From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #358 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, September 17 2001 Volume 10 : Number 358 Today's Subjects: ----------------- semantic (semitic?) quibble [Christopher Gross ] Re: Theyre coming out of the woodwork ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: stars, bars, etc. ["Kenneth Johnson" ] Re: another bulletin from western New York ["Eugene Hopstetter, Jr." ] Re: stars, bars, etc. [Capuchin ] RE: stars, bars, etc. ["Poole, R. Edward" ] Re: May and the march of time. [Capuchin ] RE: hey rube [Capuchin ] Re: Airport security [Capuchin ] Israel ["Poole, R. Edward" ] My Back Digests ["Viola Rockiss" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:27:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: semantic (semitic?) quibble > > started with the Gulf War, but long before that. We're dealing here with > > not just anti-American sentiment, but one that is anti-Semitic and > > anti-Western. > > Sorry to nitpick, Ferris, but I have seen this solecism so many times > recently. Arabic is a Semitic language and the populations of many Middle > Eastern countries are Semitic. Ancient Egyptian monuments often show the > Egyptians capturing people who are recognisably Semitic and are often > called the p-l-s-t ("peleset" similar to "Palestine"). The Arab-Israeli > conflict is religious, not racial. The latter point is true, but Ferris's use of "anti-Semitic" was correct. The accepted meaning of "anti-Semitic," at least in English, is hostility/prejudice against Jews, not against all "Semites." (The broader meaning may be technically correct but is almost never used.) Of course you could say "anti-Jewish" instead; but the separate terms are useful to disctinguish between prejudice against the Jewish religion (anti-Judaism) and prejudice against Jews as an ethnic group or "race" (anti-Semitism). - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:52:13 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: IRA Michael R Godwin wrote: > > But you don't have any problem with them blowing Harrods up with a bomb, > as they did on 17 December 1983 when they killed 5 people and injured 80? > > I am baffled... likewise. I can't see how the "Who'll Die For Ireland?" [or indeed, any country] mentality is any different from what we might've seen here. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:16:05 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Theyre coming out of the woodwork minister of misinformation wrote: > > Richard Thompson is a muslim. erm, RT is a sufi. Bit of difference; sufism is to islam as quakerism to christianity. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:27:08 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Escapism Viola Rockiss wrote: > > McGonagall exudes McGonagallness what, exudes an unshakeable air of their own genius in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Or has the name of the great poet and tragedian been taken in vain by some tawdry piece of kidult kulture? I fear the latter. And I'm talking about William Topaz, who is the McGonagall in my book. Stewart ("Ye lovers of the picturesque, if ye wish to drown your grief, Take my advice, and visit the ancient town of Crieff; The climate is bracing, and the walks lovely to see. Besides, ye can ramble over the district, and view the beautiful scenery.") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 08:51:37 -0700 From: "Kenneth Johnson" Subject: Re: stars, bars, etc. for what its worth.... although I have not socialized on the grand scale with you all. I am a Feg in Portland and vegetarian.... >Kenneth ******* "What have we achieved in mowing down mountain ranges, harnessing the energy of mighty rivers, or moving whole populations about like chess pieces, if we ourselves remain the same restless, miserable, frustrated creatures we were before? To call such activity progress is utter delusion." -- Henry Miller ********* >From: "victorian squid" >Reply-To: "victorian squid" >To: fegmaniax@smoe.org >Subject: Re: stars, bars, etc. >Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 21:06:46 -0700 > >On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 19:58:53 Capuchin wrote: > > >OK, I guess many of you are vegetarians. So forget that. > >If you're only talking about Portlandfeg, ISTR I'm actually the only >veg, unless obviously there are others I haven't met. I guess if you're >really >into the goat thing I could try to cope. When we lived in Logan Square our >Mexican neighbors used to roast whole pigs on a spit on holidays, so I'm >sorta used to seeing/smelling similar things. > >Say, am I the only person who has spent much of today cleaning and doing >laundry? I have this weird but -undeniable- compulsion to "prepare" for >something, tho I don't know what good scrubbing my kitchen sink does anyone >really, particularly if we all get nuked tomorrow. Gives a sense of >control, I guess, >and also maybe this idea that who the hell knows what happens now, maybe >tomorrow there will be complete chaos and I'll be glad I got the cleaning >done >today. It sounds strange when I write it out, it feels strange when I stop >to think >about why, but it's still with me. There are worse things than a clean >house *shrug*. > >loveonya all, >susan > >P.S. Peter Cook and Dudley Moore in "Raquel Welch" > > >Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail >account at http://www.eudoramail.com _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:13:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Eugene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: another bulletin from western New York > From: "Natalie Jane" > Subject: another bulletin from western New York > "Does this mean CMJ is cancelled?" > - a Portland indie-popper's first response to tragedy When I attended CMJ back in 1992 (IIRC), the whole group from my radio station stayed in one room in the WTC. The WTC was jam-packed with CMJ attendees; I recall a lot of parties thrown by the record label people. I do recall the security being quite strict. __________________________________________________ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:48:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: stars, bars, etc. On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Kenneth Johnson wrote: > for what its worth.... > > although I have not socialized on the grand scale with you all. I am a Feg > in Portland and vegetarian.... So, when are we all getting together? And does Marrekesh have _any_ veggie options? Otherwise, I suggest either Al Amir or Abu Karim. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:03:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: stars, bars, etc. On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Viv Lyon wrote: > On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Kenneth Johnson wrote: > > > for what its worth.... > > > > although I have not socialized on the grand scale with you all. I am a Feg > > in Portland and vegetarian.... > > So, when are we all getting together? And does Marrekesh have _any_ > veggie options? Um, Michael went there with us once and, if I recall, he had something veggie as his entree, but was unable to eat the meat-filled, powdered sugar-coated pastry that was served as one of the many initial courses. > Otherwise, I suggest either Al Amir or Abu Karim. Al Amir is pretty darned good, but I'm dying to go to Abou Karim. A few weeks back I ate a bunch of Ralph Nader's leftovers (which Michael Wolfe said is a great band name) from Abou karim (they'd sent him over a huge amount of food while he was in town) and they were FANTASTIC. So, anyway, that's my vote. Marrakesh is great fun, but if it doesn't have the veggie options, we'll do Abou Karim. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:05:09 -0400 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: RE: stars, bars, etc. Jeme: >A few weeks back I ate a bunch of Ralph Nader's leftovers (which Michael >Wolfe said is a great band name) from Abou karim [snip] Heh heh and hurrah! It's wonderful to start off my week laughing with Jeme instead of arguing with him (though Wolfe gets credit for the joke in any event). Perhaps Ralph Nader's Sloppy Seconds would be even better? ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:34:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: May and the march of time. On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Maximilian Lang wrote: > You think it is our policys that caused this, and that is wrong. It is > a hatered of our culture and the theory that it is poisoning the > globe. Well, it is pretty much undeniable that one of the goals of our policy has been to spread corporate culture around the globe. I can see how someone might call that "poisoning". So I think I'm on pretty solid ground here and am not ascribing necessarily "western" thought to other people. > But I digress, you are looking at WWII through a liberal political > correct looking glass. Talk to some veterens of the Pacific campaign > and ask them if they think about it. In my humble opinion I would > trust them before some book you may have read on the subject. You think the emotional reaction of someone who was inundated with propaganda and then set into a situation where they had to fear for their lives, kill or be killed, is going to give you a more comprehensive and multi-faceted view than that which we can take from this future vantage? Your statement about the Japanese waging war to this day was absurd. The simple fact is that the Japanese were starving. The war effort had totally crippled the nation. > > > never ever said that it was right(and it you would bother to learn > > > your history you would find that it was an agonizing decision for > > > Truman) and I'm sorry that so many people lost their lives. > > > >You said it was the ONLY option... which is the pragmatist's "right". > > bullshit, here is what I said cut and pasted: . But, under the circumstances > it may have been the only option at the time. > > May - you "may" want to use your dictionary on that one. Alright, you said it "may have been the only option", which is STILL the