From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #345 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, November 28 2000 Volume 09 : Number 345 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Buy a belt, and you're funding genocide [Aaron Mandel ] Re: Buy a belt, and you're funding genocide [Eb ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V9 #344 ["Russ Reynolds" ] boothbyn hitchcoe ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" ] Re: Buy a belt, and you're funding genocide ["Randy R." ] Re: Buy a belt, and you're funding genocide [Aaron Mandel ] Re: Buy some gum, or steal it from JH3 [Viv Lyon ] I protested Buy Nothing Day [BLATZMAN@aol.com] Re: mumblemumbleGENOCIDEmumblemumbleCAPITALISTDOGmumblemumbleOPPRE SSION.... [drop the holupki ] Re: porr widdle theaters! [Capuchin ] Re: I protested Buy Nothing Day [Capuchin ] Re: Buy some gum, or steal it from JH3 [dmw ] lennon's on sale again ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:32:53 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: Buy a belt, and you're funding genocide On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Eb wrote: > Sorry, I tuned out after "gigantic multinational corporations." if you're not interested in the damn topic, blame yourself, not Vivien. large multinationals exist. it is often helpful to refer to them when talking about them, so that one's sentences are not missing nouns. i am uneasy about Buy Nothing Day as an event, largely because of its connection to Adbusters, for whom i don't have much respect. still, hypocrisy doesn't make someone's ideas wrong, it just makes the person espousing them less respectable, and it's not like the founder of Adbusters is the only person who's ever thought of cutting back on consumption. it's odd how many people respond to the whole idea of BND with either smugness or fury. fury! like, what, you can't stand the idea of someone talking to you about this? i honestly didn't think most people had a deep reservoir of guilt about what they buy, but judging by the defensiveness occasionally unleashed on Buy Nothing Day, it sure is there. a ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:37:56 -0800 (PST) From: Eclipse Subject: Re: the real temptation > ok, what's the dealio with these things? since my camera has shit the bed, i'm > looking to get something new for the crass consumer holiday x. do you save > money on film processing; but lose out on quality of prints? would i be better > off with a video camera? is there such a thing as a digital movie camera? > does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight? my husband has a sony digital video camera, and he loves it. i have a sony digital camera, and it's improved the quality of my photo-taking 100%. here's my take on the two: pluses: - - sony digital cameras (video and still) can use sony's memory stick. this is a little flash card, smaller than a stick of gum, that can hold about 250 still 640x480 .jpgs on a 32Mb card. - - the memory stick sits in a pcmcia card in the camera, which you can then pop out and slap into your pcmcia port on a laptop, or the port that comes with the camera (that you plug into your pc) - et voila, it's like mounting another drive on your computer and your pictures are instantly accessible. - - my sony camera does 5x optical zoom, so it doesn't just blow up the pixels, it actually zooms - - the sony digital video records still shots on the memory stick, and video on digital tapes. a video cable comes with the camera, and you hook it up to your computer, and can then easily save your movies to your computer. minuses: - - memory sticks aren't cheap. my 32Mb stick cost about $70, i think. but..no more buying film, no more film developing charges, no more waiting for prints, etc. it's already gotten cheaper than what i paid when i bought a memory stick 6 months ago. - - if you want prints of your still pictures, you'll need a good printer (my 3-year-old HP deskjet 820 isn't good enough, at this point), and you'll want to buy some good quality photo printing paper. you don't have film-quality prints and negatives you can easily get reprints from. (however, if you want your pics online, you don't have to scan them &c) - - the digital movie tapes require a special vcr tape to play them on the vcr, although this comes with the camera. however, if you have the tapes _and_ the camera around, you can hook up the camera directly to the vcr and play the tapes from there, and it's quick and easy. - - neither camera is very light; my digital still weighs 2-3lbs, the digital movie camera weighs more. - - neither camera is very cheap; my digital still was going for $900-$1000 when i bought it (it's about $700 now). but it's been worth every penny. now that i've raved about mass-marketed global-corporation over-hyped overpriced gadgetry just before xmas, i'll go work on the jewelry i'm handmaking for xmas gifts.. ..right after i go to the dentist and this valium wears off. glibly, Eclipse np: Johnny Cash, American III: Solitary Man ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:40:55 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Buy a belt, and you're funding genocide Aaron: >> Sorry, I tuned out after "gigantic multinational corporations." > >if you're not interested in