From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #364 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, November 9 2002 Volume 11 : Number 364 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Strange Tales from The Largo [Tom Clark ] Re: Strange Tales from The Largo ["Mike Wells" ] Re: Strange Tales from The Largo ["Maximilian Lang" ] if it's not scottish it's carp! [drew ] Re: moroccan hash is people [gSs ] Re: World Cafe [dances with virgos ] RE: LA Times Review [dances with virgos ] Stocking Stuffer ["Mike Wells" ] Oh Canada [barbara soutar ] it's worth 2 Edmunds [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: Oh Canada [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: SBs [rosso@videotron.ca] Re: it's worth 2 Edmunds ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: FW: fegmaniax-digest V11 #359 [Ed ] DELETE NOW! DON'T READ THIS! EYE-STRAIN! WRIST-SPLINTS! [Jeffrey with 2 F] help! [Marcy Tanter ] Re: DELETE NOW! DON'T READ THIS! EYE-STRAIN! WRIST-SPLINTS! [Ed ] Re: DELETE NOW! DON'T READ THIS! EYE-STRAIN! WRIST-SPLINTS! [steve Subject: Re: Strange Tales from The Largo on 11/8/02 10:40 AM, Greg Ranocchia at kototh@sbcglobal.net wrote: > 7. "When I Saw"? or "Idonia"? (Not sure of the title of this, any = > comments would be appreciated) "Idonea" - He's done this occasionally, including earlier this year on KCRW. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 13:55:50 -0600 From: "Mike Wells" Subject: Re: Strange Tales from The Largo > Robyn alone with a 6 string acoustic: > 1. "Creeped-Out American Girl"? or "Everything is Happening Behind Your = > Eyes"? (Not sure of the title of this, any comments would be = > appreciated) This was played in Toronto last July (debuted there?). Pretty cool song. Michael "living in Godwin's future" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 15:28:12 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: Strange Tales from The Largo >From: "Greg Ranocchia" >9. Soriatane (I assume a new Robyn Song - He said it was about some = >great English pain medication, that he did not have any of, on his = >person) >Kototh >kototh@sbcglobal.net Soriatane is used to control severe Psoriasis. Trust me you don't want to take it. Max > _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 15:30:57 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: World Cafe Did anyone capture this? I tried with my VCR but somehow wound up with a different World Cafe eppy...no idea what happened. I was listening to it on the way home and had my vcr recording the same station. Oh well, some friends of mine tried to get it as well, I will check with them tomorrow. Max _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 12:30:41 -0800 From: drew Subject: if it's not scottish it's carp! >From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey [Buffy study] >Of course, none of that prevents those papers from possibly sucking horribly. Yeah, I'd be far more willing to agree that Buffy's a show worthy of study than that good and worthwhile academic papers will actually be written about it. >From: gSs > >i preach. drew carps. :> Yeah, Poole, get it straight! So, a couple of questions for y'all. 1. I listened to a few samples of Beefheart a while back. I ran screaming across the room. I can't tell from what I've heard if this is something that will grow on me with exposure or if it never will. If any feg wanted to provide me with some complete mp3s of Beefheart, even if not a full album, so that I could soak in it a while and see how it goes, I promise to buy the/an album if I keep listening to the mp3s. Probably best to email me off-list, obviously, or if you have other suggestions about how to acclimatise myself that might be less allegedly underhanded, please provide them. 2. I have a copy of Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, but it occurs to me that it might be nice to ask for a really good dictionary for Christmas. Can anyone (Stewart?) recommend such a thing, preferably no more than one or two volumes and not too newfangled and fruity? Thanks in advance, Drew ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 14:48:16 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: moroccan hash is people Human smuggling eclipses drugs trade Channel Tunnel: People smuggling has risen alarmingly. Human trafficking has replaced the drugs trade as the world's largest illegal business, security experts have warned. The people trade has become a multi-billion dollar business, with millions of men, women and children bought and sold every year, according to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). And it says that the trade is rising, apparently because traffickers feel there are fewer risks involved in trading humans compared with drugs.