From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #369 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, November 13 2002 Volume 11 : Number 369 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: persnickety musicians ["Eugene Hopstetter, Jr." ] Guitar tech addiction ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: Guitar tech addiction [John McIntyre ] Re: Beefheart recommendations ["Stewart C. Russell" ] electric tuners, etc. ["ross taylor" ] Re: Beefheart recommendations [Perry Amberson ] Re: electric tuners, etc. ["Stewart C. Russell" ] mea culpa [barbara soutar ] RE: fegmaniax-digest V11 #367 [Aaron Mandel ] Re: electric tuners, etc. ["Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" ] RE: fegmaniax-digest V11 #367 ["Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat"] RE: fegmaniax-digest V11 #367 [Aaron Mandel ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V11 #367 [Ken Weingold ] splits ["Jason Brown (Echo Services Inc)" ] Re: mea culpa [Tom Clark ] RE: fegmaniax-digest V11 #367 ["Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat"] RE: fegmaniax-digest V11 #367 ["Jason Brown (Echo Services Inc)" ] Re: Democracy & its Malcontents ["Poole, R. Edward" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:44:38 -0800 (PST) From: "Eugene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: persnickety musicians > From: "Rex.Broome" > > d'ya think some musicians are just more persnickety about tuning, > or do they just get off on having roadies? I think it has a lot to do with the *sound* of the guitars. I have the Rhino The Cars Live DVD -- a recording of the band live on a German TV show in 1978. The band was relatively young, but played a truckload of gear. Ric Ocasek plays a good five or six guitars, and he's just the fricken' rhythm guitarist. But when they play "Best Friend's Girl," the entire band switches to Fender guitars: Elliot Easton on Telecaster, Benjamin Orr on Precision bass, and Ric on Jaguar. That song was recorded with, and just sounds better, with those Fender guitars. It's drummers who get the shaft. It's not like they can switch from Zildjian to Paiste cymbals between songs, ya know. . U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:08:40 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: persnickety musicians On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Eugene Hopstetter, Jr. wrote: > > From: "Rex.Broome" > > > > d'ya think some musicians are just more persnickety about tuning, > > or do they just get off on having roadies? an interesting thing with musicians is that while some might appear to have had extensive ear training and can pick a hook or progression after a single listen, they often have trouble hearing and matching tones and therefore are very poor tuners. i've played with quite a few musicians like this and at first thought they were just lazy or uppity about doing something so menial, but in many cases they just don't have the ear for it. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:57:44 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Guitar tech addiction Mike: >>Anyway, I could see getting addicted to the roadie thing. Yeah, but you had an actual problem for which a tech was useful. (I've played enough shows with a Rick 12-string to have wished for a guy to retune it after every song, but that's my own damn fault). I'm talking about people who compulsively have to have a new guitar after every song. The strangest instance of this I can remember was a small Posies show (and I like the Posies now, but didn't know them well at the time). Ken and Jon both had kind of oddball guitars-- I think Ken had a Tele with f-holes and Jon had some kinda hollowbody, or maybe a modified SG, totally forget-- and both of them had EXACT COPIES of the same guitars on deck. So after just about every song their techs would exchange their guitars for exact duplicates, for the whole show. Kinda makes sense in a way, but it was odd to watch. - -Rex "oh yeah, and that time I left my capo in the dressing room" Broome ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:15:40 -0500 From: John McIntyre Subject: Re: Guitar tech addiction When I saw Wolfstone in October, their guitar tech stayed on stage for the entire performance, sitting behind the guitarist, handing him a new guitar when called for, sometimes during a song, and retuning each guitar he took from the guitarist. At one point he replaced a broken string. There was one number the guitarist performed solo, as the rest of the band left the stage, he called after them, "Lads, was it something I said?" The guitar tech reminded him, "I'm still here." John McIntyre Physics - Astronomy Domine Dept Michigan State University mcintyre@pa.msu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:16:46 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Beefheart recommendations matt sewell wrote: > > A squid eating dough from a polyethylene bag is fast and > bulbous. Got me? it's "in a polyethylene bag", as any fule kno. I was convinced that they said 'fast and bulbous' somewhere else on TMR, but I guess I'm wrong. