From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #33 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, January 29 2003 Volume 12 : Number 033 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: fegmaniax-digest V12 #32 ["Eclipse Tuliphead" ] Re: ps ["Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V12 #32 ["Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" ] Re: ps [Marcy Tanter ] Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) [Jeffrey with 2 ] RE: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) ["Brian Hudd] RE: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) [Eb ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V12 #32 ["Brian Hoare" ] Re: ps [Capuchin ] RE: ps [Capuchin ] RE: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) ["FS Thomas"] RE: ps ["FS Thomas" ] RE: ps ["FS Thomas" ] RE: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) [Capuchin Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V12 #32 2 posts in one night. can you believe it? > From: Caroline Smith > Some attitudes and words take away from the friendly community that > this mailing list could and should be. Instead of insulting a new > member, perhaps we could try welcoming them and learning from them. > > Antagonism is no fun and mean people suck. hear hear! Eb sez: > "Barbara Ann"! Whoa! How could I forget THAT horrible example of this > phenomenon?? and oh, thank the powers-that-be, i wasn't actually named after the song - just a coincidence of family and friend names. still, i wouldn't cry if that song somehow mysteriously ceased to exist, though. Eclipse - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eclipse eclipse@tuliphead.com Kindness towards all things is the true religion. - Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:59:00 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: ps At 9:53 PM -0600 1/28/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "steve" and whispered: >Bush is still the empty, pampered rich boy he's always been. The only >difference is that he used to be a drunk and now he's a fundamentalist >Christian. I know. What I really hate is when people look at how he acts and say, "he's a good ole boy" or "he's a Texan". He is neither. He's from Connecticut, and a Yalie to boot. >But you've got your Apocalypse a bit wrong, there's got to be the >antichrist and the tribulation and all that. Mmmm. Yeah. I always went for the more intense parts of Revelations, the stars falling from the sky and the angels with voices like lions. I usually skip over the preliminaries. MIke - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") "Moderation in all things, except Wild Turkey." - Evel Knievel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:02:55 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V12 #32 At 4:29 AM +0000 1/29/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "Eclipse Tuliphead" and whispered: >Eb sez: >> "Barbara Ann"! Whoa! How could I forget THAT horrible example of this >> phenomenon?? > >and oh, thank the powers-that-be, i wasn't actually named after the song - >just a coincidence of family and friend names. still, i wouldn't cry if >that song somehow mysteriously ceased to exist, though. Funny, my friend Rocky Raccoon says the same thing. Mike - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") "Moderation in all things, except Wild Turkey." - Evel Knievel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 23:07:00 -0600 From: Marcy Tanter Subject: Re: ps At 08:59 PM 1/28/2003 -0800, Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat wrote: >At 9:53 PM -0600 1/28/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is >around called themselves "steve" and whispered: > >Bush is still the empty, pampered rich boy he's always been. The only > >difference is that he used to be a drunk and now he's a fundamentalist > >Christian. > >I know. What I really hate is when people look at how he acts and say, >"he's a good ole boy" or "he's a Texan". He is neither. He's from >Connecticut, and a Yalie to boot. Actually, isn't he from Maine..? And he's not a Christian. True Christians don't advocate dropping bombs on people for no good reason. Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 23:26:09 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) Quoting steve : > On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 09:36 PM, Michael E. Kupietz, wearing > a pointy hat wrote: > > > I had a disturbing flash the other night. One thing you don't hear a > > whole > > lot about in the media is that apparently Bush is a devout Christian. You're reading the wrong media, then: I've read about it quite a bit. > >I think he seriously thinks it's the > > End > > Times and he's trying to spark The War To End All Wars. He sure acts > > like a > > guy who thinks there's a deity on his side, doesn't he? > > Bush is still the empty, pampered rich boy he's always been. The only > difference is that he used to be a drunk and now he's a fundamentalist > Christian. > > But you've got your Apocalypse a bit wrong, there's got to be the > antichrist and the tribulation and all that. Just exactly whom do you think Shrub thinks Saddam is? If Steve means to imply that Bush's fundamentalism is a pose, I disagree: I think he truly believes that mumbo-jumbo, in the way that only a pathetic, ex-drunk, ex-drug addict with only a handful of brain cells to rub