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2056662.stm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 16:18:56 -0500 From: dances with virgos Subject: Re: World Cafe when we last left our heroes, Maximilian Lang exclaimed: >Did anyone capture this? i was going to, but i realized that i won't be around this evening when wbaa (the station with the high bitrate windows media stream) carries the program. stream addresses are at http://www.purdue.edu/wbaa/listen_online/ -- anyone who is able to capture/record the stream, please do! i'd be happy to arrange for wma/mp3 hosting for the songs. woj ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 16:38:44 -0500 From: dances with virgos Subject: RE: LA Times Review >>In a 90-minute set, Hitchcock and guitarist Kimberley Rew, bassist Matthew >>Seligman and drummer Morris Windsor mixed new tunes with selections from >>their seminal 1980 collection "Underwater Moonlight" and songs by Love and >>Bob Dylan. when we last left our heroes, Reynolds, Russ exclaimed: >I only saw one set list from this show (from Rex) and I don't recall seeing >anything by Love on there. Can anyone recall what song this was? Rex's set >list follows... rex mentioned that robyn dedicated "queen of eyes" to arthur lee. perhaps that tricked the l.a. times reporter into thinking it was a love cover? woj ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:43:16 -0600 From: "Mike Wells" Subject: Stocking Stuffer http://shop.avon.com/avonshop/product.asp?pf_id=3870&department=search&find_s pec=atari Michael "I need this like a hole in the head, but it's cool" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:07:48 -0800 From: barbara soutar Subject: Oh Canada Fric Chaud said: "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." Must say that you have my head spinning. It appears that when people speak of the EU, they are talking about the European Economic Union. So your argument might be coming from a place of misunderstanding. I gather you are into Quebec being a sovereign state... this may or may not be Ok... not quite sure how that would pan out. The capital has to be SOMEWHERE in Canada. All I know is that when I lived in Ottawa in the 80's, all the best jobs went to bilingual people. This made up for the unfair past when all the best jobs went to Anglophones. I believe that Trudeau had a lot to do with trying to make Canada a more fair place to live for both French and English people. He was my hero. Note to Stewart: I stand in line every day at Tim Horton's, like you said! This is a very Canadian pastime. And to think my Dad didn't want to invest in it when it first started! He didn't think people liked donuts all that much! It's turned out to be the equivalent of an English pub, socially speaking. By the way, the usual for us is two coffees with double cream and two blueberry bran muffins. A marriage can be sustained on this for years. Barbara Soutar Victoria, B.C. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 12:28:00 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: it's worth 2 Edmunds Le Canadien Ecossais a dit: >who has a picture of Kate Sheppard and a couple of Whios on his desk. >James will know what it is. ah... a pretty blue, it is, too (although, having looked on the web, I must say I like your purple equivalent). If you've got any spare ones, I'm only too happy to take them off your hands for you ;) James PS to befuddled furriners: *The US equivalent is green and has a picture of Alexander Hamilton, apparently *Kate Sheppard was NZ's equivalent of Emmeline Pankhurst, or (hm... Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony in the US?) *the whio is a rare native duck, a.k.a. "the blue duck" 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: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 17:31:12 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Oh Canada Quoting barbara soutar : > The capital has to be SOMEWHERE in Canada. Well, no. The US capital is, of course, Washington, DC - which not only is not in any of the fifty states that comprise the union, citizens thereof lack representation in the House and Senate - and in some senses, then, it can be said that the capital isn't *really* in or of the United States. Freakishly weird. Donuts, eh? - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: PLEASE! You are sending cheese information to me. I don't want it. :: I have no goats or cows or any other milk producing animal! :: --"raus" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 18:07:19 -0500 From: rosso@videotron.ca Subject: Re: SBs On 8 Nov 2002 at 17:33, Michael R Godwin wrote: . Fraser moved to Sharks(?) and then disappeared - any > idea what happened to him? You've gotta love the web: http://www.fatea.freeserve.co.uk/music/fraser.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 21:55:04 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: it's worth 2 Edmunds James Dignan wrote: > > (although, having looked on the web, I must > say I like your purple equivalent). we arrived just as the new $5 notes came in. They've got people playing ice hockey on them. Many people are absurdly proud of this. > If you've got any spare ones, I'm only > too happy to take them off your hands for you ;) sorry, only got that and a couple of Edmunds (or hoihos; much less craggy than Tensing's buddy). They were in exchange for some animal books (programmers will know what they are). Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 00:14:39 -0500 From: Ed Subject: Re: FW: fegmaniax-digest V11 #359 On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 10:10 AM, gSs wrote: >> yeah, but your reaction to ME -- not the "sky is falling" crowd -- >> seemed a bit extreme, but whatever, I truly don't care. > > i you didn't care we wouldn't be having this discussion. no, I mean I don't care about who is over-reacting, who is being "extreme," etc. I care about the substance, not the wallpaper. > and i wrote > "exactly, freedom has empowered us to shape our system as we see fit. > or > are you in disagreement with us determining what is best for us?" > > and that was a bit extreme? man, if you really want to re-hash this stuff... I thought (and think) that your idea for conscripting people into mandatory civil service is not only wrong-headed, but sounds like soviet-style totalitarianism. And, so, I wrote "in the land of the free..." as an ironic commentary on an idea that sounds