From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #55 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, February 14 2002 Volume 11 : Number 055 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: the 80s, Ken the youngster, and meeting Bayard ["mel" ] Re: pining for the soul [The Great Quail ] Re: Profiling ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: stubby (warning R. Palmer content) ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: Meeting Bayard and such [glen uber ] Queen of Mouths ["Abydos *" ] Non-RH: Good source for cheap PC ["Eugene Hopstetter, Jr." ] Re: Re(2): A Day in The List [gSs ] Re: The Year of the Cat Stevens [Ken Weingold ] Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines [Eleanore Adams ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:31:02 -0000 From: "mel" Subject: Re: the 80s, Ken the youngster, and meeting Bayard can't remember when my first rh show was. DC fegs do you remember when the 9:30 moved? i remember that i went to one show at the club when it was on V street i think. the place with the little skinny posts everywhere. robyn was with a blond woman wearing a black catsuit type thing who was filming the show from behind the lights. either that or the georgetown show at gaston hall in 93 i think. i didn't even have a computer back then. > Didn't meet the =b until '98, huh? NEW IDEA FOR A THREAD: When > did everyone meet Bayard? What was he wearing? Did he ever sleep > on your porch, oh sorry, that's probably not a good question.... didn't meet any fegs til the soft boys tour. almost met bayard at a baltimore the year before but didn't. it was good to finally put names and faces together since i knew that some folks i kept seeing HAD to be on this list, especially that group that was always at the front of any rh show i'd ever been to and that guy with the mics on his glasses. melissa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:43:57 -0800 From: anansi Subject: limpid manoeueoauixvers in the dark > From: "Mike Wells" > > Then, perhaps sensing the futility of the whole thing, Robert quits the > tour > before Chicago and we get Michael des Barres instead. Oh my god! Injury to insult! > As for OMD, they never flipped a switch in me prior going to the > gig...and > after seeing their dismal, limpid opening act I pretty much gave up on > them > completely. It really was appalling. In mentioning this to people who > like > OMD, they usually mumble some comment about how much better the albums > were > and wander off muttering to themselves. I should probably give them > another > try, but I'm afraid I just don't have it in me. This doesn't really surprise me -- I don't think they're a band with a lot of depth or skill. They've written a handful of really fine pop songs and made a couple of nicely ambient albums, is all. Drew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:46:50 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: pining for the soul Ken writes, >you're right. i was being flippant; but it does bring up a valid point: what >do we call the events of september eleventh? crash doesn't cut it. hijacking >seems close; but not quite there. i've heard people refer to it as a bombing; >but that doesn't work either. What's wrong with "attack?" Or does that wound your sensibilities? >the tape argument is bogus. we were already there doing our thing when that >questionable piece of evidence came to light. Well, I can't say that I am willing to follow you into X-Files paranoia and imply that the tape is a phoney. I watched the tape, and given that it was authentic, it certainly seemed to me -- and most others, I would say -- that bin Laden knew of the attacks. Of course, in order to preserve the stance that the United States is wrong, and that no one knows who masterminded the attacks, I suppose you would have to also question the tape itself. Which is what I expect from a certain group of leftist radicals who can't admit that perhaps, just perhaps, we really were *attacked* by a network headed by bin Laden. >when the taliban offered to give >bin ladin to an international court if they could be provided with proof, My eyes are rolling. How can you heap so much ill-will upon the white whale of America, and then play the innocent naif when it comes to non-Western politics? >more of the joke that i gave up on; but when you get bombarded with the >rightist crap all the time, you have to push back. and i do. Yes, but it seems to me that pushing back may be done by securing a position of certitude first. Without that foundation, pushing back may only serve to push you further in the opposite direction, which can lead to marginalization on the radical fringe. >the use of the term terrorism is bullshit as it applies to our current foreign >policy and i refuse to use it, except to say that jesus was a terrorist. so >were ghandi, king, and mother jones. oh yeah...and mohammed. This is exactly what I mean. Rather than secure a position where you may argue against things such as the arrogation of semantic power by the US, you recoil so far back you only sound like a radical on the lunatic fringe. Calling Jesus a terrorist may be an interesting