE ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:50:20 -0700 From: Eb Subject: another (a bit more personal) reap Subject: UP RECORDS -- PRESS RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT: It is with great sorrow that we announce the loss of Up Records founder, Chris Takino. Chris was a shining light in our world. His passion for music and life itself was a gift to us all. We will carry him with us always. A service will be held in Chris' memory, Sunday, October 22nd at the Scottish Rite Masonic Center at 4:30pm. This commemoration of Chris' life is open to family, friends and the public. The services will be held from 4:30 - 5:30pm, with the reception to follow at Re-Bar in Seattle. Please join us for either or both of these occasions, and help us to celebrate Chris' memory. Condolences can be sent to christopher@uprecords.com or PO Box 21328, Seattle, WA 98111. Donations in memory of Chris Takino can be made to: The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Washington and Alaska Chapter 2030 Westlake Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 1-888-345-4572 or 206-628-0777 Services and Reception: Scottish Rite Masonic Center 1155 Broadway East Seattle 206-324-3330 Re-bar 1114 Howell (Corner of Boren & Howell) Seattle 206-233-9873 For more information, regarding the service or otherwise, please call Up Records at 206-320-9004. Sincerely, The Up Records Family ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:22:01 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Mom Foils Son's 'N Sync Murder Plot http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/eo/20001019/en/mom_foils_son_s_n_sync_murder_plot_5.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:48:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: "the guy was just getting warmed up" On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, hbrandt wrote: > More testimony to the influence of Lennon's life in the new Rolling > Stone (Al Gore cover). For any who may be interested, the Gore interview also contains such list-relevant info as Gore's explanation of what he says he did have to do with creating the internet, as well as info about his favorite band (it's the same as Eb's.) He talks a little about Nader too. http://rollingstone.com/sections/magazine/text/excerpt.asp?afl=rsn&lngFeatureID=120&lngStyleID= just tryin' to be helpful - please, don't get mad and/or political =b ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:17:28 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Boom!Boom!/Der lingo >Subject: reap > >Ivan Owen, the voice of Basil Brush. > >(fx: the massed sounds of non-uk fegs going, "who?") >Magic Roundabout? nice try, but no. a nearer stab would be "sort of a British Shari Lewis/Lamb Chop show, but much more energetic and fun". Basil Brush was popular enough down here in the antipodes. So I would infer (but will state rather than just imply) that probably only the US fegs are going "who?". On the infer/imply topic, another horrific usage of the language that is common here, but hopefully not in the UK or US, is news headlines such as "three people seriously ill after bus crash". Ill? I'm also getting fed up with people who should know better using "enormity" as a synonym for "size" (ISTR Bush sr. making some comment once about the enormity of his election victory - a comment that had me rolling around with laughter). And that's all we have time for this week, Basil James (...but...but...who's going to rescue Buccaneering Basil from the hordes of giant parachuting gila monsters? And...are they going to be able to save the world from the mad professor and his trained ants???) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:30:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Eclipse Subject: seeking art hey gang, i'm looking for sketches and the like done by RH. i know there's a small collection of them at the official website, but if anyone has a URL where i can find more, i would be grateful. specifically, i'd love to find a clean (a real scan, not a picture of a picture) version of the image seen on this t-shirt: http://feedthefish.org/robyn/images/image21.jpg (and thank you mr. tews for the picture :) so if you have any pointers, please pass them along! thanks, - - Eclipse np: The Golden Palominos, _Drunk With Passion_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:49:04 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. Bayard: >http://us.imdb.com/Title?0262265 Let's see how well Charlie's Angels does. It's not like the original was a great movie, although I did see it at a drive-in on what might be a great double bill. The other film was Rosemary's Baby. - - Steve __________ "He's probably the least qualified person ever to be nominated by a major party ... What is his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk? - Ron Reagan on George W. Bush ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:19:26 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: lobsterboy and nader go to the zoo Christopher Gross: >And who's Howard Phillips? He's is a good bit creepier than anything Mr. Lovecraft ever dreamed up, being an advocate of Christian Reconstructionism. www.constitutionparty.com www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm Howard is a big pal of the nice folk at the Point Of View radio show. They're on live starting at 1:05 PM Central time, and Friday is a great day to listen because it's week-in-review time. www.pointofview.net - - Steve "I hear this Republican message that we're rich as hell and we're not going to take it any more. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'm paying taxes at a lower rate than my secretary ... and frankly I think that's crazy." - Warren Buffett ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:11:23 -0700 From: "Marc Holden" Subject: Hitchcock & Grant Lee Phillips > >If you don't go to this show you'll be missing > >something that just doesn't happen every day. The > >talent that these two men possess and how they > >compliment each other warrants any amount of > >drivetime. Now I know what the West coasters had at > >Largo. > > > >Julie Yes and no...it's a taste of the Largo, but only just a bit. At the = Largo, you never know what to expect--different people show up each = night, band members switch instruments frequently, there are often = improvised songs based on audience suggestions ("I Want to Talk to Fish = Like Aquaman", "Noodles & You", etc.) and loads of covers and mutations. = One night they started playing "Ring of Fire" and Robyn realized that he = didn't know the lyrics, so he turned it into "Ring of Cheese" with it's = own strange lyrics. The Largo shows were just fun and energetic--a real = fly by the seat of your pants situation. I'm hoping that there will be = more in the future, but there haven't been any in a while (just one this = year, as far as I know--2/26). The whole approach might have been = over-analyzed by now, with the current Hitchcock/Phillips tour trying to = extend the feel of these shows beyond their Largo roots. At this point, = I'm looking more forward to the Soft Boys shows that are coming up early = next year. Later, Marc Children need encouragement. So if a kid gets an answer right, tell him = it was a lucky guess. That way, he develops a good, lucky feeling. = - --- Jack Handey=20 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 00:21:15 -0600 From: Asshole Motherfucker Subject: Re: heifer project international i'm afraid this democrats-cowering-before-the-republican-congress argument doesn't hold water. for one thing, the depravity was already well underway before newt came in and started walking tall. (nafta, for example, had been a repub. wet dream, but they couldn't get it through. it took a democrat.) all perfectly predictable, too, given clinton's stint as governor of arkansas. for another thing, it's usually been the fucking democrats *leading the charge* and *taking credit for* the "accomplishments". fuck, the latest clinton budget requested more for the fucking military than even the *pentagon itself* had said it needed! i mena, think about it: if the dems want to complain about a republican-controlled congress, shouldn't they be lamenting the numerous points of their, er, "progressive" agenda that those big, bad, bullying repubs had blocked them from enacting -- rather than just the opposite? for another, the democrats have *always* been weasels. granted, clinton/gore have sunk the party to depths that probably *nobody* imagined possible. but that doesn't absolve their forerunners of their high crimes. i do agree with chris that the presidency has been drifting steadily rightward. yow, who'd have thought, at the time, that thirty years hence, we'd be looking back at the nixon administration as a relative golden age? but this drift has taken place *irrespective* of the party in the white house. yeah, a bush/cheney presidency might well rival clinton/gore in downright nastiness. but agore/lieberman presidency would probably be even worse. but if it makes you feel any better steve, if nader weren't running i'd be voting for mcreynolds.... ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #294 *******************************