the damn topic, blame yourself, not Vivien. >large multinationals exist. it is often helpful to refer to them when >talking about them, so that one's sentences are not missing nouns. Right. And while you're at it, don't forget to talk about the CORRUPTION of the BUREAUCRATS, and CONSUMERISM. And REPRESSION and EXPLOITATION and POLITICIANS and CAPITALISM.... I'm reminded again why I hate most punk-rock lyrics so much. >it's odd how many people respond to the whole idea of BND with either >smugness or fury. I think that's probably because the whole idea of BND is *presented* with such smugness and fury. >i honestly didn't think most people had a deep >reservoir of guilt about what they buy, but judging by the defensiveness >occasionally unleashed on Buy Nothing Day, it sure is there. That's a totally inept "diagnosis." Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:42:25 -0800 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V9 #344 >> elsewhere. Advertising becomes a bad thing when people who don't need the >> money use it to get more money from people who don't need the product. > > Presumably the result is behavior, in this case walking into a store and > buying a lot of crap instead of playing with your kids. Are you also > comfortable crediting movies and music with this kind of power over > behavior? Quite comortable with that, however unpopular that opinion may be. - -rUss ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:44:12 -0500 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: boothbyn hitchcoe Yup, I was at the BBC recording. Robyn cocked up his scripted bit pretty badly but it was very funny. He didn't seem to able to read the text with or without his glasses. He did a slightly hesitant but well-received rendition of Uncorrected Personality Traits. He nearly fluffed the 'middle-aged suicide' line. I must admit, though I find the song mildly amusing, a lot of it's appeal on record is down to the folk group styleee, a cappella presentation and he couldn't repeat that on his own with a guitar (obviously...). Boothby Graffoe seemed very, very happy to have Robyn on. Two big surprises on the night. Big Al, who was Robyn's roadie in Edinburgh was an integral part of the show as a character! Eh?! Secondly the script was co-written by Dave Thompson who was sacked from the Tele Tubbies after 'creating' the role of Tinky Winky, or however you fucking spell it!! I acted with him over ten years ago and he was the most uncordinated and pretentious goons I've ever performed with. Heigh ho. Now he's doing pretty well and I'm writing bitter little e-mails about him. Isn't life strange...? jmbc. P.S. If you've ever seen the comedian Scott Capurro you'll realise that recent comments about 'Our Saviour' TM, are rather tame... Happy Saturnalia everyone. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:47:16 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: the real temptation on 11/28/00 2:02 PM, Ken Ostrander at kenster@MIT.EDU wrote: >> Besides, who uses film cameras these days? Everyone's getting those >> massively-hyped-corporate-consumer-product digital cameras now. > > ok, what's the dealio with these things? since my camera has shit the bed, > i'm > looking to get something new for the crass consumer holiday x. do you save > money on film processing; but lose out on quality of prints? would i be > better > off with a video camera? is there such a thing as a digital movie camera? > does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight? Allow me. I've been using a Kodak DC-280 for a little over a year now. I basically use it for snapshots, vacation photos, etc. The super cool thing about using digital cameras is that you have instant access to the shot, so you can delete it and re-shoot if you don't get the results you want. I then put all my photos up on Ofoto.com, where I can invite others to view them and then order the prints they want. That sure beats getting double prints of the whole roll from your local Fotomat. If you get a 2 Megapixel or better camera, the quality is nearly indistinguishable from a film print - provided you don't go over 4x6. I've gotten some 8x10's from Ofoto and they look great in a frame on the table - but you can see artifacts if you look really close. On the video front, look at something like the Sony DCR-TRV20. It is a Digital Video ("DV") camera that also takes still pictures and stores them on a removable "Memory Stick". This is the configuration you want when looking for a nice all-in-one unit. DV cameras record a digital stream to tape which can then be edited over and over with no loss in quality. Get yourself an iMac DV and be your own movie studio. Watch out for cameras that say they can also take still pics, but don't have any removable media for the stills. What they do is essentially snap a photo and repeat it for two seconds or so on the video tape. You never get decent quality this way. Here's one of my Ofoto albums, from my Thanksgiving in Lake Tahoe: - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:54:34 -0800 From: "Randy R." Subject: Re: Buy a belt, and you're funding genocide First off, as someone put it so leisurely before, "Eb is a freeking asshole". Now with that said, I can get on to Jesus. Jesus was not born anywhere near Xmas. He was