From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #362 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, November 7 2002 Volume 11 : Number 362 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Billboard Review 10-31-02 [Doc ] Re: Daniel Johnston ["matt sewell" ] Re: #361 [Eb ] Soft Boys Information from LA-LA Land ["Marc Holden" ] Re: #361 [Tom Clark ] Gloster Massive ["Eddie Tews" ] More of the same ["Montauk Daisy" ] Re: Gloster Massive [Tom Clark ] But can you get a PhD in it? [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: FW: fegmaniax-digest V11 #359 ["R. Edward Poole" ] Re: FW: fegmaniax-digest V11 #359 [Fric Chaud ] Re: FW: fegmaniax-digest V11 #359 [Fric Chaud ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 09:29:04 -0800 (PST) From: Doc Subject: Billboard Review 10-31-02 Hey Woj: I dunno if this got forwarded to the list or not; it's the Billboard review of the SB's show on Halloween... http://www.billboard.com/billboard/livereviews/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1753425 The Soft Boys / Oct. 26, 2002 / New York (Bowery Ballroom) The Soft Boys have always been a band out of time. In their late '70s and early '80s heyday, they were neither raw enough for punk or gimmicky enough for new wave. Their jangly, neo-psychedelic guitar-pop, pristine harmonies, and sardonic, Cambridge-bred lyricism owed more to a mid-'60s Beatles and Byrds tradition that was decidedly out of fashion in the age of anarchy. The band's 1980 masterpiece "Underwater Moonlight" influenced an entire generation of alternative guitar bands -- from R.E.M. to Yo La Tengo to the Flaming Lips. But dismal sales and poor label support forced the group to disband soon after the record's release. Frontman Robyn Hitchcock went on to a successful, if cultish, solo career, joined by drummer Morris Windsor in his backup band, the Egyptians. Bassist Mathew Seligman became an in-demand session player and then a lawyer, while guitarist Kimberley Rew founded and scored several pop hits with Katrina And The Waves. Flash forward to 2001. After nearly two decades on the shelves of rock history, the Soft Boys -- now fully grown and slightly less tender men -- decided to reform and embark on an international tour in support of the reissued version of "Moonlight." Spurred on by the kudos these shows received, the band became far more than just another nostalgia act when it went back into the studio to record "Nextdoorland," its first album of new material in 22 years. Sounding contemporary, yet preserving the band's classic sound, the album proved to be worth the extended wait. Its choice cuts, as well as the band's beloved classics, pleased the adoring crowd earlier this week at New York's Bowery Ballroom to no end. With Hitchcock in his trademark polka dot shirt, Rew in vivid paisley, and Seligman and Windsor in classic pinstripes, the band retained its colorful, hippie-mod style, albeit with more than a touch of gray mixed in. Even the aroma of Woodstock was in the air, a fact that didn't escape Hitchcock's sense of irony. "Where Mr. Bloomberg makes it impossible for you to smoke cigarettes in these places anymore, you'll be able to smoke weed still. 'Cause that's already illegal, so it can't be anymore illegal." The observation sparked a typically surrealist Hitchcock rant on intoxicant-fueled illusions, which was the perfect introduction to the vivid musical imagery of the "Moonlight" classics that followed. "Kingdom of Love" retained all of its quirky, Beatles-esque guitar work and spine-tingling harmonies. The already keyed-up audience soon roared when it heard the familiar strains of the Byrds-inspired "The Queen of Eyes." After the oldies warm-up, the band began to showcase songs from the new album, as well as selections from its limited edition "Side Three" EP (Editions PAF!). "This is pretty much what Jerry Garcia would be doing if he were still alive and there were two of him," said Hitchcock in his introduction to "Mr. Kennedy." With a moody, bluesy instrumental break that featured Rew and Hitchcock's extended guitar dueling, the song actually evoked the Doors' "L.A. Woman" more than any of the Dead's trippy ditties. As on the album, the jam segued seamlessly into the bouncy, Bo Diddley beat of "Unprotected Love," then into the stream-of-consciousness wordplay of "My Mind Is Connected to Your Dreams." The time-themed "Pulse of My Heart," overflowed with hooks and harmonies, and featured more reverb-laden, Television-style guitar interplay between Hitchcock and the nimble-fingered Rew. Hitchcock's solo career was represented by the offbeat gem "The Man with the Lightbulb Head" and a sublime rendition of Pete Seeger's "The Bells of Rhymney," the '65 Byrds hit he covered 20 years later on "Fegmania." And the charmingly eccentric, if long-winded, between- and mid-song monologues that have become a staple of his live performances -- and