From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #300 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, October 23 2000 Volume 09 : Number 300 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: RIP ["JH3" ] Re: apples and oil [Terrence Marks ] I'm sure a lot of you can empathize.... [Christopher Gross ] fear of bush ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: apples and oil ["JH3" ] Re: heifer project international [Asshole Motherfucker ] Re: I'm sure a lot of you can empathize.... [Capuchin ] Only Two More Weeks of this Atrocity Exhibition, We Promise (wuz Re: I'm sure a lot of you can empathize....) [pi% Joy Division content] [] Re: heifer project international [Stephen Buckalew ] changing the world ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: Re: RIP Another slow day on the feg list... >> Julie London >> Cry me a river... >Terrific sequence in "The girl can't help it" where Tom Ewell, drunk, >imagines that his ex-girlfriend, Julie London, is singing this lachrymose >estuarine ditty. Recommended. I should also point out that London was also married to actor/bandleader Bobby Troup (that's "Troup," not "Troop"). And at one point she was also married to "Dragnet" star Jack Webb, too (that's "Dragnet" and "Webb," not "Internet" or "World-Wide-Web"). .,..And Marcy T. writes: >Ryan said the country singer drove him through >dense smoke to safety; after he had rescued his >brother. They said they didn't realize who their >rescuer was until a neighbor told them: >"You just got saved by Garth Brooks." >Brooks' in-laws live within miles of the fire, and he >reportedly is building a new home nearby. Hmmm, I guess even people who move up here from the burning depths of Hell just HAVE to bring the weather with them wherever they go, huh? Sheesh! JH3 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 16:16:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence Marks Subject: Re: apples and oil On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Capuchin wrote: > We pissed off a WHOLE lot of people. But NOT A SINGLE ONE LIKED > GORE. There was nobody there that really thought Al Gore was a great man > and worthy of the presidency. Nobody rushed to his defense personally or > even disagreed that he has done lots of evil things. They ALL said they > didn't want Bush in the white house and were afraid of Supreme Court > appointments. Can anyone explain why we aren't having a McCain/Bradley race right now? Terrence Marks Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://www.unlikeminerva.com HCF (another comic strip) http://www.mpog.com/hcf normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 16:34:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: I'm sure a lot of you can empathize.... "Ralph Nader may not have billions of dollars to spend on television advertisements, big-moneyed corporate backers throwing their weight behind him or a political party significant enough to get him a spot in the presidential debates, but he's got one thing no other presidential candidate can boast: complete and total domination of every online mailing list I subscribe to." As guilty as any, Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 20:14:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: Huge Heifer quoth Steve: > As for the arguments that Gore is no better than Bush, I reject > most of them as irrelevant, utopian, or just plain silly. Well, you may reject them, but you have offered no support that rejection that doesn't amount to begging the question. I read what you have to say, and all I see is the same herd-speak that big media is force-feeding us in order to justify its blackout of alternative viewpoints. Jeme has come up with citations of actual policies that Gore has had a hand in instituting, he's cited Gore's voting record, and referred to actual poll numbers. And incidentally, I have seen independent confirmation for all of the evidence that Jeme brings up. All I have seen you do is make blanket pronouncements from on high about the mindset of the average voter, as though you've got your finger on the pulse of the man in the street. Have you taken a step back to actually look at the sources for these impressions that you have about what the prevalent mindset is in the nation today? I'm not saying anything about how representative the views of the Green Party may or may not be. What I am saying is that, at the risk of sounding presumptuous, the information that you base those impressions on is either what you've witnessed in your own face to face interactions (anecdotal), and what you've seen as portrayed by big media (which has a vested interest in downplaying the strength of this movement, and in discouraging fence sitters.) - -Michael P.S. Damn, Jeme, your beautiful bike got stolen? That's absolutely terrible! If you like, you can borrow my R-32 until you can get another one, when it arrives (in a day or two). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:53:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: fear of bush > From: Capuchin > Not at all spying. The PARC kids tried to sell Xerox on all the neat > stuff they'd devloped and Xerox would have none of it (initially). This is, as most people probably know, typical for Xerox. They have this great technology research facility and they don't know what to do with it. It's one of the many frustrations that led many of us to fly the coop. > From: steve > > I will say it one more time - From my perspective, Gore is superior to > Bush in every broad policy area. I guess, but by how much? And to what height? Everything I'm reading suggests that at _best_ we get to maintain the status quo. Bush _might_ take us backward, but Gore _won't_ take us forward. How depressing is that? > And there's a reason that he's an order > of magnitude better choice than Nader - he has the chance to be elected. I realize this is not a true analogy (theoretically, for example, voting affects the real world, whereas sports fandom is just a socially acceptable form of total geekage), but this tastes a little like picking your favorite sports team based on who seems most likely to win. Or is that what you sports fans actually do? See, maybe this is pie-in-the-sky idealism, but I always thought you were supposed to vote for the candidate you thought would best represent your views and ideals. Your view of voting (and that of many other Gore supporters, from what I've read) is more like: vote for the candidate you are willing to settle for and you expect most other people are also willing to settle for. It doesn't make me want to rush to the polls. > As for the arguments that Gore is no better than Bush, I reject most of > them as irrelevant, utopian, or just plain silly. They haven't sounded very silly or irrelevant to me. Utopian they may be, but I guess I haven't yet accepted the truth about our government's actions and motivations as inevitable, immutable reality. > From: Capuchin [the old Windows vs. Mac chestnut...my view:] > > I'll hold my fire, but I will say that while it's a matter of opinion, > > it's also the _correct_ opinion. :) I'll grant that Windows has made > > some laudable improvements to _their_ version of the GUI, while OS X > > looks like it might be a step in the wrong direction in many cases, > but > > Windows still contains enough boneheaded usability gaffes to last them > > through the next few years at least. > > Just like the presidential race, it's a false dichotomy. True enough. I've enjoyed X Windows when I've used it (though I'm not familiar enough with it to know for sure that that's even what it's called). For the moment, though, the difference is that I actually _like_ the Mac OS. This is increasingly due to my history with it and decreasingly due to my present with it. If any fegs out there have an old but still functional PC they'd be willing to sell me for peanuts so that I can get started learning to set up and administer Linux, I'd be well on my way to breaking that dichotomy... :) 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: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 16:09:52 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: apples and oil >> We pissed off a WHOLE lot of people. But NOT A SINGLE ONE >> LIKED GORE. Hey, I like Gore! I still listen to my old "It's My Party and I'll Cry If I Want To" single, to this day. (Or were you referring to the stuff they keep showing in splatter films? I'm not so into that anymore.) >Can anyone explain why we aren't having a McCain/Bradley race >right now? Let me guess: Is it because the primary system is an insane, stupid-ass way of choosing candidates for public office that allows people who can raise lots of soft/corporate money early on in the race to media-blitz a relatively small number of early-primary states and force less corporate- friendly pols to abandon their campaigns before the rest of the country has had much of a chance to hear what their ideas are, much less vote for them? Again, that's just a guess. John "lacking purpose today" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:53:32 -0700 From: Asshole Motherfucker Subject: Re: heifer project international it's a lousy (to put it very mildly) justification for wiping out an entire population, though it's probably true. but you've sidestepped the issue: it's the *sanctions* that are killing 5,000 people per month -- NOT the iraqi government's supposed (and in fact non-existent) hoarding of food. first off, von sponeck, while he was still in iraq (before resigning in protest, making him the second of three UN empolyees on the ground in iraq to have done so), estimated that it would take ten years *after* the lifting of sanctions for iraq to return to its pre-gulf war standard of living. i'm not even sure if this addresses the issue of depleted uranium left behind by the "allies" (which has caused a tenfold increase in cancer mortalities). secondly, it's not even true. while at first accepting the language of UN 687, clinton/albright have since stated that sanctions will not be lifted until saddam is removed from power -- or even longer. (and note that *iraq* is in compliance of 687 -- by the UN's own admission -- while the united states is not: the resolution *explicitly* called for inspections *in the context* of region-wide disarmament. the united states has, of course, continued to flood the region with weaponry.) probably true (and of course, probably true of *every* dictator supported by the u.s.). but we come back to iraq's pre-gulf war standard of living: the highest in the