pragmatist's "right". J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:52:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: hey rube On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Christopher Gross wrote: > > > > Violence begets the like until someone says enough and STOPS. > > > > > > This is true. However I don't think you would soon see religious > > > fanatics throw up their arms and say, "all right, you've got us. > > > We'll stop." > > > > Right. > > > > Which leaves whom responsible for doing so? > > > > Us. > > The problem is, someone stopping and saying "enough" will not necessarily > end the violence. But if there's one sure-fire way to continue the violence, it's to become the agressor yourself. So while someone stopping and saying "enough" might not end the violence, at least it's possible. > It may just as easily make the other party push even harder. In this > case, I believe that's what would happen. First: There's no released evidence that anybody truly knows who "the other party" even IS. Second: What makes you think someone who hasn't put forth ANY demands would "push harder"? > Of course it would make us more succesptible to attack! What would > this tell the world? "Kill five or six thousand Americans and they'll > do whatever you want." Don't you think that would encourage people > who want us to do something to try a little more terrorism? Nobody's asked us to do ANYTHING. It's not like we're "bowing to some terrorist's demands" because THERE ARE NO DEMANDS. And aren't we using THIS EXACT SAME LOGIC on our "enemies" abroad? Kill ten or fifty thousand of their civilians and they'll act however we want. Right? > As for Israel ... I'm sorry to be put into the position of defending > Israel, which is guilty of serious human rights violations in the > occupied territories. However, I do at least support Israel's right > to exist, minus those occupied territories. As far as I'm concerned, all of Israel is "occupied territory". And I'm opposed to any nation with a national religion right off the bat. No nation can claim to be democratic and have a state sanctioned church. And consider the efforts made by the US government to support Israel and their so-called right to that land versus the natives of this land. > And I blame the Palestinians as much as the Israelis for the conflict. > In fact I blame the Palestinians MORE than the Israelis for the > *current* round of violence. The Palestinian leadership had a peace > deal that offered them nine-tenths of what they wanted, and they > rejected it. The will to make peace may be in short supply in Israel, > but it's almost nonexistent among Palestinians (and their supporters). Again, it's the kind of compromise that shouldn't exist. "I'm going to shoot you in the head, the leg, and the heart." "I don't want to be shot at all." "OK, I'll offer you a compromise treaty. I'll just shoot you in the leg." "I reject your compromise." "Well, that's because you're unwilling to make peace." > To say that the problem would be solved if we stopped our support and > disarmed Israel is to say that the Israelis are solely to blame. The UN has called for the entire area to be disarmed, and yet the US continues to supply the region with weapons. It seems that the US wants to disarm the arabs, but not the jews. There are two things that keep peace: The sure knowledge that war would utterly destroy both sides and a total lack of the ability to make war at all. Disarming one side and not the other ENSURES conflict. > And to actually disarm Israel in the current world would lead very > quickly to the destruction of Israel. Do you disagree? Do you think > Israel *should* be destroyed? I think the STATE of Israel probably should be destroyed. I think the PEOPLE of Israel probably should not. Unfortunately, we're in a position where there's not many ways to achieve one without the other. > If the US is far too uncritical in its support of Israel, the Arab > world is even more uncritical in its support of the Palestinians. > Our support for Israel may be one of the things that "provoked" the > terrorists, but I'd rather keep it than join the > drive-the-Jews-into-the-sea camp. OK, so how about we send over our troops to hold things steady (with strict orders not to engage in unequal force under penalty of court martial) and open our nation to the jews and encourage our allies to do the same (much like the British Commonwealth did with Hong Kong before returning it to the Chinese)? Once everyone who wants out has gone, we host an election of a Constitutional Congress with equal access to all residents and then let it run its course. > > THEY DON'T FEAR REPRISAL. Don't you understand that? We're talking about > > SUICIDE BOMBERS. These people believe that dying while fighting the enemy > > of God is WONDERFUL. > > Well, telling them that they won't suffer reprisals certainly won't > help! But our goal shouldn't be to inflict reprisals and get revenge; > it should be to knock out as much as possible of the material base > terrorists need to function: financial backing, base camps, transit > points, and yes, the terrorists themselves. This is EXACTLY what they were trying to do to us. And we will be exactly as successful, i.e. not at all. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:33:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Airport security On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Randy R. wrote: > I might be asking the wrong group, but has anyone else been able to > bring questionable items on board (pocket protecters don't count ) > ? And I agree with Jeme, that many many items when used correctly can > be used as a weapon. A box cutter is such a dangerous and yet easily > hidden item. Anyone who has ever worked with one will tell you. It is exactly the notion that "anything can be a deadly weapon in the right hands" that makes up the current airline security policies. When I was a kid, we went on a field trip to the airport and got a nifty tour of the inside and outside of the place. We talked to the security people about what their policies were and why and how they were implemented. They showed us this big glass display case they had that held all of the most interesting weapons and things that had been confiscated. (That's where I first saw a cane-sword, among other neato secret things.) They told us that any blade under 4 inches was always allowed and no blade over 6 inches would ever be allowed (apparently there's some discretion on the part of the security staff, but nobody bothered to elaborate). Someone mentioned that even a three inch blade can kill a person pretty successfully and the security fellow said, "If a person is capable of hijacking an entire airplane with a three-inch blade, he's capable of doing it with a salad fork or piece of mirror." (Or words to that effect... this was fifteen years ago.) But to address your specific experience (which isn't unlike some I've had), the problem is apathetic or untrained staff at the airport security checkpoints. I mean, understand that they've got to check all these people and NEVER find anything day after day after day. That's got to be boring as hell and I'm sure it's pretty easy to convince yourself that there's no such thing as a mad bomber and let little shit slide because you've checked up on the little shit a hundred thousand times and come up empty. And it's precisely because of that situation that they don't exactly get the most motivated and challenge-seeking individuals in those positions. That said, you cannot COUNT ON incompetence. A would-be hijacker (that wasn't the type that WANTED to get caught) wouldn't just brazenly carry a weapon through the security checkpoint just EXPECTING it to be overlooked. I'm sure a percentage are overlooked, but I don't believe it's a majority. So, I'd say that, for the most part, our airport security is Quite Good. How many hijackings have taken place on commercial flights originating in the United States in the past thirty years? Damned few. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:00:42 -0400 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: Israel Jeme: >As far as I'm concerned, all of Israel is "occupied territory". [snip] >And consider the efforts made by the US government to support Israel and >their so-called right to that land versus the natives of this land. [snip] >I think the STATE of Israel probably should be destroyed. I think the >PEOPLE of Israel probably should not. Unfortunately, we're in a position >where there's not many ways to achieve one without the other. Scorekeepers out there, please make note: Jeme, who many of you feel has been "unfairly" flamed for his expressed opinions during the past 6 days, feels that the people of Israel "PROBABLY should not" be DESTROYED. (emphasis mine) How nice of you. Leaving sarcasm (and Jeme's ambivalence towards a new holocaust against Israel) to the side, let's talk history. You are not alone in making the claim that "Palestinian" = "native" // "Israeli" = "outsider," but it is a potent myth that undergirds too much of the debate over the region. First, Jewish Israeli claims to this land date to Biblical times, not the 1920s. I don't want to put too much emphasis on this point, not only because of the uncertainty about the precise borders 3000 years ago, but also because some might argue that only descendants of pre-Roman Judea have a claim to the land. It's worth noting, in this regard, that after the Roman conquest of Judea, Jewish communities remained (though most surviving Jews fled) in the new "Palestine," and there has never been a time during the past 2000 years that Jews did not live in "Palestine." Judea was the Jewish homeland for a thousand years before the Roman conquest -- and the Romans came up with the name "Palestine" (derived from Philistine) to eradicate all traces of its Jewish history. Clearly, that effort 2000 years ago has profound ramifications today. Second, there is no such thing as "the Palestinian people." "Palestinians" are just Arabs who live in the area, which was considered "Southern Syria" as late as the 1950s. Palestine never was an independent nation and the Arabs