together can believe a farrago of fables, myth, moral teachings, and coded contemporary communications ("contemporary" to when they were written, that is) as divine revelation, presumably including all the contradictions, mistranslations, etc. etc. (Note: I am savaging a simplistic, brain-dead version of Christianity here - not all versions thereof.) While I think Bush's delusions of a divine role to fill combine with his avenging-dad fantasies, it's clear that the brains in the administration are conveniently utilizing those urges to further policies they were proposing well before Bush was "elected." "Regime change" in Iraq has been in the works in the minds of Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al. for quite some time...even if Saddam were to step down or back down. Re FS Thomas's flat-earth tax proposal: The reason federal social programs, and nearly every state, regional, and municipal government is parched for funding, while Bush can propose tax *cuts* in the same breath as he wants to launch a costly war, is that the wealthy and corporations are paying *far* less than their fair share. But don't take my word for it: take the policies of radical, freaky left-wingers like Eisenhower (top marginal tax rate during his admin: 91%) or Nixon (still above 50%). Corporate rates during those eras were considerably higher than now as well. You will notice that there's no shortage of very wealthy people in this country - and yet poverty is rampant, local governments can't afford to run fire departments, and nearly every state is having to cut back essential services (except, of course, prisons). Ya think there might be a connection there, bucko? The principal is simple: *if* it's the great wonderful capitalist apparatus, engine of the great democratic society, that allows these folks to become multi-millionaires, why then they owe all the more to keep that system running. Or more simply: you fund government through taxes, and taxes best come from where the money is. What I don't understand is how these folks can stand to live (and I'm talking now about the truly wealthy, not pikers who make, oh, $200,000 a year or so), pissing and moaning about dividend taxes and "death taxes," when they're clearing several million a year, have no wealth tax (unlike almost every other nation on the planet), and meanwhile people working *two full-time minimum-wage jobs* cannot afford a decent apartment under the average rent structures of most cities. Who the hell's "fomenting class warfare"? Try the class that's *making* war on the other 95% of the country. ..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: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:17:06 -0600 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) He of the 2 Fs: > Re FS Thomas's flat-earth tax proposal: The reason federal > social programs,and nearly every state, regional, and > municipal government is parched for funding, while Bush can > propose tax *cuts* in the same breath as he wants to > launch a costly war, is that the wealthy and corporations are > paying *far* less than their fair share. Word. There's no way I'm going to encourage or participate in a debate on tax reform, but I offer this link for the curious. A case can be made that the tax burden is already flat, when one considers *all* types government taxes. Any discussion should definitely take place off-list, but I'm convinced that any move toward a "flat" federal income tax would necessarily benefit the rich: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_01_19_atrios_archive.html#90219434 +brian in New Orleans ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:19:16 -0800 From: Eb Subject: RE: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) >He of the 2 Fs: > >> Re FS Thomas's flat-earth tax proposal: The reason federal >> social programs,and nearly every state, regional, and >> municipal government is parched for funding, while Bush can >> propose tax *cuts* in the same breath as he wants to >> launch a costly war, is that the wealthy and corporations are > > paying *far* less than their fair share. > >There's no way I'm going to encourage or participate in a debate on tax >reform, but I offer this link for the curious. A case can be made that the >tax burden is already flat, when one considers *all* types government taxes. >Any discussion should definitely take place off-list, but I'm convinced that >any move toward a "flat" federal income tax would necessarily benefit the >rich: Oof. I have a feeling that I'll really, really regret launching this thread, by tomorrow. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:34:54 -0600 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) > Oof. I have a feeling that I'll really, really regret launching this > thread, by tomorrow. Aw, man. I said off-list and I meant it. In case anyone missed it, this probably ain't the place to reform the tax code, fegs. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:42:23 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: ps, shrub, religion, taxes, beer, pizza At 11:07 PM -0600 1/28/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "Marcy Tanter" and whispered: >>I know. What I really hate is when people look at how he acts and say, >>"he's a good ole boy" or "he's a Texan". He is neither. He's from >>Connecticut, and a Yalie to boot. > >Actually, isn't he from Maine..? According to his bio on whitehouse.gov: "President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and he grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas." Apparently he was in Midland as early as elementary school. My bad. Amend above-quoted post from "He is neither. He's from Connecticut, and a Yalie to boot" to "That doesn't excuse being a retard." >And he's not a Christian. True >Christians don't advocate dropping bombs on people for no good reason. Agreed. Amend earlier post to read "professes to be a devout Christian". At 11:26 PM -0600 1/28/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey" and whispered: >> > I had a disturbing flash the other night. One thing you don't hear a >> > whole >> > lot about in the media is that apparently Bush is a devout Christian. > >You're reading the wrong media, then: I've read about it quite a bit. Definitely possible I've missed some interesting reading. I generally rely on the SF dailies & NPR. Not the best sources, but that's what I've got. Can you forward some references/news sources if you have any to recommend? As to the rest of your post, I don't want to respond point-by-point while the specter of, uh, "heated discussion" looms - I've seen how this list can get :-) - but I just wanted to say generally that although the tone of it seems slightly contentious, the points you made are thought-provoking and right on as far as I'm concerned. Sorry, no beer, pizza. Mike - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") "Moderation in all things, except Wild Turkey." - Evel Knievel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:45:37 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 11:26 PM, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > If Steve means to imply that Bush's fundamentalism is a pose, I > disagree.. No, I don't think it's a pose. I just don't think it does much to fill the empty vessel with anything really worthwhile. As for being a Texan, it's true that Bush isn't a native, but he moved here young enough to grow up representative of old style Texas conservatism, then mostly Democratic but now almost totally Republican. A pretty good sense of what it's about can be found in Michael Lind's new book, Made In Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics. - - Steve __________ Maybe federal employees shouldn't get the double protection of unions and civil service status. It's not an unreasonable argument. If that's what the president believes, he should send up a separate bill abolishing the civil service system. What he's doing here is just using the crushed, maimed and devastated of 9/11 to prop up Grover Norquist's federal workplace policy agenda. - Josh Marshall ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:58:44 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: durn crossed emails, drop it, agreed. At 12:34 AM -0600 1/29/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "Brian Huddell" and whispered: >> Oof. I have a feeling that I'll really, really regret launching this >> thread, by tomorrow. > >Aw, man. I said off-list and I meant it. BTW the other 3 replies to Jeffrey's post came in just after I sent that last one. Sorry, didn't mean to perpetuate - Brian's suggestion is the Missile Defense Shield of rationality against the hypothetical scud volley of contentious posts which are sure to come in this thread, and I support it 100%. We must guard against the terrorist threat^h^h^h^h^h thread. In the name of Homelist Security! Mike - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") "Moderation in all things, except Wild Turkey." - Evel Knievel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 01:48:14 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: RE: ps FS Thomas wrote: > Here's hoping. > > I *did* like the line, "Your enemy isn't surrounding your country. > Your enemy is ruling your country." > > Nice. I'm assuming that, alas, this was not intended to be a confession? ===== "Propaganda is that branch of the art of lying which consists in very nearly deceiving your friends without quite deceiving your enemies." -- F.M. Cornford "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt . Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:48:18 +0000 From: "Brian Hoare" Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V12 #32 >From: Michael R Godwin >Robyn then announced that "Anglepoise Lamp" was supposed to be called >"Seven winged bat", and all the way through: >(I Want To Be An) Anglepoise Lamp >he sang "Seven winged bat" rather than "Anglepoise Lamp". Did I imagine >this? No, it happened. There was a final ang-ul-poiiise, other than that it was a seven winged bit. >If I wanted to be critical, >I'd say that the performance wasn't quite as devastating as some of the >recent US reports had led me to expect - possibly because the setlist was >a bit safe - but it was a feelgood night out. I felt the same way. Fine songs performed very well but somehow didnt have the magic of the other couple of times that I've seen them. I was disappointed that Pulse wasn't played and that apart from Narcissus the only NDL songs were the ones that have been played longest. Is it my imagination or is Robyn taking on more lead guitar parts? There seemed to be more doubling of guitar parts, more RH solos and less magic Kim moments than in previous shows. >PS Tony, Brian: I saw you in the pub, but missed you at the gig! Where >were you? I was leaning on the bar... Rear left, catching up with news from a guy I haven't seen since the last SB show there. Lucky blighter got to see ISB and Love. Brian np Invisible History _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 03:02:41 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: ps On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Marcy Tanter wrote: > Actually, isn't he from Maine..? And he's not a Christian. True > Christians don't advocate dropping bombs on people for no good reason. True Christians don't advocate dropping bombs on people at all. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 03:33:14 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: ps On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, FS Thomas wrote: > All too often people are penalized for doing well in exchange for > carrying those who don't. That is, to my understanding, the entire purpose of civilization. We left the dog-eat-dog competition and "law of the jungle" behind and coordinated society so that the entire group could benefit from the successes of the few. And I hardly think that higher taxes for the wealthy can be construed as being "penalized for doing well" since those people still net more than most when it's all said and done. So they make three times more than their employees instead of sixty. That's not a penalty. [A raise in income can sometimes result in a slight net income decrease in cases where the increase barely crosses into a higher tax bracket. However, these cases are rare and a reasonable competent accountant can compensate with appropriate deductions through charitable donations and so on. It's hardly worth noting, but I just thought I'd side-step that whole argument by pointing out that I am aware of these few instances and also know that they effect a very small number of people.] > Flat taxes work, people. Plain and simple. And you base this conclusion on what, exactly? Maybe if you and Forbes repeat it enough, it'll become true. I think it's just as reasonable to put money in the hands of the people most willing and able to spend it all immediately, i.e. the people who have survival needs to be filled immediately. This also has the effect of shifting economic growth (and hence, hopefully, innovation and increased productivity) to those industries that produce useful things that all people need. > PS: the most fascinating part of the whole speech, I found, to be: [snip] > Tonight I am proposing 1.2 billion dollars in research funding so that > America can lead the world in developing ***clean, hydrogen-powered > automobiles***. Regardless of the environmental impact of exhaust fumes, automobile culture is not sustainable and destructive to community. Any attempt to create "clean automobiles" is either grossly misguided or purposely devised to prevent a true car-culture backlash that would shrink cities back down to human scale (more narrow streets, fewer high speed collisions, more cause and opportunity for human contact, etc.) and bring about functioning democratic forms in communities. Consider how much of your city, town, or even your neighborhood and street is devoted to automobile _storage_ alone. Parking lots, curbsides (thus obstructing views of people merely a dozen feet away on the other side of the street), snout houses, whole structures just for storing cars when they're not in use. It almost seems like the cars wouldn't be needed if there weren't all of these things between the places you'd like to be! The goal is not to make cars less filthy; the goal is to get rid of them. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:46:35 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) > Brian wrote: > ...I'm convinced that any move toward a "flat" > federal income tax would necessarily benefit the > rich When people say, "you should pay your fair share," what's more fair than everyone paying the same percentage? Get entirely rid of deductions of all kinds--wipe the board. Take the federal budget and divide it by the number of taxable-income earning people in the country in proportion to their salary. I would love to see what individual responsibility would be, percentage-wise. Regarding business taxes: It is frustrating when you see businesses not paying tax. However, what would be more frustrating: giving them a ride on property taxes and the like, or seeing them move off-shore? If it takes tax cuts to keep large industry and respectable (read: non-service industry) jobs in the area, I give them a break. As far as death taxes go, they should be abolished. Where does it say that just because I die, I should be forced to fork over half of what I managed to make in my lifetime to the government as opposed to passing it onto my children or spouse? - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:54:27 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: ps - -----Original Message----- From: Capuchin > The goal is not to make cars less filthy; the goal is to get rid of them. I so want to write a reply to this, but I'm frankly afraid it would just come off sarcastic and mean-spirited. Getting rid of automobiles full-stop just isn't going to happen. - -f ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:57:34 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: ps > I'm assuming that, alas, this was not intended to be a confession? Funny, funny stuff. I believe the direct quote was: "And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country - your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation." - -----Original Message----- From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Dwarf Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 4:48 AM To: 'fgz' Subject: RE: ps FS Thomas wrote: > Here's hoping. > > I *did* like the line, "Your enemy isn't surrounding your country. > Your enemy is ruling your country." > > Nice. I'm assuming that, alas, this was not intended to be a confession? ===== "Propaganda is that branch of the art of lying which consists in very nearly deceiving your friends without quite deceiving your enemies." -- F.M. Cornford "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt . Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:01:07 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, FS Thomas wrote: > When people say, "you should pay your fair share," what's more fair than > everyone paying the same percentage? When people say, "you should pay your fair share", they're putting in a whole lot of unstated assumptions at which neither of us could even begin to guess. Neglecting the rare successful small business (under, say, 400 employees), all profitable industry is designed around direct and indirect payment of public funds to private industry (government contracts, subsidies, waste disposal, environmental clean-up, etc.) and/or protecting existing wealth and profits (replacement worker contractors, private security, etc.). That's it. It seems to me that the "fair share" would be the vast majority of the profits seeing that the profits come from either public funds in the first place (which should be repaid) and undermining public safety, health, and well-being (which could be counter-balanced by publicly funded social programs). > Get entirely rid of deductions of all kinds--wipe the board. Take the > federal budget and divide it by the number of taxable-income earning > people in the country in proportion to their salary. I would love to > see what individual responsibility would be, percentage-wise. I'd like to see what the numbers would be, too. But that doesn't mean I'd like such a policy instituted. See, the problem isn't just to find a reliable source for funds to perpetuate exist programs, but to use the tax structure as one method to mitigate some of the ill effects of the system the programs perpetuate. > Regarding business taxes: It is frustrating when you see businesses > not paying tax. However, what would be more frustrating: giving them > a ride on property taxes and the like, or seeing them move off-shore? > If it takes tax cuts to keep large industry and respectable (read: > non-service industry) jobs in the area, I give them a break. That's exactly why those same companies (the ones that have the wealth to threaten to move off-shore) instituted the WTO and other "free market" policies in the United States: To use the threat of moving off-shore as a method for manipulating the public. Import tarrifs exist to protect local production and prevent that production from moving overseas. They protect local production by increasing the cost of imported goods and they protect foreign people from exploitation by levelling the profit margins between the two modes of operation. > As far as death taxes go, they should be abolished. I take it you mean inheritance taxes. > Where does it say that just because I die, I should be forced to fork > over half of what I managed to make in my lifetime to the government > as opposed to passing it onto my children or spouse? Um, it says so in the tax code. Where ELSE would it say such a thing? First, I'd say that you should take into account exactly HOW a person can accumulate so much that they are adversely effected by the minimal inheritance taxes in the United States. Second, I'd say that "fair" could very well mean that each child is given THE SAME opportunities and should not be unfairly boosted or handicapped by the wealth of his or her parents. After all, we don't jockey for position before we're born so that we are born to parents we "deserve". To quote one radical leftist, "the bulk of men were not born with saddles on their backs nor a privileged few, booted and spurred, ready to ride them." Of course, those are the words of Thomas Jefferson. Inheritance tax is one way of removing the boots and spurs from those born to the privileged few. A properly functioning public agency would use those taxes to remove the saddles from the backs of the rest. Lastly, I'd say that inheritance tax, used correctly, can work to prevent dynasties of wealthy elite from ruling across time. Remember that wealth and power are conservative by nature. They are used primarily to perpetuate themselves and do so at any costs. The greater good of humanity (innovation, education, abundance, love, understanding, etc.) is not served by institutions of consolidated power. Only the institutions are served. Government, when it does exist, SHOULD be the agency of the people. The public should be able to use that agency to direct the course of society and, in turn, civilization by embuing its agents with the values it holds most dear. Such an agency cannot abide the consolidation of power and wealth in the hands of the few. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #33 *******************************