region. yeah, and the people of the u.s. *love* to eat at mcdonald's. that justifies genocide? so might makes right? any "provocation" -- real or imagined -- justifies raining the bombs down? any threat to "our" oil? fuck the UN. fuck international law. fuck the geneva convention. fuck everything so long as we have cheap gas for our SUVs. (yes, the UN authorised the gulf war -- but only after having been bought off and bullied by the u.s. into doing so. and only to remove iraqi forces from kuwait.) um, the *did* so, after the gulf war, and were wiped out by saddam - -- with u.s. approval and assistance. now, as stated, they're completely reliant upon the state to just survive from one day to the next. well, it's not so much that they "came up with the idea", as it's an inevitable concomitant of capitalism. it is, in fact, the *only* reason capitalism can survive its inherent "contradictions" -- even given the fact of perpetual state intervention in the domestic economy to bail the bosses out. <>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.> you can't think of a single one? how about supporting nationalist china (with, we might add, the help of the soviet union)? how about the korean war? how about the vietnam war? how about the greek civil war? how about the marshall plan? how about the overthrow of mossadegh? how about guatemala in 1954? how about the overthrow of sukarno? how about the overthrow of allende? how about the forty- year terrorist war against cuba? how about the proxy war in nicaragua? how about the invasion of grenada? how about the gulf war? how about the overthrow of aristide? how about the annexation of east timor? this is just a sample. and just *since* world war ii, when the bretton woods institutions were birthed. structural-adjustment-like policies (forced currency devaluation, forced privatisation of public assets at miniscule percentages of their value, massive cutbacks in social services, destruction of indigenous agriculture at the expense of export-earmarked cash crops, eradication of tariffs (while tariffs and other non-tariff barriers are kept in place for the *rich* countries), and the like) are as old as colonialism/imperialism itself. it's always been the case: "free market" capitalism *does not work*, so we get the state to rob the rest of the world's resources for us. the best book on the subject (in my opinion) is frederic clairmont's The Rise And Decline Of Economic Liberalism (. also, al mccoy's The Politics Of Heroin: CIA Complicity On The Global Drug Trade turns out to be a terrific (and very well written) history of colonialism. oppression is one thing. outright devastation is another. there is an ABSOLUTE guarantee that they'd be better off. not only does your grasp of elementary logic leave much to be desired, i'm also a tad offended that you'd think that i'd be anything less than candid about my "motives" in voting for nader. while a bush presidency will certainly make things worse, a gore presidency will make them even worse than *that* -- as has been shewn over and over again by myself and others. if that (in other words, the most damaging administration possible, in order to hasten the onset of revolution) were my motivating factor in casting my ballot, i'd be voting for GORE. OBVIOUSLY. what i want is for a viable third party committed to justice to emerge. in the two seconds it'll take me to punch the little hole in the ballot, i'm going to vote for that. in the 15-20 hours a week i give of my time over the *next four years*, i'm going to *work* for justice. as far the rudeness is concerned, i wouldn't have posted anything like that to any other list. but i think rudeness among family members is acceptable. as far as the vehemence is concerned, i'd say the situation warrants it. it (and much else besides) is all true, momma. you ever want to *really* despise your country (talking to us americans, here), just pick up any book by noam chomsky (except the linguistics books, i guess). Year 501 and Deterring Democracy are probably the best "general history"s. *now* we're talkin'! i doubt it will, too. but why would you feel bad? erm, last i heard, three-quarters of the american population believes that the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" comes from the declaration of independence. (pretty sure i've mentioned this before....) you're the only one doing so, steve. some have argued (erroneously) that gore deserves to be elected solely on the merits of his presumed supreme court nominations. some have argued that the clinton administration's *true intentions* were shot down by the '94 election. some have argued that bush's aura evokes such an unpleasant visceral reaction that gore deserves to be elected. but you're the only one to "reject" the simple statement of facts with ad hominem ("steaming pile of shit", "walking void") childishness and evasions of same simple facts. KEN "Sittin' in the gaolhouse trying to learn some good manners" THE KENSTER ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:25:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: apples and oil On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Terrence Marks wrote: > Can anyone explain why we aren't having a McCain/Bradley race right > now? I've said before that I think a