poetic point, calling attention to the definition of terrorism itself; but in a political dialogue it only sounds sophomoric, and tends to make your opponents dismiss you altogether. "Osama bin Laden is not a terrorist but Ghandi is..." Ugh. >obviously, you're having problems with my glib tone; but i'm sick of being >super-serious with all of this stuff. and i think that rather than obscure >dialogue it actually spurs it. Yeah, being flip and insensitive tends to spur dialogue to a point. It also makes you look like an unfeeling jerk in love with your own hip viewpoints. If I hadn't have met you, and if I hadn't your other posts to go on, I wouldn't even bother to carry on this dialogue. You don't need to be glib and unfeeling in order to avoid being super-serious. Humor is one thing, but humor that trivializes a tragedy in the name of a political view -- That doesn't please me from any quarter. Imagine if a right-winger on the List said, "That Martin Luther King thingie?" Or perhaps after a few gay men are murdered: "After all those gays calm down...." >"They that can given up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety >deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin Of course, the question hinges upon the word "essential" doesn't it? I don't feel that increased security and racial profiling at an airport in a time of crises is an infringement upon essential liberty; nor do I feel that preventing another 3000 deaths and the destruction of a US landmark is gaining "a little temporary safety." - --Q PS: Looks like I am losing my machine for a few days....so bye for now! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:53:41 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Profiling At 10:22 AM 2/14/2002 -0500, The Great Quail wrote: >Fisrt of all, I would like to offer a possible distinction, that these >acts of terrorism are not "crimes" as such. They are politically motivated >acts of war against a nation state and its people, and have been declared >as much by numerous Islamicist "leaders." I for one cannot read this >discussion about profiling and criminality without keeping that in mind. >The destruction of the Twin Towers was not an act of crime; nor was the >bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the bombing of various >embassies, the attack on the Cole, and so on. Like it or not, there is a >force waging what they call a "jihad" against the US and numerous other states. I don't know that the distinction is really all that meaningful in this discussion, especially when what I think we should be developing here is a sound, long term, comprehensive airline security policy. Whether or not these gaping holes in the system that led to the devastation in New York, PA and DC were utilized by individuals committing "crimes," "acts of war" or even "war crimes," a lone criminal or a "warrior" of an organized army could, sickeningly, have made use of them, and could still take advantage of any gaps in security that still exist. In any case, "acts of war" can be and often are "crimes," especially when they involve civilians. As far as I'm concerned, calling these attacks "acts of war" makes them sound more noble, more legitimate, less cowardly than they were. I'd rather refer to them as "crimes," personally, albeit horrendous ones, because it is inconceivable that any political ends could justify such means. I would note that any indiscriminate bombing, or nuking, of civilian populations to me is equally criminal and appalling. At best, above and beyond the fact that it so grandly insults the very freedoms and principles of liberty which I think we agree does make this democracy such an admirable system, racial profiling is a short-sighted solution to a greater problem - airline security needs to protect us from threats not only from this war (and even then, as noted, radical muslims need not only be Middle Eastern) but from other sources as well. Institutionalizing a racial description of a past or current enemy into the official process, one that more often fits friends and fellow citizens, only serves to unfairly discriminate and to legalize stereotyping. Even when at war, go after your enemy, but not necessarily every one that looks something like him. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:19:04 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: stubby (warning R. Palmer content) At 09:24 AM 2/14/2002 -0600, Mike Wells wrote: >Going to see The Power Station was something of a lark, I have to admit. I >really like(d) John and Andy Taylor from Duran Duran's heyday, particularly >John's bass work, so most of the draw was there. Here, here! John Taylor is still one of my favorite bassists, and not just because of his pretty eyes. I may be admitting way too much here, but the Power Station was probably the first concert I ever attended - it was either that or Spandau Ballet - I can't remember which came before the other. I did see OMD once - they opened for Depeche Mode at the infamous "101" Rose Bowl show. They weren't particularly interesting live, but I do still have a fondness for their really early stuff, especially the song "Enola Gay." - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:23:58 +0000 From: "Abydos *" Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines Personal antidote: My husband flew to and from St Croix recently. 