never named the land to which they now claim rights. "Palestinian identity" is a maneuver only for political reasons, as a high-ranking PLO official candidly admitted: "Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel ..." - -- Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head of the PLO and member of its Executive Council, Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977 Consider also: "From the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of British rule, the area now designated by the name Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries.." - -- Professor Bernard Lewis, Commentary Magazine, January 1975 Consider this history written by Joseph Katz, in the 2/15/01 issue of "Time to Speak": After the Roman conquest of Judea, "Palastina" became a province of the pagan Roman Empire and then of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and very briefly of the Zoroastrian Persian Empire. In 638 CE, an Arab-Muslim Caliph took Palastina away from the Byzantine Empire and made it part of an Arab-Muslim Empire. In that period, much of the mixed population of Palastina was forced to convert to Islam and adopted the Arabic language. They were subjects of a distant Caliph who ruled them from his capital, that was first in Damascus and later in Baghdad. They did not become a nation or an independent state, or develop a distinct society or culture. In 1099, Christian Crusaders from Europe conquered Palestina-Falastin. After 1099, it was never again under Arab rule. The Christian Crusader kingdom was politically independent, but never developed a national identity. It remained a military outpost of Christian Europe, and lasted less than 100 years. Thereafter, Palestine was joined to Syria as a subject province first of the Mameluks, ethnically mixed slave-warriors whose center was in Egypt, and then of the Ottoman Turks, whose capital was in Istanbul. During the First World War, the British took Palestine from the Ottoman Turks. At the end of the war, the Ottoman Empire collapsed and among its subject provinces "Palestine" was assigned to the British, to govern temporarily as a mandate from the League of Nations. [end quoted text] So, what does all this mean? It means that "Palestine" as an Arab state is a pure fiction, created for the political purposes that Jeme swallows hook, line & sinker. The facts is that Jerusalem and modern-day "Palestine" were largely abandoned and unoccupied ruins for 200 years before Jewish settlers began to reclaim the land and build a new state in the late 19th century. Arabs -- who would later claim to be "displaced" by the foundation of the State of Israel -- did not settle the area now called "Palestine" in large numbers until the 20th century. That the massive increase in Arab population was very recent is attested by the ruling of the United Nations: That any Arab who had lived in Palestine for TWO years and then left in 1948 qualifies as a "Palestinian refugee." So, "Palestine" and "Palestinians" are just a politically-motivated (though powerful) semantic argument, used by Arabs as a tool in their war with Israel. The "Palestinians" cannot casually be referred to as the "native people" in that land -- that is a POLITICAL claim, not an historical one. Jewish Israelis, on the other hand, have an historical claim to this land (Judea, before the Roman conquest), and are responsible for reclaiming a barren and deserted wasteland through settlements beginning in the 1840s. Do I claim that the issue is a simple one, that our policy of uncritically backing everything Israel does is correct, or that Israel has never done anything wrong in its dealings with the Arabs? No, on all counts. However, (1) that the issue is not "simple" should be remembered by those in the pro-Arab camp; and (2) any "wavering" or "weakness" in our support for Israel, such as criticizing Jewish settlements in the West Bank, is seized upon by the opposition as a "concession" and used to Israel's detriment -- in such an atmosphere, it is very difficult to be objective in our assessment of Israel's policies. - -ed ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:04:49 +0000 From: "Viola Rockiss" Subject: My Back Digests James: >I write a scathing reply to something pro-American and I don't get >flamed. James, I hate to disappoint you but your idea of scathing remains civilized and credible. You didnt even insult anyones family or bodily parts. And you showed sincere compassion for suffering. What kind of partisan are you anyway;-?. >this list is hardly your >typical cross-section of the US, Stand assured of that. Im conservative for this list but a lefto freak in the eyes of most of this country. And our house is one of the very few on our street -not- presently waving a flag. Not that I dont support limited retaliation, fact is I do--the people who did this must not be allowed to repeat such actions in any form. But I support it with a sense of sadness and necessity, not jingoism. >but one person who could seriously help the US right now >is Louis Farrakhan. You may be right, but this man, from