to me to be absolutely antithetical to a "free society." I think I understand part of your reasoning (obviously, you have only summarized some ideas that, I'm sure, you have fleshed out a great deal elsewhere) -- that the permanent & professional politician-class only serves to perpetuate itself and the system that you find so abhorrent -- OK, I can see the point. I do not happen to share your views about the desirability of term limits, but I can see the other side of the argument (for me, the best term limits are the ones where you vote the guy out of office. I am in favor of eliminating the advantages of incumbency and ridding the electoral (and governing!) process of the corrupting influence of big money -- these would go a long way towards "natural" term limits. Of course, without a participating & educated electorate, none of it matters -- the voters with something to gain by Joe Schmoe's re-election will do whatever they can to make it happen. And, if mere name recognition ("I heard that guy's name on the news...I'll vote for him!") is enough to decide an otherwise close race (because people don't know or care enough about the candidate's stand on issues), even eliminating the money in politics won't help. But, here's the thing (and, of course, it leads me back to the judiciary), the law of the land is that campaign donations = political "speech" protected by the 1st amendment. So we aren't going to get anywhere (McCain-Feingold is about as restrictive as play-dough handcuffs) unless we get that changed, either by constitutional amendment or by getting it reversed (or limited) in the Supreme Court. and, I'll tell ya, Republican-appointed judges aren't going to do that in a million years. Second, the professional political class is, to some degree, a necessary evil. We live in too complex of a world to have jeffersonian farmer-legislators running the show, or even Texas-style part-time legislators. There's simply too much to do, too much to understand, to have a constant stream of newcomers, with no institutional memory and no hope of sticking around long enough to master even the area that they need to serve well on a specific committee. Last, I didn't say (and you KNOW it) that it is "extreme" for us to "determine what is best for us." (the thing I hate about your style of argument is that you act as if there was nothing at all provocative about the stuff you say, and then when someone reacts to something you've argued, you act as if they were reacting to something else -- something that it would be ludicrous to oppose (like "us determining what is best for us"). And for you to draw the conclusion, from my "in the land of the free..." comment, that I was not for "us determining what is best for us" was, as I said, a bit of an over-reaction). If the "us" in question decided to create the kind of system you are proposing, great, that's what "we" decided, so let's do that. However, if it involves forcing someone who wasn't part of that "us" to take a role in the new revolving door government/civil service you propose, then, yes, i have a problem with that. I believe in self determination, in political expression/service as well as religion or whathaveyou. > if we decided that term limits for instance > are a good thing, should we not be allowed to make that law? Sure. As "we" already have in many instances -- the U.S. Presidency, for starters, as well as numerous state and local offices. I don't happen to support that solution, but if that's what "we" want, I'll go along with it because it doesn't violate any fundamental rights for the majority to impose that solution. (well, actually, it might -- if you deprive me of the right to select the representative of my choice, because you think one term is enough, I could argue that you have denied my right to vote, or given my vote (for the term-limited candidate) less weight than another voter's choice). >> Only the Courts have the power -- indeed, in my >> view, the responsibility -- to be a counterweight to majoritarian >> tyranny. > > the tyrannical majority? well, yes. have you never heard of this concept? The idea is that unchecked majoritarian rule runs the risk, often realized, of denying rights to the members of the minority. Just because 51% of the people support something, that doesn't mean they get to impose it on the other 49%. In many cases, of course, they do -- in their choice of representation in Congress, for example. (there are alternatives to the "winner take all" approach, of course -- such as the parliamentary system that gives proportionate number of seats to each party, in relation to the total percentage of the electorate that supported that party, but that's not our system). But, if the 51% wants to disenfranchise blacks or fight terrorism by giving police the power to perform warrantless searches, then, no, they don't have that power. This is where the role of the Courts -- particularly the federal courts - -- is so important. The tyranny of the majority in, for example, the Jim Crow South was first broken by the courts -- starting with my native Delaware, in 1952, in a decision that preceded Brown v. Board of Education by 2 1/2 years; not until 1964, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, did the peoples' representatives in Congress begin to catch up. The Warren Court's civil rights decisions were decidedly anti-majoritarian -- in 1954, the overwhelming majority of Americans (living in the affected States) supported, at least, segregation in public schooling. They voted for it, they elected local and federal representatives who would support