4 flights. On each of them he was picked out for a thourough search. Does he look Middle Eastern? Not by a long shot, grey-blue eyes and light brown hair. Did he mind. Not really, he's used to it. Why? Cause he's a big guy. Tall as Robyn but with wider shoulders and a chest(and stomach.) He accepts that people might see him as a threat. He accepts that he may get hassled abit for, dare I say this -- the good of the whole --. He dosn't feel that his civil rights are abrogated cause security sees him as a more-likely threat than my dad in a wheelchair. He considers that common sense. What hassle he is put thru is pretty small compared to his - -own- increased peace of mind. According to him, the worst of it was that because he was traveling light my mom checked extra luggage in his name, and he had to explain the woman's clothes wrapped around a maynoisse jar full of scotch. But he told the security guys a few mother-in-law jokes and all was well. If security were to impinge on citizen's rights by breaking laws, it would be one thing. But when we buy an airline ticket, don't we implicitly or explicity agree to cooperate with airport security? You don't want to deal with it? -- so then drive or take a train or boat. Or accept that if you physically resemble the terrorists in some way or could be perceived as a threat, you may have to spend alittle extra time having your baggage looked at. Big deal. Obviously total safety can not be garunteed in any aspect of life. Yet the common will of Americans' wants airtravel safer than it was pre Sept 11th. Profiling can be racist or it can be common sense. No argument Ive seen here disproves to me that in this case, its not common sense. There are obviously criteria other than -just- racial characteristics(e.g. whatever made them repeatidly stop my husband.) Democracy isnt just about rights, its also about shared, willing obligations to the public good. The most conservative Naderite you may ever meet, Kay It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese. -Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996) _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:24:56 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: the 80s, Ken the youngster, and meeting Bayard On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, mel wrote: > can't remember when my first rh show was. DC fegs do you remember when the > 9:30 moved? The old 9:30 closed at the end of 1995. (Sudden realization: I'm old!) The new location opened in early 1996, but I don't know if it was right at the beginning of the year. > i remember that i went to one show at the club when it was on V > street i think. Actually I think the current location is on V St. The old one was on F, wasn't it? Across the street from Fifth Column, around the corner from the FBI headquarters. > the place with the little skinny posts everywhere. Oh, you're exaggerating. The posts weren't everywhere, they just *seemed* that way because one or two posts were so effective in blocking the stage. The old 9:30 also featured a lovely neighborhood (a homeless-looking guy offered me a small foil packet of something after one show), a sneering young hipster gauntlet area you had to brave to reach the back bar, and of course the famous smell. God, I'm seriously getting nostalgic for that place. Help! (Never saw Robyn there, though.) - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:44:25 -0800 (PST) From: "Eugene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Meeting Bayard and such > From: Christopher Gross, Scott McCleary: > > > Didn't meet the =b until '98, huh? NEW IDEA FOR A THREAD: When > > did everyone meet Bayard? What was he wearing? Did he ever sleep > > on your porch, oh sorry, that's probably not a good question.... I think I first met Bayard at the 9:30 Club Billy Bragg/Robyn show, IIRC. Don't recall what he was wearing, but I do recall that he did not sleep on my porch. > I didn't meet Bayard IRL until 23 May 1998, the day of the infamous Feg > Hootenanny. Hey, I was there too, and mets lots of Fegs. I'd sure like to see those pictures again -- does anybody have them hosted somewhere? LJ perhaps? It was nice to feed tapes to Bayard's impromptu cassette-dubbing factory and discuss Soft Boys boots with Commander Woj. It sure would be nice to have another one of those parties, sometimes. IIRC, the Neutral Milk Hotel Group Singalong was nice, too. So was when Scary Mary blasted a live Porcupine Tree CD through the house. > The night of the Robyn/Billy Bragg show at the 9:30 Club!. I was there too, and vaguely recall meeting a Feg or two in passing. I knew you'ld all be there, but didn't know any faces to look for. I do recall asking a few people in line if they were Fegs and being met with odd stares and glances. Some people, sheesh. I did attend Robyn's previous show at the old 9:30 Club too, but didn't meet any Fegs there, either. I get the impression I've been at several other Robyn shows where other Fegs were there too but we never hooked up. We ought to considering wearing toast medallions again. Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:59:26 GMT From: Jim Davies Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V11 #52 Bayard (and others!), Thanks for the pointer. Sorry I missed it. If United don't find themselves on strike, then I'll be at the NY show. x =jim= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:22:28 -0800 From: glen uber Subject: Re: Meeting Bayard and such Eugene Hopstetter, Jr. earnestly scribbled: >> From: Christopher Gross, Scott McCleary: >> >> > Didn't meet the =b until '98, huh? NEW IDEA FOR A THREAD: When >> > did everyone meet Bayard? What was he wearing? Did he ever sleep >> > on your porch, oh sorry, that's probably not a good question.... I first met Bayard at Tom Clark's Labor Day BBQ in '97. I don't know what he was wearing, but I believe he was sleeping in a VW microbus. - -- Cheers! - -g- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:28:29 +0000 From: "Abydos *" Subject: Queen of Mouths Barbara: >The only acts I've seen live are Cat Stephens in about 1969 in >Hamilton, Ive actually never heard a description of a Cat Steven's concert. I wonder what it was like. - -------------------------- Max: >I can't believe that he will tour without playing Maxwell's in >April...he >ALWAYS plays that club. I hope he comes to Philly also. Yes, he does always do well at Maxwell's. Im comforting myself that the paucity of Northeastern dates means he wants all the combined power of the Northeast contingent centered in one place at one time. Our obviously superior mind skills will comingle to create a psychic atmosphere so extrodinary that it will work as a drug, turning all the critics in attendance into slavering Robyn fans. Chuck Eddy will leave the Bottom Line muttering "I have seen the future of all things rock n roll and it is Robyn Hitchcock." Gael Marcus will write an entire opus on the subversive architypal resonances in Robins's work, and Richard Meltzer will go permently insane, claiming to have finially, truelly heard the unknown tongue. Even criticos under 40 will rejoice. Our power will be so great, we will raise the ghost of Lester Bangs(who will be very groutchy until Robyn sings a song about special ghoul drugs just for him.) Think of the combined Fegsensibiity--Quail and LJ, Scary Mary, Ferris, Ken, Jill, Seth, Aaron, Max, Woj, Bayard and his historian tenent, Ross, me, and countless more. I wouldnt be suprised if there ended up(counting spouses, dates and everyone I'll remember as soon as Ive sent this message) being a claque of 30 or more. Just our combined presence might blow up the room. I think Robyn knows we're his ace in the hole. Er right. Sure. Thats the ticket Kay;-) - -------------------------- Mike Wells-- you are the King of Ears. When I was working at Island I kept asking people why we were releasing Robert Palmer's lame "Every Kind of People" as a single when we could be releasing the killer "You're Going to Get Whats Coming." Needless to say, no one could it explain it properly to me so I'd go crawl back into my cubicle, put on Nick Drake and cultivate bad habits. - -------------------- Kay, Queen of mouths shutting up for, oh, a moment _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:59:23 -0800 (PST) From: "Eugene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Non-RH: Good source for cheap PC I'm looking to buy a cheap BillBox -- some of my freelancing work requires me to use Windows and such (snide comments to /dev/null; I've already got seven Macintoshes at home ) -- so I'd like to get one a refurbed or white-box PC. Does anybody know a good online source for these things? Another reason I want a PC is my bank doesn't support Quicken online banking for Macintosh, the bastards. Feh. Don't need anything fancy, just a good price and a decent processor. I figure I'd pay $200-300; I don't feel like leasing a Dell box or anything. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:41:42 -0800 From: glen uber Subject: The Year of the Cat Stevens Abydos * wrote: >Ive actually never heard a description of a Cat Steven's concert. I wonder >what it was like. If his records are any indication, I'm inclined to remain blissfully ignorant about the nature of his concerts. I may have missed the Peace Train, but I just don't understand Cat Stevens' appeal. His "brother Ray" is a different story altogether... ;) Cat Stevens and Gone With the Wind: my two favorite cures for insomnia. - -- Cheers! - -g- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ glen uber blint at mac dot com Just one piece of advice you might be able to use: SEVENTEEN ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:07:46 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: Re(2): A Day in The List On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Ken Weingold wrote: > Yeah, you can find it at least as one of the bonus tracks on the first > album, Motorhead. Want me to rip it? BDAHR is or was a staple of the motorhead set list. At least 15 years ago it was. I probably saw them 5 times as a teenager and remember hearing this song at every show. They could draw a big crowd in Dallas. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:24:57 -0800 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: The Year of the Cat Stevens On Thu, Feb 14, 2002, glen uber wrote: > Abydos * wrote: > > >Ive actually never heard a description of a Cat Steven's concert. I wonder > >what it was like. > > If his records are any indication, I'm inclined to remain blissfully > ignorant about the nature of his concerts. I may have missed the Peace > Train, but I just don't understand Cat Stevens' appeal. His "brother Ray" > is a different story altogether... ;) > > Cat Stevens and Gone With the Wind: my two favorite cures for insomnia. Not sure what to say. Listen to Tea For The Tillerman and see if you still fall asleep. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:47:57 -0800 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines Ok, I don't want to get into this debate, but if one talks about witnesses - did this paper last year, and the #1 least reliable evidence of the correct person being identified as a purpetrator of a crime is by eyewitness identification. Gary Wells has written a great book on the topic Mistaken Identification, and the State dept put out a study on it in 1999 (you can get it on line) This is not quite what you guys are talking about bcs terrorists are advertising who they are often, but this is not true for most crimes......I am working on filing a federal habeas right now and the client was a black male who was never positivly identified, but the purp was a black male of average height and build etc..... e On Wednesday, February 13, 2002, at 08:55 AM, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > At 09:32 AM 2/13/2002 -0500, gSs wrote: > >> If a string >> of crimes is committed and all the witnesses say there is one thing >> about >> the suspect that they remember distinctly, that information is used to >> create a profile so that a more effective investigation and can be >> made. >> What this also does is give possible future victims a little better >> chance >> of not being a victim. They all say the person was a white man, so >> should >> all Chinese women now be considered suspects? But if they are excluded, >> simply based on descriptions from witnesses, is that not profiling? Why >> don't they just detain and search all of us as we walk out our front >> door >> on suspicion of terrorist activity. We are all suspects, aren't we? >> No, we >> are not all suspects. There appears to be a few distinct things that >> all >> of the terrorists have so far had in common and that data is being >> used to >> create a profile. > > There's a big difference between your example and what was being > advocated here. > > Looking for a specific person suspected of committing a crime based on > an accurate description and credible information gathered about the > crime is perfectly logical. > > If you're going after a certain person tied to a terrorist group, and > you know this person to be of Middle Eastern decent, then there's > nothing wrong with looking for a specific Middle Easterner that looks a > certain way. If witnesses all agree that the guy that robbed the bank > had blue eyes, you can rule out that guy with green eyes the cops > picked for "acting suspicious." > > It's another thing entirely to target a group as *potential* criminals, > based solely on their ethnicity. > > > > > --Jason > > "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." > - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:46:31 -0500 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: Re: pining for the soul >in order to preserve the stance that the United States is wrong, and >that no one knows who masterminded the attacks, I suppose you would >have to also question the tape itself. Which is what I expect from a >certain group of leftist radicals who can't admit that perhaps, just >perhaps, we really were *attacked* by a network headed by bin Laden. i don't have any difficulty preserving the stance the the u.s. is wrong about a great many things. our actions in afghanistan definitely routed the taliban and al-qaeda; but were not justified. the fact that we found a tape in the mountains with osama talking about the attacks doesn't really cut it. i've read differing accounts of the sound quality of the tape and i don't speak arabic. if al-qaeda is a loose affiliation of independent cell groups then it isn't inconceivable that information on plans gets around. i don't want anyone to think that i consider osama to be a holy warrior or that i think he wasn't involved to some degree. my point is that, if this is the proof, what did we have before? and how does it justify what we've done? that is, bomb the hell out of one of the poorest, most desolate countries in the world. it just looks like revenge. >>when the taliban offered to give >>bin ladin to an international court if they could be provided with proof, > >How can you heap so much ill-will upon the white whale of America, >and then play the innocent naif when it comes to non-Western politics? call me ishmael. so much of our foreign policy is pushed by business interests that i have a lot of trouble getting beyond