From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #298 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, October 22 2000 Volume 09 : Number 298 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Crocodile review ["Disinformant" ] Re: heifer project international [Asshole Motherfucker ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V9 #295 [DDerosa5@aol.com] Re: heifer heifest [Bayard ] Re: heifer project international [steve ] Re: heifer project international [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: heifer project international [steve ] Re: heifer heifest [Christopher Gross ] Re: Hef, heifer, heifest [Bayard ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 13:39:59 -0400 From: "Disinformant" Subject: Crocodile review For the 6/22 performance : http://www.pandomag.com/cdreviewstext/glbrh.htm (Don't know if anyone's posted this yet). - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 11:57:45 -0700 From: Asshole Motherfucker Subject: Re: heifer project international okay, so it's your word against the man who was working there (and many others). hmmm... halliday briefly lays out his argument in this very good interview . whether it is technically genocide or not, it's undeniably one of the monumental crimes in world history. my god, steve. are you really that ignorant? it's no fucking wonder you're voting for gore! the iraqi government is doing everything it can to distribute what food is available. don't believe me, ask the UN. it's probably also worth noting that iraqis had far the highest standard of living in the region before the gulf war, with a health-care system rivaling that of the first world. and that the sanctions have actually *strengthened* saddam's hold on power, as the people are now completely reliant on the state to even survive day-to-day. why? so "we" could've had "somocismo without somoza" in iraq? we had that anyway, which is why he was left in power. and on what grounds do you advocate u.s. presidents "allowing" the "removal" of world leaders? actually, it's the *turkish* kurds one should ask -- where you get killed for even speaking your own language. but of course, it would be impolitic to ask *them*, because after israel and egypt, turkey is the largest recipient of u.s. military aid. (and don't look now, but turkey is allowed by the u.s. to violate the northern "no-fly zone" (not to mention iraqi airspace) and bomb *iraqi* kurds. it happens regularly.) and, um, you've apparently forgotten that during the '80s -- when saddam's crimes against the iraqi kurds where at their peak -- the u.s. not only supported him, but supplied him with the "weapons of mass destruction" (poison gas, in this case) to carry out his crimes. <"Free Trade," in and of itself, is not economic terrorism.> no, but "free trade", as dictated by the imf/world bank/wto *is*. it's not even controversial: we use our economic leverage to compel countries to enact economic policies which cause *incredible* harm to their populations. that's the imf's *job*. if it weren't conducting economic terrorism, i suppose it couldn't exist. and if *that* doesn't work, we go in and bomb them to shreds. um, earth to steve. why in hell do you think these are the two "choices"? that is to say, why in hell do you think there is a "third world"? it couldn't have anything to do with 500 years of imperialism/colonialism, could it? it couldn't be because any country which tries to extract itself from the "washington consensus" gets invaded, then gets clamped off from the rest of the world? i'd call it more class warfare than economic terrorism. but that's semantics. you don't see 25% of black children living in poverty (and 33% of black males encountering the penal system)? you don't see wage stagnation concurrent with soaring working hours and workplace injuries? you don't see out-of-control income inequality? you don't see social security privatisation? you don't see "managed care"? you don't see crumbling infrastructure? you don't see massive, massive, massive corporate welfare? right. raising children isn't "work", so children deserve to starve. gotcha. well, of course, i think the "trick" would be to end the wages system altogether. but even still, europe doesn't seem to find providing "enough safety net" so tricky. and i find it curious that you're defending clinton on these grounds, given that one of his "great accomplishments" has been the final gutting of the new deal. (or close to it, anyway. i guess gore will preside over the official pronouncement of the new deal's demise.) then WAKE THE FUCK UP, man! these are probably the two most blatant of the lot. (and that's saying something, given the prominence of the others.) fucking christ. it -- coupled with the consistency of his policies following the '94 elections, as well as his stated goals prior to his '92 election, and his record in arkansas -- is enough, i should think, to demonstrate that the '94 elections had no effect on the administration's policies. and let's make the point again: if the "new regime" was so at odds with clinton's "inner self", then why are clinton/gore so actively taking credit for