it, etc. And, yet, the majority's action had the effect of denying fundamental rights to a certain group of people within the minority position, so it was right for the Court to act. The Court is the ultimate arbiter of our "negative liberties" type of system -- the "freedom from"-type rights: freedom _from_ unreasonable search & seizure; freedom _from_ government interference in free speech; freedom _from_ cruel & unusual punishment, etc. And the Republican-appointees hate this type of "judicial activism!" Instead, they talk about "States' rights" and "deferring to the will of the legislature" -- which are just two different ways of saying -- "let the majority do whatever it wants." And this is bad because... > >> 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. > > it does sound like you think the sky is falling. Well, no, but when responding to someone who takes the position that "it doesn't matter either way," I thought it best to demonstrate some very real differences in outcome. (Nader was also guilty of this type of thinking in 2000, when he dismissed the importance of the president's judicial appointment power). Sky falling, no. Heavens remaining static, also no. The Supreme Court is just a very easy example illustrating the differences between the two major parties. Do they always get what they expected? No -- Earl Warren was appointed by a Republican (Eisenhower, reasonably expecting that the Republican Governor of California would share his philosophy), and so was Harry "Roe v. Wade" Blackmun (Nixon, no less). Clinton's appointees were hardly dyed-in-the-wool Libs (they were as middle-of-the-road as the Pres that appointed them), but there's a BIG difference between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. > >> 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 [just play into the hands of those who would >> hijack the system to their own ends] > > i'm working througout the system to destroy it. Oh, I see. I guess I was wrong; you and Guy Fawkes really *are* making a positive contribution. my mistake. - -ed "I know I shouldn't have taken the bait" poole ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 00:33:32 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: DELETE NOW! DON'T READ THIS! EYE-STRAIN! WRIST-SPLINTS! Quoting Ed : > man, if you really want to re-hash this stuff... Is rehash anything like refried beans, or is it more like illegal drugs, which like, you know, those inane ads on TV with the guy and his sleazy dealer buying dope from which tell me instead the guy should just grow his own but that's not legal and far more intimidating since the cops'll bust him and never mind the fourth amendment because at one time the bill of rights was intended to apply only to the federeal governemnt but that's rather ridiculous since if any state could circumvent any federal restrction the federal restriction effectively has no effect since the state could in the absence of the restrictions of the bill of rights also choose to or not to restrict the rights therein enumerated and hey as someone said elsewhere no one talks about the third amendmenet i think we should start emphasizing it on the offchance that someone wants to quarter soldiers in my house i say no and i dont't want to draw and quarter them either and i'm not sure what exactly is meant by drawn butter except that if i had a yellow crayon i might be able to do so which reminds me of the lewis carroll line about drawling, stretching, and fainting in coils, the last phrase of which was taken up in a prog-rock/jazz song title by bruford the band once led by ex-yes and king crimson drummer bill bruford whose name is sometimes hard to say and right now was hard to type in that i kept switching the order around and wait a minute what was i talking about oh yeah did anyone else notice that the first track on the new amon tobin cd is three-quarters borrowed from debussy what's up with that is it prog-rock all over again with the classical rippings off oh well at least there's no greg lake bellowing utterly stupid lyrics atop it ohter than that perhaps questionable move it's a pretty good if rather densely layered and clattering record but some of us think nextdoorland for which title i unaccountably originally typed nevermind but anyway nextdoorland is too thinly produced maybe so but really now you can't expect a record to sound like a can of bees twenty years on oh shit sorry i'm talking about robyn hitchcock anyway back to obscure amendments of the constitution and suchlike or perhaps we could discuss economic theory such as whether or not the cpi accurately reflects the increase in dollar cost of goods since it fails to take into account intangibles like the qulaity of those goods but economics is known as the dismal science for a reason although i don't really know what that reason is historically except this afternoon we were at an art museum and we wondered whether some of the paintings might not originally have featured a brighter palette and only dimmed through time and accreted dust and such and hadn't been hightechly restored and that is this long enough yet is anyone still reading god what sort of masochist are you that you're actually reading this even in the grand and once sovereign state of texas you know the infamous bathroom graffiti involving the word a-flexin which without the hyphen kinda sounds like a prescription medication perhaps should be a laxative or something rather like what i don't need at this moment not literaly please i dont' wish to provide too much info only figuratively what with my intentinoally trying to write a