born in the Spring, around Easter. That holiday with all the bunnies and baskets? That's the one. Christians took over the holiday from the Pagans, who celebrated Yule. I don't buy things around Xmas time, so I guess I could be considered a corporate raider. I'm in a very bad mood today. I wiped out on my bicycle again and bruised some ribs a couple of nights ago. It hurts to breathe, and even to type. Anyways, it's nice to be back, Vince (Geddy Lee sucks) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:46:54 -0600 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: the real temptation >>Everyone's getting those massively-hyped-corporate- >>consumer-product digital cameras now. >ok, what's the dealio with these things? since my camera has shit >the bed, i'm looking to get something new for the crass consumer >holiday x. do you save money on film processing; but lose out on >quality of prints? Basically yes. Even the new 3-megapixel cameras have a distinct lack of warmth to the images, and you'll always need a high-end photo-printer to get decent "hard-copy" results - the $300 inkjet printers and consumer-grade photo printers just don't cut it, IMO. >would i be better off with a video camera? Not if hard-copy image quality is your top priority. Most DV 'corders have a still-frame option, but it's basically just recording the same frame (resolution depends on the camera, but anything affordable is going to be fairly low-res) over 4-6 seconds of DV tape, and then you have to transfer *that* image to a video printer or a computer that supports the same I/O as the camcorder. And they almost all have some sort of proprietary driver sofware you have to install. Yecch! >is there such a thing as a digital movie camera? Personally, I wouldn't equate DV with film; it looks totally different. A lot of filmmakers are using it now, though, mostly because the gear is so much more portable, and it's cheaper to use computers in post-production. But does the average home-movie duffer really have the time to do legitimate post-production work? I don't think so. >does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight? It depends on the gum. The new digital gum *loses* less flavor, but it seems to have less to begin with than good-ol'-fashioned analog gum. I'm actually more worried about people making "pirated" copies of the digital gum I leave on the bedpost, and then distributing it to everyone over the internet. Nobody wants their saliva being digitally-encoded for everyone else to share, do they? Especially if you aren't getting royalties for it! And these new services like Gumster and GNUsaliva are just the tip of the iceberg, if you ask me... John H. Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:51:53 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: Buy a belt, and you're funding genocide On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Eb wrote: > Right. And while you're at it, don't forget to talk about the > CORRUPTION of the BUREAUCRATS, and CONSUMERISM. And REPRESSION and > EXPLOITATION and POLITICIANS and CAPITALISM.... uh, right. about half of those words you've capitalized are going to be very hard to do without in any serious conversation about the topic at hand. do you really mean to tell me that if someone uses the word "capitalism" you dismiss them immediately? that's, like, really stupid. but then, i can't tell if you're objecting to the words, or if it's the entire topic that you have a problem with. if you tune out every time someone says anything about politicians, whether they use the word or not, then we're back at what i started out by saying, which is that you shouldn't wield your short attention span like it's a criticism of the people who you don't bother listening to. i mean, i tend not to pay attention to discussions about digital remastering, but i don't mock the participants. > I'm reminded again why I hate most punk-rock lyrics so much. what, you've got a problem with beer, too? > >i honestly didn't think most people had a deep reservoir of guilt about > >what they buy, but judging by the defensiveness > >occasionally unleashed on Buy Nothing Day, it sure is there. > > That's a totally inept "diagnosis." sorry, i tuned out when you said "diagnosis". a ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:09:06 -0800 (PST) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: Buy a wig, and you're funding patricide On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Aaron Mandel wrote: > i am uneasy about Buy Nothing Day as an event, largely because of its > connection to Adbusters, for whom i don't have much respect. still, > hypocrisy doesn't make someone's ideas wrong, it just makes the person > espousing them less respectable, and it's not like the founder of > Adbusters is the only person who's ever thought of cutting back on > consumption. I myself am not a big fan of Adbusters. Their articles are badly researched and their satire is so slick it's often impossible to tell what they're satirizing. As far as critiques of advertising go, I much prefer Stay Free, although I haven't seen an issue in a while. > it's odd how many people respond to the whole idea of BND with either > smugness or fury. fury! like, what, you can't stand the idea of someone > talking to you about this? i honestly didn't think most people had a deep > reservoir of guilt about what they buy, but judging by the defensiveness > occasionally unleashed on Buy Nothing Day, it sure is there. People get pissed when you question their basic assumptions about life/culture/etc. It's natural. It's to be expected. It's damned frustrating, but it's understandable. i used to get extremely pissed when people questioned my religion. Eventually, however, I started listening to some of the criticisms, and when I realized I couldn't honestly answer them fully, I rethough and eventually rejected my former belief. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:07:15 -0700 From: Eb Subject: mumblemumbleGENOCIDEmumblemumbleCAPITALISTDOGmumblemumbleOPPRE SSION.... Indie Aaron: >> Right. And while you're at it, don't forget to talk about the >> CORRUPTION of the BUREAUCRATS, and CONSUMERISM. And REPRESSION and >> EXPLOITATION and POLITICIANS and CAPITALISM.... > >uh, right. about half of those words you've capitalized are going to be >very hard to do without in any serious conversation about the topic at >hand. do you really mean to tell me that if someone uses the word >"capitalism" you dismiss them immediately? that's, like, really stupid. >but then, i can't tell if you're objecting to the words, or if it's the >entire topic that you have a problem with. I think I've made my position quite clear. I'm highly suspicious of manipulative button-pushers who constantly toss out the same vague buzzwords, exploiting the words' superficial "scary" connotations. (I also still find it really irritating when people CC: me their Fegposts.) freeking Eb, shaking his fists at those FAT-CAT POLITICIANS...always TELLING US WHAT TO DO!! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:10:13 EST From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: porr widdle theaters! In a message dated 11/28/00 2:30:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org writes: << well...movie theaters have it rough. more than eighty percent of the price of a movie goes back to the studios. the theaters are forced to make their money selling popcorn and other concessions. >> Poor widdle movie-theaters! They don't have to put up a penny of the production costs, and they don't share in the big risks. Just think, The 6th Day was a bomb, and the poor movie studio is going to take a huge loss on the film, but the movie theater isn't going to share in the loss at all. They perhaps adjusted their schedule, added a showing of Grinch and are in the process of ushering out 6th day a bit faster. Think of all the popcorn the Grinch has sold, and the production company doesn't see a penny of it... Theaters are compensated accordingly. Movie making is highly risky; the studios have it rough, in my opinion Blatzy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:13:10 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: Buy a belt, and you're funding genocide On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Eb wrote: > Aaron: > > >it's odd how many people respond to the whole idea of BND with either > >smugness or fury. > > I think that's probably because the whole idea of BND is *presented* with > such smugness and fury. there's an interesting point in there somewhere: any of these things are argued from a position in which the arguer assumes his/her own moral superiority on the point in question. i think it's hard to feel morally superior (even on a comparitively narrow point, like whether you shop at the gab, or buy coors beer, or whatever) without feeling a little smug * and i think it's very hard to face that sort of smugness without feeling a little defensive. makes it hard to talk about anything that really matters. - -- d. * i own up to plenty of this on my own part. i frequently have to remind myself that just because someone is driving a car doesn't give me the right to judge them, think of them as indiscriminate planet killers, etc. - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:33:04 -0800 (PST) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: Buy some gum, or steal it from JH3 On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, dmw wrote: > makes it hard to talk about anything that really matters. Yeah, it does make it hard to talk about things that matter. If you're trying to point out a problem to people who don't think there is one, you're going to have a fight- that is, if you can get them to listen to you in the first place. It's going to be ugly, but only in the moment. We walk away, we think about it, we have time to consider those nagging doubts as to our absolute righteousness, the validity of our position, etc... Just because things are hard to talk about doesn't mean we shouldn't. Rather, I'd say that it means those are things MOST worth talking about. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:26:26 EST From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: I protested Buy Nothing Day I protested "Buy Nothing Day" by going on a shopping spree... Blatzy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:33:07 -0500 From: drop the holupki Subject: Re: mumblemumbleGENOCIDEmumblemumbleCAPITALISTDOGmumblemumbleOPPRE SSION.... when we last left our heroes, freekin' Eb exclaimed: >(I also still find it really irritating when people CC: me their Fegposts.) agreed but (1) reply-to-all is easier than the alternative, (2) i'm not going to change feg so replies are directed to the list, (3) many don't know any better, (4) this battle has been fought forever. so i've basically given up and just filter the dupes out (w/procmail if anyone cares). woj p.s. anyone bcc Eb on their posts just to annoy him? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:39:31 -0500 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: boothbyn hitchcoe Fuck!!!!!!!! I wrote 'its' with an apostrophe in my last post. Fuck!!!!!! jmbc. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:41:34 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: the real temptation On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, JH3 wrote: > >Wow, Jesus in the buff,,, with an erection! I sure hope you had > >film in that camera. > > I suspect this is just a wind-up, actually. Everybody knows Jesus can > only get it up to the tune of Twisted Sister's "I Wanna Rock." Was that a wind-up Jesus or a wind-up erection? Jesus must have been pretty damn wound-up. One of the worst cases of blue balls in history. Could make an interesting dissertation. gss ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:52:06 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: porr widdle theaters! I still wonder if you believe this shit... On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 BLATZMAN@aol.com wrote: > Theaters are compensated accordingly. Movie making is highly risky; > the studios have it rough, in my opinion The studios hurt absolutely nil. They pay a few dozen million dollars to make a piece of obvious shit like The 6th Day. They distribute, advertize, etc. The theater owners pay up for many of the distribution fees and pony up for every ass in every seat. And yeah, this pays for one small portion of the film's cost. But now comes video... and a couple of dozen copies of this movie will be sold to EVERY Blockbuster and Hollywood (and similar at the smaller chain stores and at least one to each mom & pop) for a bit over a hundred bucks apiece... And there are replacement videos and clips on compilations and footage used for other purposes and television sales and ads on the television sales in some cases... And all of this goes on in perpetuity. Eventually, the studio will get their money back and then quite a bit. The game is set up today so that the studios never have to truly publish their work and yet they are somehow still able to retain copyright protection for all time. "Oh, but" you say "copyright expires!" No, it doesn't. Nothing has lapsed out of copyright in this country since 1945 (I'm not saying nothing _created_ since... I'm saying nothing since) and by the current law, nothing WILL fall out of copyright ever. Valenti's idea is "forever minus one day" to satisfy the Constitutional requirement of "a limited time". Right now, it's forever... on the twenty year extension plan (that is, every time something gets close to expiring, the law is rewritten to extend another twenty years). Many things need to be recognized immediately. Copyright only protects you from unauthorized COMMERCIAL copying of your work. In this day and age, that can mean a whole lot of free information... unfortunately, the laws (and judges) are being bought to overturn this (see MPAA v. Corley). It is exactly the desire to control the extremely lucrative (in today's climage) intellectual property market that encourages huge corporations (bye, eb) to buy up the news outlets (and owning is just somehow irresistable temptation to taint what comes out). In reality, intellectual property is meaningless today as a benefit to the public. Since authors and inventors are generally treated as workers for hire, their respective works are owned by the legal fictions that pay their salaries. The incentive to create has been removed from the individuals and the benefit to the public is being restricted by further and further limitations on non-commercial use of otherwise copyrighted material. Ugh. I do go on. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:53:15 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: I protested Buy Nothing Day On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 BLATZMAN@aol.com wrote: > I protested "Buy Nothing Day" by going on a shopping spree... Wow. I bet you felt like a rebel... out there alone, doing what few dare... Ahem. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:48:05 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: Buy some gum, or steal it from JH3 On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Viv Lyon wrote: > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, dmw wrote: > > > makes it hard to talk about anything that really matters. > > Yeah, it does make it hard to talk about things that matter. If you're > trying to point out a problem to people who don't think there is one, > you're going to have a fight- that is, if you can get them to listen to > you in the first place. It's going to be ugly, but only in the moment. We > walk away, we think about it, we have time to consider those nagging > doubts as to our absolute righteousness, the validity of our position, > etc... well, i think there are multiple approaches. you