the administration's "accomplishments", rather than lamenting "what might have been" had not newt come in and spoiled everything? (and let's recall, yet again, how many democrats up for reelection voted against welfare "reform" (an absolute line in the sand for any self-respecting democrat, one should have thought): paul wellstone.) i've explained it onlist before, but i guess i can do so again. they're ideologically identical. that much is perfectly obvious. however, because of the democrat "name", clinton was able to enact policies which reagan and bush could only have dreamed of without creating an uproar. perhaps this is more an indictment of the state of american "liberalism" than of clinton/gore themselves (after all, they really haven't done anything they didn't say they would do). but as a practical matter, the facts are clear: these days, it's more damaging to have a democrat sitting in the oval office than it is a republican. i don't know. the wto/imf/philly/l.a. uprisings were for the largest part centred in opposition to economic policies. as is, perhaps, the nader campaign itself (the most prominent progressive campaign since debs was locked up for protesting the war). and the environmental movement is largely a reaction to economic prerogatives, as is the (however underwhelming) resuscitation of the labour movement. well, tell your non-republican friends they oughta get out more often. gates may not have benefited directly, but the computer industry was 100% publicly subsidised in the '50s and '60s, and 80% publicly subsidised in the '70s (or something like that -- can't recall the exact figures). so, without taxpayer devlepment, there wouldn't have been any industry for bill to have taken over by hook and by crook. (it's true of *every* industry, incidentally.) also, microsoft doesn't really pay any taxes (though they do pay more than boeing, which is actually able to tot up so many tax "breaks" that it actually *receives* money in some years), and it uses prison labour. didn't microsoft rip off the "windows" concept from apple? i didn't see that mentioned in jeme's history. maybe it's just supposed to be common knowledge.... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:34:10 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: internet origins on 10/21/00 3:06 AM, Capuchin at capuchin@bitmine.net wrote: > IBM started to work on project Acorn. This was their idea to combat Apple > in the Personal Computer space, as the droids say. They figured shipping > with MS BASIC was a good idea... at least, that's what Microsoft had > convinced them. But they needed an operating system. They were ready to > go with a little company in the bay area, but when the grey suits of IBM > showed up at the left coast home, the software guy's hippie wife turned > them away. This is the billionaire that almost was. I think he's in real > estate now. That was Gary Kildall. He was actually out flying his plane when the IBM guys showed up. They were willing to leave the contracts with his wife, but she refused to sign the NDA and they left. The little company was called Digital Research and their operating system was CP/M, which Kildall invented. He actually did pretty well for himself afterward, having pioneered the distribution of computer programs on CD-ROM. He died in 1995 from internal injuries sustained in a fall. Eddie sez: > didn't microsoft rip off the "windows" concept from apple? i didn't > see that mentioned in jeme's history. maybe it's just supposed to > be common knowledge.... To be fair, the "windows" concept, a.k.a the Graphical Use Interface, or GUI, was commercially developed by Apple after Jobs and company visited the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) and saw a demonstration of their work. Microsoft was a major applications and tools vendor for Apple at that time and there really wasn't too much animosity between the two companies. Microsoft licensed the Mac's "look and feel" from Apple in a deal that was wrought with errors on Apple's part. One story I've heard is that the contract went back and forth with Microsoft constantly crossing things out until Apple finally tired of the process and signed off. This is what ultimately allowed Microsoft to use the look and feel in perpetuity rather than just for their Windows 1.0 application. That is all for now, the Mets just tied the game so I've gotta go... - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:49:54 EDT From: DDerosa5@aol.com Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V9 #295 In a message dated 10/20/00 1:16:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org writes: Jeme wrote of ranked voting: > Oddly enough, although this has been a provision in our constitution since > the early part of the 20th century, we've never enacted a law enforcing > it. So it is legal, but unused. I think that will change as soon as the > public is better educated and we can get a referendum built. please notice, for those of you still paying attention, that states can institute this on their own, thus requiring no change to our precious never again to change national Constitution. Chris