ridiculously long incoherenet and arcane post since that' sapparently what's expected these days here at fegmaniax but i'm actually rather tired and ready to go to bed it's too bad no one's invented an automatic typist to just dredge through all my files and barf up random chunks of prewritten prose from all the other documents on my machine although there are apparently viruses that do much the same but this progrm would do so intentionally except they'd be less likely to talk about the supereme court or florida or die george w. bush die i hope the homeland security folks arent' reading this far or god knows what'll happen to me okay that 's it i'm gone goodbye and so long incoherence out ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: it's not your meat :: --Mr. Toad ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 17:57:13 -0600 From: Marcy Tanter Subject: help! Hello, fegs! It's been a while....I need some help and you guys were the first people I thought of who could help..... I want to buy my husband a shortwave radio for under $100 for xmas. I've seen some reviews on Amazon for a couple that are around $30 but I don't know if I can really trust those. I KNOW that some of you must have shortwaves--please send suggestions, advice, whatever you know about shortwaves.... Thanks!! Marcy :) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 03:45:02 -0500 From: Ed Subject: Re: DELETE NOW! DON'T READ THIS! EYE-STRAIN! WRIST-SPLINTS! ouch, nice punctuation-less style... On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 01:33 AM, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > never mind the > fourth amendment because at one time the bill of rights was intended > to apply only > to the federeal governemnt but that's rather ridiculous since if any > state could > circumvent any federal restrction the federal restriction effectively > has no > effect since the state could in the absence of the restrictions of the > bill of > rights also choose to or not to restrict the rights therein enumerated scalia would HATE you, you realize that, right? if the bill of rights was "at one time" intended only to apply to the Feds, then, of course, it still does only apply to the Feds. (actually, it only DOES apply to the Federal Government; over the last 50 years or so, almost all [NOTE] of the enumerated rights have been held to apply to the States by virtue of the 14th Amendment; however, the Court consistently has rejected the argument that the whole of the Bill of Rights applies to the States (the best, but still losing, argument being that the 14th Amendment's "due process" clause was intended to "incorporate" the protections of the Bill of Rights and apply them to the States). [NOTE]: trivia -- can you name the TWO individual rights provisions of the Bill of Rights that have not been made applicable to the States via the 14th Amendment? "Individual rights" does not include amendments like the 3rd, 9th & 10th, which do not address specific rights.] Also, it's not ridiculous, historically, because the Anti-Federalist/Republican Framers, who insisted on a Bill of Rights, were chiefly concerned with constraining the powers of the central government. They did not, at that time, envision the States as the threat to individual rights that we now take for granted (with our knowledge of the history of the South from Reconstruction through the end of legally-sanctioned segregation). Of course, I'm just arguing for the sake of it, because I think the 14th Amendment jurisprudence of the last 50 years has been correct in applying the Bill of Rights to the States. - -ed NOTE trivia answer: the 8th Amendment's guarantee that "Excessive bail shall not be required" and the grand jury indictment aspect of the 5th Amendment. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 10:44:57 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: help! Marcy Tanter wrote: > > I KNOW that some of you must > have shortwaves--please send suggestions, advice, whatever you know > about shortwaves.... my Baygen Freeplay clockwork SW radio is only used for tuning into freaky shortwave interference of an evening, sorry. Stewart (the Woodpecker is dead, long live the Woodpecker.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 10:09:57 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: DELETE NOW! DON'T READ THIS! EYE-STRAIN! WRIST-SPLINTS! On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 02:45 AM, Ed wrote: > Of course, I'm just arguing for the sake of it, because I think the > 14th Amendment jurisprudence of the last 50 years has been correct in > applying the Bill of Rights to the States. The question, of course, is how much the coming Federalist Society dominated federal judiciary will agree with this jurisprudence. I think we're pretty close to returning to the time when the federal courts were not interested in protecting individuals from state/local majorities. - - Steve __________ While still at the Department of Justice, Rehnquist provided the best definition of a strict constructionist I have ever encountered. It was in a memo Rehnquist wrote while he was vetting Judge Clement Haynsworth, one of Nixon's selections who was rejected by the Senate. Rehnquist wrote, in brief, that a strict constructionist was anyone who likes prosecutors and dislikes criminal defendants and who favors civil rights defendants over civil rights plaintiffs. That is as candid and blunt as you can get. And that is the real definition of a strict constructionist. - John Dean ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #364 ********************************