McCain/Bradley race would have been FASCINATING. Eddie would still be where Eddie is, but I think those two guys are pretty interesting. And when it comes to making Real Change within the framework of the current institutions, those guys were our best bet. Not to be totally single-issue, but I think McCain and Bradley were sent out for their hatred of corporate welfare and, in particular, their opposition to the provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that GIVES the broadcast spectrum (a public asset) to a few private corporations instead of licensing or selling that bandwidth. Essentially, we're HANDING profits to these corporations. We're giving them items that decrease their operating costs so much that they're massively profitable almost without effort. If they paid what that spectra was truly worth, the big media couldn't own so many stations nationally. Unlike eddie, I don't think capitalism REQUIRES government support. But I do think that without government handouts to big business, there would be no big business. I think we'd be just as successful with a large network of small businesses. I'll explain bilateral network peering agreements to you folks some day and you'll see how the real world is a mix of barter, sharing, and profiting. But all the small telcos are going under fast because they can't compete with the big folks taking massive government handouts to keep their margins wide. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:27:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: I'm sure a lot of you can empathize.... On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Christopher Gross wrote: > > > "Ralph Nader may not have billions of dollars to spend on television > advertisements, big-moneyed corporate backers throwing their weight behind > him or a political party significant enough to get him a spot in the > presidential debates, but he's got one thing no other presidential > candidate can boast: complete and total domination of every online mailing > list I subscribe to." That's what "bottom up" politics are all about. Don't believe the polls. They tell you exactly what they want you to hear. Do you really think less than five percent of Americans could tie up every mailing list on the net? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:32:12 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: heifer project international Eddie writes: >erm, last i heard, three-quarters of the american population believes >that the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according >to his needs" comes from the declaration of independence. All that means is that 75% of the American population are poorly educated. If you were to ask them where the phrase "The U.S. is guilty of genocide on a massive scale throughout the world" comes from, I suspect that figure would drop to something more like 40% or even less! This is actually where Eddie & I really part company, I suppose. He seems to think that if "the people" learned the truth, they'd all rise up in righteous anger and throw the bums out. Whereas I think they'd probably throw the bums a ticker-tape parade, or at least buy them lunch at the local Hooters'. I guess I'm not much of a people-person, then? John "yikes, it's real meat" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:59:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Only Two More Weeks of this Atrocity Exhibition, We Promise (wuz Re: I'm sure a lot of you can empathize....) [pi% Joy Division content] Just a reminder that, as Billy Bragg said, we are choosing a President for everyone; there is very little opportunity for being more careful this time though..... Capuchin wrote: > On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Christopher Gross wrote: >> >> "Ralph Nader may not have billions of dollars to spend on >> television advertisements, big-moneyed corporate backers throwing >> their weight behind him or a political party significant enough to >> get him a spot in the presidential debates, but he's got one thing >> no other presidential candidate can boast: complete and total >> domination of every online mailing list I subscribe to." > > That's what "bottom up" politics are all about. > > Don't believe the polls. They tell you exactly what they want you to > hear. Do you really think less than five percent of Americans could > tie up every mailing list on the net? well, less than .05% could probably do that, and i seriously doubt the Ted Nugent list is talking about Nader all that much; in fact Nader is probably not being all that discussed on the majority of mailing lists. that said, since they only poll "likely voters," the alleged 4% Nader comes out as is lower than it will be. in fact, i wouldn't be terribly shocked if Nader almost (or even outright) won a smaller, maverick sort of state, like say Vermont. and he'll do much better than "expected" in states where there is already a clear winner between bush&gore[tm] (CA, TX, etc). that said, I also wouldn't be surprised if in a lot of the "swing" states where things are very close, a lot of people who today are planning to vote nader, chicken out at the last second and settle for gore. i'd be very surprised if nader doesn't qualify for matching funds though. ===== "Freedom is