were heavily showcased in Jonathan Demme's concert film "Storefront Hitchcock" -- were offered up in generous amounts. Some were his typically wry and whimsical observations and predictions, such as his pronouncement that time will start to run backward in 2012. "This is an actual fact," he insisted. "It's all on the London Underground timetables." But recent events have toned down his irreverence. In the politically-themed "Strings," Hitchcock chanted such lines as "Evil is the new enemy/Evil is the new bad" and "I wish that I was just paranoid," over Seligman's throbbing bass and Windsor's martial drumming, which made the song sound even more ominous. And when introducing the band's most famous and often covered song, Hitchcock offered this disclaimer: "At this point we could play 'I Wanna Destroy You,' but out of respect to the people who were killed in the Twin Towers, and the people who were killed in Afghanistan subsequently, and the people who are going to be killed in Iraq, and the people who are going to be sent to Iraq to kill and be killed, we don't want to destroy anybody. There's been enough." The band then launched into the familiar, chiming chords and still stinging, if metaphoric, lyrics of the artfully anarchic anthem. A vibrant version of "Underwater Moonlight" -- replete with a Hitchcock reenactment of the actual boating accident that inspired the song -- closed the main set. Encores included an intense version of "Insanely Jealous," a raucous rendition of the Stones-y "Rock & Roll Toilet," and a heartfelt cover of Bob Dylan's "Stuck Inside of Mobile With the Memphis Blues Again." Hitchcock ended the enthralling, nearly two-hour show by telling everyone to set their clocks back two hours, just to be "more interesting." Purposely out of sync? He's still a Soft Boy, after all. ===== "I have been a member of the Committe of the MCC and of a Conservative cabinet, and by comparason with the cricketers, the Tories seem like a bunch of Commies." -Viscount Mockton "...He's an eight hundred pound Jesus..." -Paul Thorn U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 17:37:17 +0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: Daniel Johnston Ah... Daniel Johnston - genius and hero (if a little personally unstable). I think his Speeding Motorcycle is one of my all-time favourites, and The Lennon Song is just so beautifully heartfelt as to be irresistable... Cheers Matt >From: John Barrington Jones >I just discovered Daniel Johnston this week, and much to my dismay, I'm >diggin'. > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:03:42 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: #361 >Drew: > >From: Eb >> >>Lordy, GSShell's political cantankerism is tedious. > >How is his bragging about sexual conquests working for you? >I can't decide if I'm annoyed or aroused. Hrm...he must have done that in some of the posts I only skimmed. I don't recall seeing this. >For the record, Owen Wilson is way up high on the list of people I love >to see in a movie. There's something intangibly fascinating about the way Owen Wilson talks. That half-smiled drawl, where you're not sure if he's "sheepish" or "sarcastic" or "self-effacing" or.... I Grieve, Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:14:18 -0700 From: "Marc Holden" Subject: Soft Boys Information from LA-LA Land >A Fun night in LA... Amoeba was fun, you could have even followed around = >Matthew around the store if you wanted to see the 8 CD's he was shopping = >for! ... I know what he bought, I know what he bought! The Largo was = >great as usual, just started very very late.. and went very very late. = I just got back from California yesterday from an extended concert binge: 10/27 Residents, 10/28 Cramps, 10/29 Paul McCartney, 10/30 Residents, 10/31 Residents, 11/2 Soft Boys, 11/3 Soft Boys, 11/4 Soft Boys/Midge Ure, 11/5 Soft Boys and more Soft Boys. What a great series of shows. It was really worth the drive up to San Francisco and hassle of arraigning to take time off from work. The Soft Boys were especially good this time around--tighter and they seemed to be having a good time. The only downside to things was that my house was broken into while I was gone. My mother called to tell me about it while I was waiting to get the Nextdoorland poster signed at Amoeba in San Francisco. It sounds like I was extremely lucky things didn't go much worse--the guys were probably still in my house when my parents stopped by to feed the cats, and they ran out through my back patio rather than confronting them. They didn't get a lot of stuff but did manage to take my 1950's Silvertone hollow-body electric guitar, a decent chunk of my coin collection, and about 150 to 175 CDs. They just started pulling stacks of CDs off one of my bookcases and fortunately missed some extremely rare Residents stuff a couple shelves higher, and grabbed the stuff just to the right of the Soft