can be confrontational and in-your-face about it, and maybe reach some people, but maybe alienate some people who would otherwise be sympathetic by your use of confrontation tactics. or, you can wait for someone to get curious about why you've made a certain set of choices. then you've got, i think arguably, a person more likely to be open-minded aobut whatever it is, but of course, it may never happen, and you *still* have to be at least in-peoples-faces about it that they know that you *have* made different choices. i don't pretend to know the answer, or even that there *is* an answer, but i do know that there are organizations whose goals i am extrememly sympathetic to, but whose methods i can not countenance. > Just because things are hard to talk about doesn't mean we shouldn't. > Rather, I'd say that it means those are things MOST worth talking about. no argument there. okay, the office vaccum cleaners are here, and that sound drives me insane. 'm outta heah. - -- d. - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:51:50 -0800 (PST) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: lennon's on sale again > From: "Brian Huddell" > Presumably the result is behavior, in this case walking into a store and > buying a lot of crap instead of playing with your kids. Are you also > comfortable crediting movies and music with this kind of power over > behavior? Honestly, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't think the media, whether it's advertising or violent movies or whatever, directly causes behavior in a simple stimulus/response equation. But it's plain that what we take in affects us. Good literature moves us emotionally, perhaps leads us to change our lives in some ways. An shocking news article might spur us to political action, and not just through intellectual persuasion. For a more relevant example, consider the ability of erotica and pornography (arguably as different as Bush and Gore) to use words and images to affect the physical world (the contents of your trousers). All these things go through your mind in order to get to action; the effect is indirect, but not disconnected. Those Hot Pockets commercials don't program me, like a robot, to go buy Hot Pockets, but they get my saliva glands pumping and make me think about picking some up when I go to the store. I don't go out and shoot people after watching a Bond film, but I can't say I don't think about how nice a Walther PPK would feel in my hand and how much fun it might be to be required to use it (let us now praise video games). Like hypnosis or drugs, what we see and hear and read probably won't change our fundamental personality, but it may help to lower inhibitions and determine which bubbling, boiling urges rise to the top and pop. Several of the black belts in my aikido dojo admit that Steven Segal movies sparked their interest in the art. Is that power over behavior? I think the answer is not a simple "yes" or "no." To be clear, I'm fervently opposed to censorship and to holding the media accountable for the behavior of private citizens. But I'm not comfortable with drawing a clean line between what people take in and what they do. I don't think that line exists. > From: hbrandt > http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00002R0SE.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg That's just gross. Who does he think he is, Brian Molko? Do certain images have the power to make one vomit? > From: "Brian Huddell" > "Sacred" has never been a concern of mine, as I demonstrate whenever I > tell > the story about the time Jesus and Ralph Nader gang-raped my mom on > Christmas morning while "Imagine" played in the background. Is it a "gang rape" if there are only two rapists? The analogous question would be: is a threesome an "orgy," or just company? > From: Ken Ostrander > np. the messianic peter gabriel passion I went back and listened to _Us_ after a long interval. It wasn't as bad as I'd remembered; I think it helps to skip the first two tracks, and "Digging In the Dirt" still gives me chills big-time. Does anyone have an opinion on _OVO_? > From: Eb > > Agit-Viv: > >Last June, at a GAP Inc. factory in Cambodia, military police opened > fire > >on 400 workers who were striking for higher wages and shorter, more > humane > >working hours. > > So, this is The Gap's fault, because the workers wouldn't have been > striking if they were treated better? Boy, you're stretching it. Or are > you > claiming The Gap controls the police, and ordered them to fire? I don't see what there is to stretch. The situation as a whole looks pretty sick to me, and The Gap has some say in where they buy their cheap labor. But you don't need to think about sweatshops to hate The Gap. Just look at their vomit-inducing advertising, the bland colors, the absurdly dull conformist fashions. If you shop there, you have many non-political reasons to feel bad about it. > Sorry, I tuned out after "gigantic multinational corporations." Tell us again how you think people who use the word "corporation" in a negative light have nothing to say. I don't think everyone has picked up on your opinion yet. Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik: drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #345 *******************************