that. of course, there are other factors; but they really do pale in comparison. the only time that we hear about human rights is when there's some underlying motivation, like say preserving the supply of cheap oil. all of this ripples down and you seem to understand these factors. i do love my country and hate to see the principles it was founded on trampled as such. we're in the middle of a huge economic recession that excuses even more cuts to domestic programs; yet there doesn't seem to be any problems with allocating resources for military excursions or corporate welfare. white whale indeed. >>more of the joke that i gave up on; but when you get bombarded with the >>rightist crap all the time, you have to push back. and i do. > >Yes, but it seems to me that pushing back may be done by securing a >position of certitude first. Without that foundation, pushing back >may only serve to push you further in the opposite direction, which >can lead to marginalization on the radical fringe. well, i'm gonna take this to heart; but i can't help my initial impulse to refute. i'm not all that concerned about sounding like a radical, especially when the *real* radicals that i know take it that much further. there are people out there that think that the attacks "took the fight to the investment bankers who would never end up on the front lines". now, i recognize that there were plenty of innocent folk in the world trade center that didn't make the economic decisions that affect the world's poor; but it's also true that it was an international population of victims, not just united states-ians. >>the use of the term terrorism is bullshit as it applies to our current foreign >>policy and i refuse to use it, except to say that jesus was a terrorist. so >>were ghandi, king, and mother jones. oh yeah...and mohammed. > >This is exactly what I mean. Rather than secure a position where you >may argue against things such as the arrogation of semantic power by >the US, you recoil so far back you only sound like a radical on the >lunatic fringe. Calling Jesus a terrorist may be an interesting >poetic point, calling attention to the definition of terrorism >itself; but in a political dialogue it only sounds sophomoric, and >tends to make your opponents dismiss you altogether. "Osama bin Laden >is not a terrorist but Ghandi is..." Ugh. ok, but i've never claimed that osama wasn't a terrorist. what i'm saying is that the label of terrorism is only applied where it suits our purposes. our "war on terrorism" is the epitome of underinformed and overconfident hypocracy. the p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act would consider martin luther king to be a terrorist. that's pretty telling. >>obviously, you're having problems with my glib tone; but i'm sick of being >>super-serious with all of this stuff. and i think that rather than obscure >>dialogue it actually spurs it. > >Yeah, being flip and insensitive tends to spur dialogue to a point. >It also makes you look like an unfeeling jerk in love with your own >hip viewpoints. If I hadn't have met you, and if I hadn't your other >posts to go on, I wouldn't even bother to carry on this dialogue. You >don't need to be glib and unfeeling in order to avoid being >super-serious. Humor is one thing, but humor that trivializes a >tragedy in the name of a political view -- That doesn't please me >from any quarter. point taken. i've got to work on that; but i'm not going to go out of my way to please you either. i must confess that i've looked forward to your political posts in the past. you do seem to be the consummate moderate, weighing out all factors and manuevering with aplomb through the minefields that dot fegmaniax. much respect. >Imagine if a right-winger on the List said, "That Martin Luther King >thingie?" Or perhaps after a few gay men are murdered: "After all >those gays calm down...." i've heard lots worse; but not on this list. >>"They that can given up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety >>deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin > >Of course, the question hinges upon the word "essential" doesn't it? >I don't feel that increased security and racial profiling at an >airport in a time of crises is an infringement upon essential >liberty; nor do I feel that preventing another 3000 deaths and the >destruction of a US landmark is gaining "a little temporary safety." i have no problem with increased airport security; but i do have a problem with racial profiling. someone wrote on a bathroom stall that "all dotheads must die". makes about as much sense as saying "all white people must die". i think that there are a lot of folks out there who just don't get it and don't want to either. i don't see how the "war on terrorism" is going to prevent more violent acts against our nation. it certainly has done nothing to prevent more death. and it's far from over. there are a lot of problems in this world; but if we cannot even begin to wean ourselves off of the dirty oil teat, then things are going to get worse before they get better. http://www.hermansinsight.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #55 *******************************