Boys on that shelf. I did lose everything from the Stooges, They Might Be Giants, the Slickee Boys, Sonic Youth, Pete Townshend, U2, and the Sex Pistols (and a lot of additional stuff), but because they only took part of what was on these shelves, they left Shonen Knife, 13th Floor Elevators and some other hard to replace stuff. I have a list of stuff to watch for at most of the local used record stores and a couple of pawn shops, but I'm not going to hold my breath on getting any of this back. Some of the Pete Townshend and Slickee Boys stuff is going to be really difficult/expensive to replace, and I'm not sure if the Shaggs CD is out of print now. I guess I'll be investing in a better security system (the cats weren't much of a deterrent) and a new front door. Later, Marc "Capital punishment turns the state into a murderer. But imprisonment turns the state into a gay dungeon-master." Emo Philips ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:17:41 -0500 From: Subject: Re: Re: #361 Eb wrote: > > There's something intangibly fascinating > about the way Owen Wilson talks. While I like him, to me he's a junior David McCallum clone. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 11:23:34 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: #361 on 11/7/02 11:17 AM, scruss@sympatico.ca at scruss@sympatico.ca wrote: > Eb wrote: >> >> There's something intangibly fascinating >> about the way Owen Wilson talks. > > While I like him, to me he's a junior David McCallum clone. When I first saw him in Bottle Rocket, I thought he was Dennis Hopper's son. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:20:12 -0800 From: "Eddie Tews" Subject: Gloster Massive who is this "gloster massive" to whom robyn dedicated Unprotected Love in the KCRW set? . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:45:53 +0000 From: "Montauk Daisy" Subject: More of the same jeFF: "cuz with punctuation theres no cum stains " I smell a major, highly-influential academic journal article lurking there;-) The MLA convention awaits your presentation. - ------------------------------ Stewart: >Sorry to disappoint you, but 'geek' is just Old Scots for 'fool'. cf Dutch >'geck' == crazy. Really? I like that. I thought it was for a circus geek, but obviously I didnt go back far enough. This one makes an even better touchstone. - ------------------------------- Eb on Owen Wilson: >There's something intangibly fascinating about the way Owen Wilson talks. >That half-smiled drawl, where you're not sure if he's "sheepish" or >"sarcastic" or "self-effacing" or.... mocking or self-mocking or arrogent or shy or stoned or taking pleasure(since it sure beats the alternatives) in an overdose of post-modern self-awareness or .... All of the above. Thats why he's fun to watch. Kay-- who in her teens had a hat her female friends dubbed her Dennis Hopper hat since when she wore it they thought she looked like ... Owen Wilson! (Alright, Dennis Hopper) _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 13:23:44 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Gloster Massive on 11/7/02 10:20 AM, Eddie Tews at tews@drizzle.com wrote: > who is this "gloster massive" to whom robyn dedicated Unprotected Love in the > KCRW set? Gloster's massive is legendary in the Bay Area. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:26:11 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: But can you get a PhD in it? From Ansible, the email journal of all that's strange in the fields of science ficion and fantsy, comes this: >_BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER_ was the subject of a whole academic conference >at the University of East Anglia on 19-20 October: `Blood, Text and >Fears: Reading around _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_'. What a shame that >_Ansible_ didn't learn until too late about such programme highlights as >`Meaning and Myth: Leitmotivic Procedures in the Musical Underscore to >_Angel_, Season One', `Yeats's Entropic Gyre and Season Six of _BtVS_', >or the irresistible `Unaired Pilot or Bad Quarto: Textual Problems in >Buffy and Shakespeare in an Internet Age'. James PS - v.sorry to see your reap, Eb :( James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:09:49 -0500 From: "R. Edward Poole" Subject: Re: FW: fegmaniax-digest V11 #359 On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 08:46 AM, gSs wrote: > hah? shouldn't that be a-ha? we have people running around yelling the > sky > is falling and i should lighten up? i think your filter needs > adjustment. > it's interesting to watch die-hard democrats and their reaction to bush > after watching die-hard republicans and their reaction to clinton. it's > the same shit coming from what looks like the same mouths. the > similarity > makes me uncomfortable with both sides sometimes. yeah, but your reaction to ME -- not the "sky is falling" crowd -- seemed a bit