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:48:04 -0500 From: "ross taylor" Subject: electric tuners, etc. Rex-- >d'ya think some musicians are just more persnickety about tuning, I'd go with that, but say in Robyn's case that's why he does it himself. I think being totally at home w/ getting in near-perfect tune fast is something you see in old folkies. Also re-tuning while playing -- I first ever saw that done by banjo players. Tom Verlaine (have to stop talking about him) said in 1991, when asked how the reunion was different from the old days, "it's a lot faster getting in tune now because we've got those little electronic tuners." I don't think I've ever seen Robyn use one of those. - --- Melissa-- >nothing downtown is much taller than 12-14 stories I think the Cairo Apartments, which I used to live beside, is the only 14 story giant, & prompted the turn of the century law. Now known for the popular Cairo Liquor store on 17th ... - --- the man w/ a beef in his heart-- I don't know all the songs MRG listed, but I gather they're selected for accessabilty. "Moonlight on Vermont" actually *fades out* like a pop song! So I'd add all of Clear Spot & Spotlight Kid. Plus his stuff on Bongo Fury, particularly "The Man With the Woman Head." Ross Taylor banna steak split tartare horror movie Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:51:01 -0800 (PST) From: Perry Amberson Subject: Re: Beefheart recommendations I know there are at least two other "fast and bulbous"es elsewhere on 'Trout Mask Replica,' but I couldn't tell you where without listening to the album. (Didn't think to bring one to work with me today.) It's all stored in my memory bank, but not in any particular order. I know one example ("Fast and bulbous." "That's right, the Mascara Snake, fast and bulbous," etc.) is between a couple of songs on side 2 or 3, and another is spoken over an instrumental break in one song. - --Perry PS: I just now remembered that the Captain made his first appearance on Letterman on Veteran's Day 20 years ago. __________________________________________________ U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:05:01 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: electric tuners, etc. ross taylor wrote: > > I'd go with that, but say in Robyn's case that's > why he does it himself. not always. George (at the Assembly Rooms) and Big Al (who sometimes gets as big a cheer as Robyn does) have been seen doing guitar tech things for Robyn. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:47:31 -0800 From: barbara soutar Subject: mea culpa Hi, I feel guilty about the donut/doughnut debate. Doh! Now I see that Bin Laden is threatening Canada along with Britain and Australia and some other places. Good move, since basically we here in Canada don't have any self-defense forces except sarcasm and irony. Barbara Soutar Victoria, B.C. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:51:39 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: RE: fegmaniax-digest V11 #367 On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat wrote: > You know what really bugs me? It's this: I've always wondered, is > "Banana Split" an noun followed by an adjective, like "Steak Tartare", > or is it an adjective followed by a noun, like "Chocolate Brownie"? So I > asked this local smart guy, and he says, "It's a compound noun." He > totally copped out. That's what really bugs me. That's not a cop-out, it's your answer! If it's a compound noun, then your option #2 is correct -- actually, "chocolate brownie" is a compound noun too, isn't it? Well, maybe there are some English compound nouns where the second half acts adjectivally, not the first, but I can't think of them and am pretty sure "banana split" doesn't break down that way. a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:55:12 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: electric tuners, etc. At 1:48 PM -0500 11/13/02, ross taylor spake thus: >Tom Verlaine (have to stop talking about him) >said in 1991, when asked how the reunion was >different from the old days, "it's a lot faster >getting in tune now because we've got those >little electronic tuners." I don't think I've >ever seen Robyn use one of those. I'm pretty sure he's used one...I've seen him change tuning before or during songs, and afterwards he tuning up again without producing any sound coming out of the amplifiers. So unless he can hear an unamplified electric guitar at waist level well enough to tune it, he had to have an electronic one. Mike ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:04:09 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: mea culpa At 11:47 AM -0800 11/13/02, barbara soutar spake thus: >Hi, > >I feel guilty about the donut/doughnut debate. Doh! Now I see that Bin >Laden is threatening Canada along with Britain and Australia and some >other places. Good move, since basically we here in Canada don't have >any self-defense forces except sarcasm and irony. > >Barbara Soutar >Victoria, B.C. And the RCMP! Mike PS. Also Bob and Doug McKenzie. They count, don't they? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:05:03 -0500 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V11 #367 On Wed, Nov 13, 2002, Aaron Mandel wrote: > Well, maybe there are some English compound nouns where the second half > acts adjectivally, not the first, but I can't think of them and am pretty > sure "banana split" doesn't break down that way. I think with English, at least, it's just the opposite, as you see in "banana split" or "chocolate brownie". - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:08:26 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: RE: fegmaniax-digest V11 #367 At 2:51 PM -0500 11/13/02, Aaron Mandel spake thus: >On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat wrote: > >> You know what really bugs me? It's this: I've always wondered, is >> "Banana Split" an noun followed by an adjective, like "Steak Tartare", >> or is it an adjective followed by a noun, like "Chocolate Brownie"? So I >> asked this local smart guy, and he says, "It's a compound noun." He >> totally copped out. That's what really bugs me. > >That's not a cop-out, it's your answer! If it's a compound noun, then your >option #2 is correct -- actually, "chocolate brownie" is a compound noun >too, isn't it? > >Well, maybe there are some English compound nouns where the second half >acts adjectivally, not the first, but I can't think of them and am pretty >sure "banana split" doesn't break down that way. > Yeah, what he said to me, is, "Surely you don't think 'banana' is an adjective." But I don't know. That answer seems awfully pat to me. I'm sure there's more to it than that. I think he's hiding something. Mike ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:15:38 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: RE: fegmaniax-digest V11 #367 On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat wrote: > Yeah, what he said to me, is, "Surely you don't think 'banana' is an > adjective." But I don't know. That answer seems awfully pat to me. I'm > sure there's more to it than that. I think he's hiding something. What a prat! Flavors and colors skirt the line between noun and adjective even when they aren't being used in a full-blown compound noun. "Is that ice cream good?" "It's good. It's chocolate." a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:16:22 -0500 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V11 #367 On Wed, Nov 13, 2002, Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat wrote: > Yeah, what he said to me, is, "Surely you don't think 'banana' is an > adjective." But I don't know. That answer seems awfully pat to me. I'm sure > there's more to it than that. I think he's hiding something. There is, and don't call him 'Shirley'. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:24:25 -0800 From: "Jason Brown (Echo Services Inc)" Subject: splits - -----Original Message----- From: Lukoff, Benjamin [mailto:lukoff@amazon.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 12:14 PM To: Jason Brown (Echo Services Inc) Subject: RE: fegmaniax-digest V11 #367 Banana split is a compound noun. Both components are nouns. If anything, "banana" is acting adjectivally, but is there any other sort of split besides banana ones? - -----Original Message----- From: Jason Brown (Echo Services Inc) [mailto:v-jasobr@microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 12:11 PM To: Lukoff, Benjamin Subject: FW: fegmaniax-digest V11 #367 Any ideas? - -----Original Message----- From: Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat [mailto:plinth@kupietz.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 12:08 PM At 2:51 PM -0500 11/13/02, Aaron Mandel spake thus: >On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat wrote: > > >> You know what really bugs me? It's this: I've always wondered, is > >> "Banana Split" an noun followed by an adjective, like "Steak > Tartare", > >> or is it an adjective followed by a noun, like "Chocolate Brownie"? SoI > >> asked this local smart guy, and he says, "It's a compound noun." He > >> totally copped out. That's what really bugs me. > > >Well, maybe there are some English compound nouns where the second half > >acts adjectivally, not the first, but I can't think of them and am pretty > >sure "banana split" doesn't break down that way. > > Yeah, what he said to me, is, "Surely you don't think 'banana' is an > adjective." But I don't know. That answer seems awfully pat to me. I'm > sure > there's more to it than that. I think he's hiding something. I asked a linguist friend of mine and he had this to say: "Banana split is a compound noun. Both components are nouns. If anything, 'banana' is acting adjectivally and theoretically you could have an apple split or a mango split, which would be compound nouns as well." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:14:37 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: mea culpa on 11/13/02 11:47 AM, barbara soutar at bsoutar@horizon.bc.ca wrote: > Hi, > > I feel guilty about the donut/doughnut debate. Doh! Now I see that Bin > Laden is threatening Canada along with Britain and Australia and some > other places. Good move, since basically we here in Canada don't have > any self-defense forces except sarcasm and irony. > Give me an army of Tie Domi's and the world will be safe. Unless, of course, you cross-check one of my Ties. Then you're dead meat. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:59:47 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: RE: fegmaniax-digest V11 #367 At 3:15 PM -0500 11/13/02, Aaron Mandel spake thus: >On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat wrote: > >> Yeah, what he said to me, is, "Surely you don't think 'banana' is an >> adjective." But I don't know. That answer seems awfully pat to me. I'm >> sure there's more to it than that. I think he's hiding something. > >What a prat! Flavors and colors skirt the line between noun and adjective >even when they aren't being used in a full-blown compound noun. "Is that >ice cream good?" "It's good. It's chocolate." A-Ha! You've got it. I'm going to ask him about that next time I see him. I'll tip him better next time, too, just to be sure. At 12:24 PM -0800 11/13/02, Jason Brown (Echo Services Inc) spake thus: >"Banana split is a compound noun. Both components are nouns. If >anything, 'banana' is acting adjectivally and theoretically you could >have an apple split or a mango split, which would be compound nouns as >well." All these grammarians still sound a little too sure of themselves, if you ask me. Why are they so very certain? I wonder what they're covering up. Mike ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:42:49 -0800 From: "Jason Brown (Echo Services Inc)" Subject: RE: fegmaniax-digest V11 #367 > At 12:24 PM -0800 11/13/02, Jason Brown (Echo Services Inc) spake thus: > >"Banana split is a compound noun. Both components are nouns. If > >anything, 'banana' is acting adjectivally and theoretically you could > >have an apple split or a mango split, which would be compound nouns as > >well." > > All these grammarians still sound a little too sure of themselves, if you > ask me. Why are they so very certain? I wonder what they're covering up. Knowing Ben, a deep seeded hate of sushi. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:07:46 -0500 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: mea culpa Canadian Self-Defense Force: Maybe Todd Bertuzzi can slash them with a hockey stick, give them a good old B.C. two hander on the side of the head. Michael - -----Original Message----- From: barbara soutar [mailto:bsoutar@horizon.bc.ca] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 2:48 PM To: FEGMANIAX DIGEST Subject: mea culpa Hi, I feel guilty about the donut/doughnut debate. Doh! Now I see that Bin Laden is threatening Canada along with Britain and Australia and some other places. Good move, since basically we here in Canada don't have any self-defense forces except sarcasm and irony. Barbara Soutar Victoria, B.C. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:13:52 -0500 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: Re: Democracy & its Malcontents gSs was heard to blather thusly: >> an lll-informed and easily manipulated electorate is preferable... >that's not a surprise to hear coming from an attorney. oooo, again with the clever lawyer-bashing! so witty! It's interesting to note how you judge people by your concept of the group to which they belong. Would you draw the same conclusions about Jews or homosexuals? just wondering. >> ...to a top-down system imposed by wide-eyed utopian dreamers. >but we have a system just like this today. that's ridiculous. we have a representative democracy based on an organic constitution, which provides for certain enumerated powers by the federal government. the concept was that the government should have a certain flexibility to meet new challenges (within the limits of those enumerated powers), which were not capable of prediction at its inception. (or, at least, this was John Marshall's conception of the Constitution and, therefore, it has become the way our system works). That's a long way off from a utopian system whose crafters think they know better than anyone else how to solve the problems and, thereafter, impose that solution on the rest of us. what's more, the constitution was ratified by the states, not imposed "top-down." > > > the problems that resulted from desegregation i believe > have more than > > > outweighed the advantages. > > > > what was it you said? urgalurgaaaahturwertses? > > that was my reply to your ridiculously inflated support of the system > as it stands. hello? I was using _your_ clever way of indicating that I was at a loss for words when I read your casual rejection of the most important victory for civil rights this century. And my "ridiculously inflated support of the system" was no more than the quite reasonable observation that public policy is complex and that there is nothing inherently sinister about developing expertise in an area and sticking to it for a long period of time. I did not deny that there are problems with an entrenched political elite -- my opinion is merely that there are other ways to address those problems than to prohibit legislators from continuing in public service after X number of years. You may, of course, disagree, but I see no reason for the name calling. > > > where do the disadvantages from segregation fit into your > utilitarian > > calculus? > > if school funding was administered properly, segregation > would never have > been an issue. and where is it that most minorities would > like to send > their kids to school today, after all these years of desegregation? Did you ever hear the story about American Apartheid? Were you aware that "segregation" applied to more than just public schools? Since you are so hung up on the schools issue, I'm happy to talk about that. By saying "if school funding was administered properly, segregation would never have been an issue," are you arguing that segregation _itself_ wasn't the problem; the "real" problem (which remained after desegregation orders were imposed) was the inequitable system for public school funding? Or are you arguing that segregation would not have been an "issue" (meaning it