said: Actually, you're the only non-Republican I've ever met who feels that way. (Well, the Quail might be a partial exception. Quail, have you read that new Nixon bio by Anthony Summers, the one that argues Nixon sabotaged the Paris peace talks in 1968 to keep the Democrats from getting a treaty that would win the election for them?) Othe non-Republicans agree that a lot of good happened under Nixon, though I would dispute Jeme's point that a lot of it would have happened if Nixon had been President in 1960--he was jsut responding to popular culture and earth day with EPA and ESA, though he did do a good job of it. But, having read the SUmmers passage referred to above, it's pretty clear that Nixon was guilty of treason in 1968. Too bad that Humphrey twerp was such a "non-partisan" loser , afraid to mention it to the American people... I've been following the thread with interest, mostly agreeing with Eddie, but wanted to clarify a point he didn't make clearly. Bush/Quayle might have been better for the country for four more years than Clinton Gore becuase we would have had a more active political culture to oppose them (which is why we got a better SUpreme Court justice in David SOuter than we've gotten yet from the C/G admin), and probably would not have gotten the Gingrich rev in 1994. Then maybe, the DLC be damned, we could've gotten a good dem candidate in 1996. Personally, I wish Nader had run in 1992, a sentiment he has agreed with. That's why some enviros, like tim Hermach from the Native Forest Council (coincidentally, in Oregon with Jeme and Viv) says "better the enemy you know than the friend with a knife in your back." (form his enviros against Gore statement) remember this about the NAder campaign: whatever happens to the white house, he will likely end up help putting in a democratic house, which by the way will have quite a few committee leaders from the Congressional Black Caucus, which is far more liberal/progressive than the DLC slime than spawned Clinton, Gore and Lieberman. That's a great check on bad bushy if he gets in. And if Mel Carnahan had better flyers in his family, dems might've won the senate too.. OK, I'm off to a red party on my bike... dave now much more a Green since I got car-jacked last night in Cheverly, MD. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 02:24:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: heifer heifest > didn't microsoft rip off the "windows" concept from apple? i didn't > see that mentioned in jeme's history. maybe it's just supposed to > be common knowledge.... pretty much (anyone who's seem "pirates of silicon valley" or the much better "triumph of the nerds" (?) PBS (?) thing.... Jobs snagged it from the Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center), Gates snagged it from Jobs. Which is the greater crime? Depends on your nerdpolitik. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:41:19 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: heifer project international Asshole Motherfucker: >>I assume you mean the sanctions against Iraq, which do not constitute >>genocide. >whether it is technically genocide or not, it's undeniably >one of the monumental crimes in world history. >>There would be food for every person in the country, should Hussein >>wish it. >my god, steve. are you really that ignorant? it's no fucking wonder >you're voting for gore! the iraqi government is doing everything >it can to distribute what food is available. don't believe me, ask >the UN. >it's probably also worth noting that iraqis had far the highest standard >of living in the region before the gulf war, with a health-care system >rivaling that of the first world. and that the sanctions have actually >*strengthened* saddam's hold on power, as the people are now completely >reliant on the state to even survive day-to-day. Hussein could be the dictator of a rather nice country today, had he not menaced the supply of oil coming to the U.S. And Iraq could get back to where it was if he would only give up his desire to be the number one leader of the Arab world. Hussein doesn't give one shit about how many people in Iraq starve, as long his clan and party are well fed and in power. Not that the amount of world resources we consume is a good thing, but the people of the U.S. do want to have cheap gas for their SUVs. >>GHW Bush should have allowed the removal of Hussein and as much >>of his party as possible. >and on what grounds do you advocate u.s. presidents "allowing" >the "removal" of world leaders? I advocate this only when said leader is foolish enough to provoke the U.S. into a "war." Bush should have let the military remove Hussein and his power structure. I would not advocate making Iraq into a client state. I would hope that the people of Iraq would take to opportunity to create a better government for their country. >>"Free Trade," in and of itself, is not economic terrorism. >no, but "free trade", as dictated by the imf/world bank/wto *is*. >it's not even controversial: we use our economic leverage to compel >countries to enact economic policies which cause *incredible* harm >to their populations. that's