extreme, but whatever, I truly don't care. I think your basic point about the dead end that is the two party system is correct, however I disagree that there is absolutely "no difference" between the two. Did the "Contract With America" amount to the same thing as "The Great Society"? Did a Democratic President support -- and a Republican Congress reject -- the Kyoto Protocols? Are Democrats all good? no. Are Republicans worse? yes. It seems to me that the best we can hope for out of the present system is incremental change for the better (Clinton couldn't push through universal healthcare, but he did extend coverage to a LOT of poor kids) or, failing that, at least we can shoot for "do no harm" gridlock. If one party controls all branches of government -- including the federal judiciary -- there's a much better chance of them enacting (and the courts upholding) one or more of their extreme programs, without the other party being able to block or water down the legislation. I'm a lawyer, so my perspective might be skewed a bit, but I believe that the federal judiciary is (by far) the most powerful and important branch of government. Only the Courts have the power -- indeed, in my view, the responsibility -- to be a counterweight to majoritarian tyranny. And now the Republicans, with their single-issue litmus test for "fitness" for the bench -- opposition to abortion -- have the unfettered power to nominate and confirm whomever they want to. And you can bet they will not be appointing a lot of 75 year old law school professors -- there will be a lot of Clarence Thomases coming up -- young, career politicos, with little or no judicial experience, but who owe their loyalty (and, often, their livelihoods) to the republican party, and who will stick around for 40 years, working tirelessly to roll back protections for civil liberties, minority rights, and reproductive choice, while cutting away at the Warren Court's 4th Amendment jurisprudence, expanding the power of the police at the expense of constitutional protections for the accused, demolishing the putative wall separating church and state, rubber-stamping the intrusive initiatives and unreasonable searches of the Dept of "Homeland Defense," etc etc. And, as much as you like to say that those of us who "play along" with the two party system are only helping to perpetuate it, people like you who refuse to work within the system to change it -- and who scoff at the very notion -- just play into the hands of those who would hijack the system to their own ends - -- after all, if you despair of making any impact within the current structures, you present no roadblocks to those who do work the system to acheive their own policy choices. And I think that's too bad -- the system desparately needs the infusion of energy and ideas that committed people such as yourself would bring to it, but instead you carp from the sidelines about the futility of it all, giving unfettered passage to the loyal soldiers of the "Bushie Revolution." yechh. - -ed ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 19:26:36 -0600 From: Dolph Chaney Subject: Re: Daniel Johnston I still don't have a full Daniel Johnston rekkid, but I do have K. McCarty's DEAD DOG EYEBALL tribute, and it is phenomenal. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 19:28:10 -0500 From: Fric Chaud Subject: Re: FW: fegmaniax-digest V11 #359 Genetlemen, your talk of politic of the E.U. is fascinating as always. Since we talk of these things, it seems to be a good time to post this article, which may place in perspective of your own situation. Canada, a federal State? In the media one sees or hears often the same speeches: "One is in a Federation", "One is in a Confederation", etc. However do these journalists know really the policy? I doubt it! You noticed that on your calendars, at the date of July 1 it is written, DAY OF the CONFEDERATION. Obviously, it is about the Festival of Canada. However, the definition of a Confederation is very clear: Association of Sovereign states which have delegate certain competences with common bodies. Larousse Dictionary. Then where are these Sovereign states? However in the territory called "Canada", there is only one Sovereign state... Canada! It is just a question of seeing the refusal of Ottawa to see Quebec having diplomatic relations with other countries to realize that Quebec is not at all sovereign. Therefore, Canada is not a Confederation, that it is clear. Good, perhaps at least a Federation of Idiots? A Federation means several autonomous entities inside a Sovereign state. This definition seems a priori to correspond to Canada. BUT, there are many characteristics which one finds in a Federation. - - the capital does not form part of any of these autonomous entities. - - the capacity of waste does not belong to the central government. - - the central government must give full financial compensation