wouldn't have existed? or no one would have minded? or what?) if there had been equal funding, because most white parents of the 1940's would have been happy to send their kids to the local "black" school, so long as its facilities were as good or better than the local "white" school? (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand the ones that came out already; I cannot come up with any other interpretation of your "segregation would never have been an issue" comment). Under either interpretation (I can see no other alternative), your argument is historically inaccurate at best, downright racist at worst. Assuming you meant the former -- that inequities in school funding were and are the "real" problem, not segregation itself -- you must be a supporter of the "separate but equal" doctrine. (See PLESSY v. FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)). So, as long as all schools are well-funded (or, at least, all are funded relatively equally, and the worst schools are given a bit extra to help them catch up), the whole "segregation" thing doesn't matter -- is that it? Now, I don't want to bore you with a lot of "lawyer talk," but the fact is that disparate treatment of individuals, solely or predominantly on account of their race, is in itself harmful to both the individual and to society. It doesn't matter if those individuals are afforded the same -- objectively speaking -- benefits from the government (for example, schools in equal states of repair). If you really believe that equitable distribution of school funds would have solved the problem -- without addressing de jure (I'm sorry, there's some more "lawyer talk" -- this term means "by law" or "legally enforced") segregation of the races, would you say that separate bathrooms, public swimming pools, drinking fountains, trains, buses, hotels, and theaters would also be O.K., so long as government funding for the two sets of accommodations was distributed fairly or equally? You don't see the problem with having formal "equality," but also enforced separation? It's true that, if public school funding of "black" and "white" schools had been fair or equal at the time the Supreme Court considered the school desegregation cases (see Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)), the result probably would have been very different. You see, there were certain members of the Court who believed in "separate but equal" -- indeed, the previous 20 years of jurisprudence in this area dealt with how the "separate" institutions could be made "equal." Of course, "separate but equal" was always a fiction -- the schools provided for blacks, particularly in the South, were a joke. The evidence of this fact did help persuade the more conservative Justices that "separate but equal" just couldn't work. Of course, I doubt that this legal nicety was what you had in mind when you said that "if school funding was administered properly, segregation would never have been an issue." As incredible as it is to me, your support for "separate but equal" seems to be the most logical interpretation of your statement that "if school funding was administered properly, segregation would never have been an issue." Of course, you might have meant that white America in the 1950's (and earlier) would have been happy to send their kids to "black" schools, so long as their facilities were "equal." Perhaps you think that there never would have been segregation in the first place, provided that all schools were treated the same. If this is your argument, it's even more preposterous than supporting "separate but equal," and it points out what you are overlooking (or deliberately ignoring) in this discussion: the role of racism. Segregated America didn't happen by accident, nor was it (only) a function of economics. The Jim Crow South, for example, was a society carefully constructed on racist ideology, propped up by elaborate laws and regulations, that had one goal in mind: to forever marginalize and deprive of civil liberties, if not utterly destroy, all non-white citizens, but particularly black Americans. (If this description sounds familiar, see Nazi Germany and the "legal" edifice (the "Nuremberg Laws") used to bring about the social death of German Jews). Even if the "separate" facilities designed for southern blacks had actually been "equal," the whole enterprise and the racist beliefs that motivated it sent the constant and unambiguous message that blacks were inferior and not "fit" to participate in "white society." Here we see where the tyranny of the majority takes over and must be corrected; the Courts HAD to act, because the majority of Southerners (of course, racism was not -- and is not -- limited to the South, but it is the easiest example) were vehemently opposed to equal rights for blacks (no matter what the 14th Amendment said). I truly do not understand your hostility towards the judiciary -- whether it be appointed judges or lifetime tenure for (federal only) judges, or the power of judicial review to nullify laws enacted by majorities where they run afoul of the Constitution. Can you not understand (even if you fail to appreciate) that an *independent* judiciary is the only way -- or, at least, the best way -- to guard against majorities that would deprive minorities of their fundamental constitutional rights? If a judge is elected, he or she is