the imf's *job*. if it weren't conducting >economic terrorism, i suppose it couldn't exist. and if *that* doesn't >work, we go in and bomb them to shreds. I'm not particularly a fan of the above organizations, but I don't recall any instance of countries being attacked for rejecting their policies. >>Like most everything, this is a complicated issue. Is it better >>to work in a sweat shop than to pick rags out of a dump or work on >>a rice farm? >um, earth to steve. why in hell do you think these are the two "choices"? >that is to say, why in hell do you think there is a "third world"? >it couldn't have anything to do with 500 years of imperialism/colonialism, >could it? I'm sure the world would be a better place had the western powers (and Japan, I guess) never come up with the idea of Colonialism. But there's no guarantee that the areas that now constitute the third world would absolutely be better off. There are plenty of other systems that might lead to oppression of the local populations. >>Domestic economic terrorism by the Clinton administration? - I don't >>see any. >i'd call it more class warfare than economic terrorism. but that's >semantics. you don't see 25% of black children living in poverty >(and 33% of black males encountering the penal system)? you don't >see wage stagnation concurrent with soaring working hours and workplace >injuries? you don't see out-of-control income inequality? you don't >see social security privatisation? you don't see "managed care"? >you don't see crumbling infrastructure? you don't see massive, >massive, massive corporate welfare? >>The economy changes, and there are always winners and losers. The >>trick is to provide enough safety net. Opinions differ on what that >>would be. >well, of course, i think the "trick" would be to end the wages system >altogether. but even still, europe doesn't seem to find providing >"enough safety net" so tricky. and i find it curious that you're >defending clinton on these grounds, given that one of his "great >accomplishments" has been the final gutting of the new deal. (or >close to it, anyway. i guess gore will preside over the official >pronouncement of the new deal's demise.) Eddie, we are living in a county that is very close to electing as President the walking void that is known as George W. Bush. Do you think for one instant that any Bush voter wants to hear about ending the wage system? His Republican voters oppose everything you embrace, and the independents are evidently too stupid to realize that the great majority of his campaign is based on the technique of The Big Lie. Voting for Nader will not prevent or correct any of the domestic problems you list above. By helping to elect Bush, it will probably make things worse. If that's what you're counting on, come on out and say it. That's the only way the Green Party will ever have a hope of becoming a major political force. - ---------- As far as one of the things listed above, I suspect that Bush's "plan" is the first step toward ending Social Security as the modestly progressive program it is now and replacing it with a forced investment program. Republicans love this idea because they've hated Social Security from the first day it was enacted. They would rather just get rid of it altogether, but they know they've got to have something called Social Security to put in its place. How they are going to manage the transition costs, I have no idea. Perhaps they know they can't really maintain benefits at current levels. This is similar to their scam of proposing faux programs for things that the public wants. They know the programs won't work, but they provide good cover. - - Steve __________ Well, Jesus ain't no astronaut And Buddah, he's no fool Cathedral bells don't ring in hell 'cos cats down there don't think that's cool. - Bill Nelson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 02:52:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: heifer project international steve wrote: > Hussein could be the dictator of a rather nice country today, had he > not menaced the supply of oil coming to the U.S. And Iraq could get > back to where it was if he would only give up his desire to be the > number one leader of the Arab world. Hussein doesn't give one shit > about how many people in Iraq starve, as long his clan and party are > well fed and in power. it does need to be noted that as hideous as Hussein is, the Kuwaitis actually started that by stealing from Iraq's oil reserve. yes, we actually managed to go after hussein on one of those rarest of occasions when he was right. boy, those bush boys know how to fuck up, don't they. > Not that the amount of world resources we consume is a good thing, > but the people of the U.S. do want to have cheap gas for their SUVs. > > >>GHW Bush should have allowed the removal of Hussein and as much > >>of his party as possible. > >and on what grounds do you advocate u.s. presidents "allowing" > >the "removal" of world leaders? > > I advocate this only when said leader is foolish enough to provoke > the U.S. into a "war." Hussein specifically asked the US State Department what our response