to an autonomous entity which is withdrawn from a federal program which returns in a local field of competence. - - As regards international relations, the local governments keep their fields of competence. In the majority of the Federations in the world, the capital is indeed a territory not forming part of a province or a state. Such as for example, Washington which belongs to the District of Columbia. Mexico City, the capital of Mexico does not belong to any the States which form this Federation. Canada escapes this tendency. The capital which is Ottawa, fact part of the province of Ontario! Moreover the government ontarien has its word to say to know if the national capital must become bilingual or not, therefore the answer it is not, naturally. There are 26 Fidirations in world, but only one which according to its Constitution, the central government holds the waste capacity, i.e. all the new fields of competence which did not exist at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. It is for cel` that aeronautics is a field of competence Education is a provincial field of competence. Therefore, the government quibicois should have the right to ask in Ottawa to cease the Stock Exchanges of the Millenium and to give full financial compensation to Quebec. However those which one tells us "We Love You" three days before the referendu Good, if one trusts the political definitions, Canada agrees indeed a Federation, since according to the Canadian Constitution there are provinces with local governments. But Canada is indeed the Federation most centralized among these 26 existing Fidirations in the world. Therefore, our "beautif On 7 Nov 2002 at 20:09, R. Edward Poole wrote: > On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 08:46 AM, gSs wrote: > > > hah? shouldn't that be a-ha? we have people running around yelling > > the sky is falling and i should lighten up? i think your filter > > needs adjustment. it's interesting to watch die-hard democrats and > > their reaction to bush after watching die-hard republicans and their > > reaction to clinton. it's the same shit coming from what looks like > > the same mouths. the similarity makes me uncomfortable with both > > sides sometimes. > > yeah, but your reaction to ME -- not the "sky is falling" crowd -- > seemed a bit extreme, but whatever, I truly don't care. > > I think your basic point about the dead end that is the two party > system is correct, however I disagree that there is absolutely "no > difference" between the two. Did the "Contract With America" amount > to the same thing as "The Great Society"? Did a Democratic President > support -- and a Republican Congress reject -- the Kyoto Protocols? > > Are Democrats all good? no. Are Republicans worse? yes. It seems to > me that the best we can hope for out of the present system is > incremental change for the better (Clinton couldn't push through > universal healthcare, but he did extend coverage to a LOT of poor > kids) or, failing that, at least we can shoot for "do no harm" > gridlock. If one party controls all branches of government -- > including the federal judiciary -- there's a much better chance of > them enacting (and the courts upholding) one or more of their extreme > programs, without the other party being able to block or water down > the legislation. > > I'm a lawyer, so my perspective might be skewed a bit, but I believe > that the federal judiciary is (by far) the most powerful and important > branch of government. Only the Courts have the power -- indeed, in my > view, the responsibility -- to be a counterweight to majoritarian > tyranny. And now the Republicans, with their single-issue litmus test > for "fitness" for the bench -- opposition to abortion -- have the > unfettered power to nominate and confirm whomever they want to. And > you can bet they will not be appointing a lot of 75 year old law > school professors -- there will be a lot of Clarence Thomases coming > up -- young, career politicos, with little or no judicial experience, > but who owe their loyalty (and, often, their livelihoods) to the > republican party, and who will stick around for 40 years, working > tirelessly to roll back protections for civil liberties, minority > rights, and reproductive choice, while cutting away at the Warren > Court's 4th Amendment jurisprudence, expanding the power of the police > at the expense of constitutional protections for the accused, > demolishing the putative wall separating church and state, > rubber-stamping the intrusive initiatives and unreasonable searches of > the Dept of "Homeland Defense," etc etc. And, as much as you like > to say that those of us who "play along" with the two party system > are only helping to perpetuate it, people like you who refuse to work > within the system to change it -- and who scoff at the very notion -- > just play into the hands of those who would hijack the system