beholden to the same majority that supported (or directly enacted) the unconstitutional law that the court may be called upon to review -- obviously, the prospect of the upcoming election will influence the judge's decision of whether or not the law will be found unconstitutional. Or do you just not like judicial review? Do you think that any law passed by a majority is per se valid? If so, what's the point of having a constitution? What's the point of having a bill of rights if the enforcement of its provisions (for example, "Congress shall make no law...") is left up to the self-restraint of the legislators? Wouldn't that allow Congress (or, perhaps, the President) to amend the Constitution at will? As for your oh-so-deep observation that, on some level, desegregation hasn't "worked" -- there is a BIG difference between saying "desegregation orders & busing & etc did not solve the WHOLE problem" and saying that "if school funding was administered properly, segregation would never have been an issue." There's (at least) two different problems here -- one, an economic one: having school funds allocated on the basis of each district's tax base means that schools in poor communities will be run down and will often provide lousy schooling to the kids that arguably need the best possible facilities and teachers. There is no doubt that this type of school funding was a bad idea, then and now; reforms are possible and necessary (just look at NJ, where [ahem] the COURTS determined that the system was discriminatory & ordered just the type of according-to-need funding you advocate, based on state-wide tax receipts. But solving the economic problem doesn't solve the civil rights problem: segregation based on race. There is no rational reason for a government (or private citizens) to classify people on account of race -- even if it provides them "equal" services. Sanctioning or even just permitting racial discrimination denies equal protection of the laws (and constitutes a badge or incident of slavery). Desegregation was necessary to abolish the legal support for a racist society and, yes, it was also partly social engineering (designed to break down the social apparatus that supported a racist society). So, no, your "equal funding" solution doesn't make segregation disappear. (as for your cryptic remark about "where ... most minorities would like to send their kids to school today, after all these years of desegregation?" -- I can only suppose that "they," like all parents, would like to send their kids to the best school possible, which is also closest to home. Your point being...?) > > > > man, yer sounding like an attorney. > > > > was it the multi-syllabic words or the marshaling of facts > to support > > my argument that inspired this witty comment? > > that was truly non sequitur. no, it wasn't; I just wanted to know what "sounding like an attorney" means. > your "marshaling of facts" was > actually just > a standard posting of common knowledge. i wanted to see how > you supported > your counter point. it was average at best. are you public defender? And your entire series of posts & responses has been nothing but absurdities and name-calling. > > > -ed "and to think I gave the guy free legal advice" poole > > if i send you a check next time will you give better advice? send me a > bill and i'll apply payment appropriately. sorry for the > inconvenience. Do you really have no ability to understand what I'm saying or are you willfully misconstruing my words? really, I want to know. Assuming the former, the point here was simply this: you feel that it is all fine and well to solicit free advice from a lawyer, when you have a legal problem of your own, but once that's done, you turn around and insult that very same lawyer who offered you assistance and use "sounding like an attorney" as a derogatory remark. On a personal level, this was surprising to me (and, obviously, it pissed me off); I would have thought that common courtesy plus the recognition that someone offered you help in the spirit of friendship, might have been enough to make you think twice about this kind of name calling. I was happy to help you out, as far as I could, because it was something I could do for a fellow member of the list who had a problem. As I said at the time, I'm no expert in that area of the law, but I don't remember you finding fault with my advice at the time. Seems to me that it would be classier to pick a side -- either hate all lawyers and refuse to stoop so low as to ask for their assistance, or recognize that the job does not define who they are as human beings, and treat them with a measure of respect (or at least politeness). I have no interest in defending my profession as a whole -- it certainly has it's fair share of shysters (and, being educated shysters, many of them are quite successful at it). However, I also don't see any reason to use the term "attorney" as an insult, or to denigrate everyone who practices law just because some lawyers are jerks. This is the type of simplistic, prejudiced thinking engaged in by racists and homophobes. (not that I would equate anti-lawyer sentiment with those types of abuse and discrimination -- only the "group think" aspect is at all similar). I would have thought you were above that. - -ed ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #369 ********************************