what I have seen, is not all that civilized or credible. He was -probobly- involved in the murder of Malcolm X. He purposefully inflames ill will tween African-Americans and Jewish-Americans. He blames the slave trade on the Jews, when only a few of them were involved; the rum triangle and New England Wasps were actually more to blame, but that dosnt suit his agenda. The Black Muslims did not begin as "mainstream" Muslims but rather as a cult, a cult first founded in the 30s with the the central tenent that white people aren't people--they're an abberation, they are devils. Yes, the movement has moved on since then, embracing a more orthadox Sunni form of Islam. But I am still wary of Farrakhan. No, I havent looked in a ref book to write this so some of my facts may need "perfecting." Please all, perfect away, I would love to find I am mistaken and that he is -not- a hatemonger. We've got enough of them around.(sigh) - -------------- I found the article Ed posted by Tamim Ansary on our possible bombing Afganastan extremely sane, sad and sobering. Thanks Ed. - ----------------------- Max >I am not going to knock Georgie Porgie >to much given this weeks events(although I find his speeches in the >aftermath weak and frightened sounding) One think Ive noticed in this whole horror is how good some people are at being inspirational when the chips aim down, and how some people have to work soooo hard to be even passible. Bush is in over his head right now(IMNHO)--but I will give him credit in trying to rise(according to his own lights) to the occassion. It just unnerves me just how far that is for him. Bush has been just adequite, which I partly blame on his own lack of native wit and partly on his speechwriters. You can see him laboring. Theres no fire, no uplift, no zing, and alot of fear that his clothes are transparent. (In fact, and Im not sure this makes sense, but theres something bout his eyes which have -always- looked full of fear to me.) Think how Kennedy would be focusing us, or FDR. Thats what leadership should be about. Tony Blair, whatever you think of his politics, can produce a fine speech on a hair's turn. And did so this time out. So can most Brit leaders, thanks to their system of debate/heckeling. Watching the Guiliani, Patacki press-conference the diff tween them was almost ludicrous. Gualinie set just the right tone, caring, unbowed, a compassionate, smartass, resolute New Yorker. Patacki was a rube mouthing platitudes. Again, this has nothing to do with their politics but Gualinie communicated his own courage and outrage, making -me- feel braver and giving shape to my sorrow. This is what leadership is supposed to be about, right? Not demogogory, just leadership. We tend to rate our politicians by how close their positions are to our own. Yet from what I know of history, what makes a fine leader isnt often what makes a fine politician. I cant help feel a stong leader would be able to help us temper our need, not to remove this threat, but to seek revenge so as to assuage our own sense of vunrability. Am I irrational fearing that Bush's weakness could lead us to a false need to show our streangth, hence escalating the long-term conflict? Yet I dont agree with those who would forgo all justice. To get the balance right here is going to be very tough indeed. BTW, I really like Cully's dream. - ----------------------- TV news is a form of entertainment and will sensationalize whatever comes its way. "War" gets more of a visceral reaction than "Response. " If people are more scared, more keyed up, they will watch more TV and see more commericals or pay more for cable. Its sick. Its immoral. I hate it. We saw television weather scaring people half to death over the "Great Snow of 2001" which dumped a few inches on us. But the ratings were high! We have to get over the illusion that TV offers anything but a quick fix of adreneline or pleasure. (Well, except for Buffy, of course;-) This is a disaster but it is not war, at least not yet, and it is a horrid insult to humans who have lived thru war to call it that. Hateithateithateit. - -------------- Northwest Contingent I love Middle Eastern food and have never been to a goat(as a Cap would eating goat make me a cannible? Great, a new taboo to break!) roast. May I be virtually present? I promise not to talk conservative Northeastern politics;O). - -------------- Chris: >I think Jim and some other people have been calling Ed Eb, and vice >versa. Me one, but since Im the Feg dyslexic, it was expected of me;O) - ---------------- Nat St Cecelia was the patron saint of music and Dryden(who normally I dont like much) wrote a wonderful ode in praise of music with her name in the title. Ode to St Cecelia's Day??? - -------------------- Kay, fasciniated by the titles to the new Robyn songs and already hungry for the lyrics PS--Ive heard the Iraq theory too. PPS--Richard Thompson was, I believe, a Sufi , which is a mystical, esoteric form of Islam. And just for the record, one I find fascinating. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #358 ********************************