to their > own ends -- after all, if you despair of making any impact within the > current structures, you present no roadblocks to those who do work the > system to acheive their own policy choices. And I think that's too > bad -- the system desparately needs the infusion of energy and ideas > that committed people such as yourself would bring to it, but instead > you carp from the sidelines about the futility of it all, giving > unfettered passage to the loyal soldiers of the "Bushie Revolution." > yechh. > > -ed - -- Fric Chaud ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 19:46:20 -0500 From: Fric Chaud Subject: Re: FW: fegmaniax-digest V11 #359 I excuse myself of cause the format was not correct. Here is the article once again, because you have such interested politic. Canada, a federal State? In the media one sees or hears often the same speeches: "One is in a Federation", "One is in a Confederation", etc. However do these journalists know really the policy? I doubt it! You noticed that on your calendars, at the date of July 1 it is written, DAY OF the CONFEDERATION. Obviously, it is about the Festival of Canada. However, the definition of a Confederation is very clear: Association of Sovereign states which have delegate certain competences with common bodies. Larousse Dictionary. Then where are these Sovereign states? However in the territory called "Canada", there is only one Sovereign state... Canada! It is just a question of seeing the refusal of Ottawa to see Quebec having diplomatic relations with other countries to realize that Quebec is not at all sovereign. Therefore, Canada is not a Confederation, that it is clear. Good, perhaps at least a Federation of Idiots? A Federation means several autonomous entities inside a Sovereign state. This definition seems a priori to correspond to Canada. BUT, there are many characteristics which one finds in a Federation. - - the capital does not form part of any of these autonomous entities. - - the capacity of waste does not belong to the central government. - - the central government must give full financial compensation to an autonomous entity which is withdrawn from a federal program which returns in a local field of competence. - - As regards international relations, the local governments keep their fields of competence. In the majority of the Federations in the world, the capital is indeed a territory not forming part of a province or a state. Such as for example, Washington which belongs to the District of Columbia. Mexico City, the capital of Mexico does not belong to any the States which form this Federation. It is thus for many other Federations. Canada escapes this tendency. The capital which is Ottawa, fact part of the province of Ontario! Moreover the government ontarien has its word to say to know if the national capital must become bilingual or not, therefore the answer it is not, naturally. There are 26 Fidirations in world, but only one which according to its Constitution, the central government holds the waste capacity, i.e. all the new fields of competence which did not exist at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. It is for cel` that aeronautics is a field of competence belonging to the federal government. On the other hand in the 25 other Federations, the waste ones belong to the local governments. But, of course in certain cases, it is preferable to leave cel` to the federal government, NASA in the United States for example, if not that would be too expensive the local governments. Education is a provincial field of competence. Therefore, the government quibicois should have the right to ask in Ottawa to cease the Stock Exchanges of the Millenium and to give full financial compensation to Quebec. However those which one tells us "We Love You" three days before the referendum, told us "Fuck You" when we asked for full financial compensation. Normally, education, transport, health are provincial fields of competence. But, it is not any more the case when Quebec must make deal with foreign governments concerning these fields of competence. Since they are international relations and that Quebec is not people according to the federal government, Quebec does not have the right to negotiate anything and the federal government will do everything to interfere and draw aside the diplomats quibicois of all negotiations. Good, if one trusts the political definitions, Canada agrees indeed a Federation, since according to the Canadian Constitution there are provinces with local governments. But Canada is indeed the Federation most centralized among these 26 existing Fidirations in the world. Therefore, our "beautiful plain country from one ocean to another where everyone is respected it does not matter the differences" is very close to a simple unit State. - -- Fric Chaud ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #362 ********************************