participation in power." -- Cicero __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 19:01:29 -0400 From: Stephen Buckalew Subject: Re: heifer project international >This is actually where Eddie & I really part company, I suppose. >He seems to think that if "the people" learned the truth, they'd >all rise up in righteous anger and throw the bums out. Whereas >I think they'd probably throw the bums a ticker-tape parade, or >at least buy them lunch at the local Hooters'. I tend to fall on this side of the spectrum, if the people of this nation wanted to end the war on drugs, they would. But they would rather remain ignorant, so they can drink their Merlot and Bud and feel like they are not doing any thing wrong. After all, Hitler was an *elected* official, Oops! I guess this thread must end now.... ;-) Steve B *************************************************************** "...isn't it good to be lost in the wood..."--Syd Barrett *************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 16:14:09 -0700 From: Chris Gillis Subject: Re: Only Two More Weeks of this Atrocity Exhibition, We Promise (wuz Re: I'm sure a lot of you can empathize....) [pi% Joy Division content] > > Do you really think less than five percent of Americans could > > tie up every mailing list on the net? > > well, less than .05% could probably do that, and i seriously doubt the > Ted Nugent list is talking about Nader all that much; in fact Nader is > probably not being all that discussed on the majority of mailing lists. This list is the *only* place I here this sort of politio-babble, which is refreshing given the level for potential of the debate, and odd given my Berkeley-Oakland, rumored uber-liberal local. But, it does say something about the ability we Americans (not to infer the good, kind New Zealanders (or others) on the list ;) have to conceptualize the issues and to flush them out in our thoughts, most of which takes on a simplistically modernist bent. kinldy, .chris - -- chris@photogenica.net http://photogenica.net - -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:13:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "J. Brown" Subject: Re: I'm sure a lot of you can empathize.... On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Capuchin wrote: > Don't believe the polls. They tell you exactly what they want you to > hear. Do you really think less than five percent of Americans could tie > up every mailing list on the net? You bet! Shit there arent even 5% of america on mailing lists! Jason Wilson Brown - University of Washington - Seattle, WA USA "Monkey in a Turban, Oh What Does it Mean?" -Frank Black ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 20:42:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Natalie Jacobs Subject: feh, feh, feh As has been mentioned, Gore spoke in Portland last night. More or less. Huge lines at the door. (I cut and slipped in with Viv, et al.) A security check, of course. Then I and the Gore-ites (and the Nader-ites) stood there, outside, in chilly autumn weather for THREE FREAKIN' HOURS while a variety of Democratic candidates insisted they were different from Republicans (if they really are different, why are they taking such pains to point it out?). Lots of crappy music (and "Blitzkrieg Bop," of all things) played over and over. I speculated the delay was due to the fact that they had to wind up the Gore-droid backstage. Then Gore FINALLY made his appearance... and spoke for TEN MINUTES. That's right, that audience waited THREE HOURS for TEN MINUTES worth of "My tax plan is better than his tax plan" and "I'm going to protect the environment! No, really!" By the time I left, my feet hurt so much I could hardly walk. This is what the major-party candidates think of their supporters: they are fodder for photo-ops, they are there to cheer on cue and wave signs around, they don't care about substance or meaning, they enjoy being fobbed off with ten minutes of hot air. Treat 'em like sheep, as long as they press the right lever on Election Day. At least I got to yell "Eat it raw!" and "What is reality??" during the speech. (Firesign Theater fans, take note!) Oh yeah, and I (and most people) were so far away that we couldn't even *see* the speakers... it could have been anyone up there. For all I know, it was Bush making that little speech. It might as well have been. very pissy, still footsore n. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 20:43:22 -0400 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: changing the world No one seems have made the analogy yet, but really I'd like Nader to come on like Livingstone in the London mayoral elections. Dear old Ken fucked two major party machines in the process: and - I * hate* to get one up over the land of the free (like fuck....) but he probably got near enough votes proportionately to get elected President for my mother's sake. I bet he gets more, in those terms, than Pat "The Complete Cunt" Buchanan for example. Actually I won't put money on that, because I know how many arseholes there are in Nebraska...... jmbc Gore/Blair. Same diff...but please don't pretend that Bush and Gore are interchangeable.... (like that'll stop Eddie...) ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #300 *******************************