would be if he invaded Kuwait to retaliate for their stealing his oil; he was told he would do nothing. which actually means, he was foolish enough to take the US government at its word. ===== "Freedom is participation in power." -- Cicero __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:39:49 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: heifer project international Jeff Dwarf: >Hussein specifically asked the US State Department what our response >would be if he invaded Kuwait to retaliate for their stealing his oil; >he was told he would do nothing. which actually means, he was foolish >enough to take the US government at its word. Did he ring up the State Department in Washington, or ask someone who responded to a question way above her level of authority? He might have gotten away with taking the area in dispute, but not the whole country. - - Steve __________ More confirmation that we have a vast sucking noise running for president. - Dahlia Lithwick on the Bush wedding video ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:11:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: heifer heifest On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Bayard wrote: > pretty much (anyone who's seem "pirates of silicon valley" or the much > better "triumph of the nerds" (?) PBS (?) thing.... Jobs snagged it from > the Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center), Gates snagged it from Jobs. > > Which is the greater crime? Depends on your nerdpolitik. This is the Gates theory of moral equivalence -- "I stole from you, but you stole from Xerox, so you're no better than me." However, I don't think it stands up. Apple only saw demos of Xerox's GUI and then designed their own based on the concepts they saw. Microsoft, on the other hand, designed its Windows GUI after seeing Apple's actual code. The theft to invention ratio was thus much higher for MS than for Apple's Mac team. The two cases differ in another respect: Apple improved on the Xerox PARC GUI, while Microsoft could only come up with a distinctly inferior copy of Apple's GUI. On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > it does need to be noted that as hideous as Hussein is, the Kuwaitis > actually started that by stealing from Iraq's oil reserve. yes, we > actually managed to go after hussein on one of those rarest of > occasions when he was right. "He was right?" Are you saying that Saddam Hussein was *justified* in invading and annexing a whole country because they were sucking up oil from the Iraqi side of the oilfield? Seems kinda harsh to me. (Hey, if we ever catch Canadians fishing in US waters, we should probably nuke Ottawa, right? And overdue library books should carry the death penalty.) No, you might, at a stretch, call the invasion *understandable*, but there's no way it was *justified*. > Hussein specifically asked the US State Department what our response > would be if he invaded Kuwait to retaliate for their stealing his oil; > he was told he would do nothing. which actually means, he was foolish > enough to take the US government at its word. The truth is a bit murkier than that. He had a private meeting with the US ambassador (April Glaspie? something like that), then invaded Kuwait, then claimed the Ambassador had said it was okay. The State Depratment, of course, denies it. So it's Saddam Hussein's word against April Glaspie's; and call me naive, but I don't consider Saddam Hussein very trustworthy. - --Chris "my God, is Bayard's modem slow" the Christer ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 14:46:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: Hef, heifer, heifest > This is the Gates theory of moral equivalence -- "I stole from you, but > you stole from Xerox, so you're no better than me." Despite the quote marks, isn't this a "Gross" paraphrasing? > However, I don't > think it stands up. Apple only saw demos of Xerox's GUI and then designed > their own based on the concepts they saw. Microsoft, on the other hand, > designed its Windows GUI after seeing Apple's actual code. The theft to > invention ratio was thus much higher for MS than for Apple's Mac team. Didn't Tom just post that MS licensed the look and feel? Is this why Apple provided MS with a Mac? Surely there was some trickery on MS' part, but it sounds like Apple just got tired of the legal wrangling early on, and gave up (not knowing how much success windows would enjoy.) And did Xerox give Jobs any kind of permission to copy their GUI? I don't know all the facts, but if not, this seems like spying. > The two cases differ in another respect: Apple improved on the Xerox PARC > GUI, while Microsoft could only come up with a distinctly inferior copy of > Apple's GUI. You mean initially, or to date? I would venture that the latter is, at least to some extent, a matter of opinion. Please, Mac addicts, hold your fire. I have some inkling of how you feel - btw, there's a new Amiga coming out... > --Chris "my God, is Bayard's modem slow" the Christer what's next? hard disk sizing contests? =b ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #298 *******************************