From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #35 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 035 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Hello again (+ off-topic question) [Perry Amberson ] I am enjoying my catfish sandwich ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) ["FS Thomas"] The 7th wing ["Maurer Rose, Inverse Nome" ] Re: numbers with wings [The Great Quail ] Canadian voicemail [The Great Quail ] RE: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) [Jeffrey Nor] Oxford, Iggy Rumours... [crowbar.joe@btopenworld.com] Re: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) [Christopher] RE: ps [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: double taxation [Ken Ostrander ] RE: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) [Capuchin ] The fucking idiot [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: names and numbers [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) [Eb ] Camper Van article on the macing ["Maximilian Lang" ] RE: ps [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:58:54 -0800 (PST) From: Perry Amberson Subject: Re: Hello again (+ off-topic question) keno wrote >>> i'm wondering if the music would be better all blurry and bleary to underscore the drunkeness. weren't they just playing the jukebox in the bar? <<< You raise an interesting point, but I'd always figured that the bad sound was not so much an artistic choice as an indication of the quality of masters that record companies made available to film companies back in the early 70s. I'd still be interested in knowing if anyone's heard the DVD yet. - --Perry ________________________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:27:08 +0000 From: "Brian Hoare" Subject: Re: bat bits >>No, it happened. There was a final ang-ul-poiiise, other than that it was >>a seven winged bit. >Uh oh, now it's a "bit". Okay, last I heard consensus was that it was a >*severed*-wing bat, but recently it's been heard as "seven" again. >Can we >get a consensus on this one, or are we back to Mucky/Bucky? consider "bit" as a typo. My ears got it as seven, I was pondering whether it would have 3 on one side and 4 on the other or 3 pairs and another going straight up off the spine. Brian _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger - fast, easy and FREE! http://messenger.msn.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:37:29 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: I am enjoying my catfish sandwich Perry: >>I've blocked a particular address, and should quite enjoy the list >>again. Perry, welcome back... for my part I'll try to keep excerpts from said address from crossing your eyes as well. Um, unless I'm wrong and said address is mine. And then you'll never see this. Hmmm. Do I even exist? ______ Nobody's mentioned Moby Grape's rather pretty "8:05" as a number song. It springs to my mind whenever I see those numbers in sequence. Of course there's always "867-5309"... Or for a truly uncertain quantity, there's Televisions' "1880 Or So". ____________ Kay: >>may I only say I could really use another Soft Boys gig before it all gets too >>bad. Something we could all agree on, eh? So, has any new information trickled out about "Luxor"? Like how many tracks, and whether they're studio or live, or, like, anything? - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:46:59 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross 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? "Fair" is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that it's perfectly fair for the people who prosper most in our society to kick in a little extra when the bill comes due. Besides, if you want to be "fair," you should count all taxes, instead of looking at the income tax in isolation. The rich pay far less sales tax and payroll taxes, as a proportion of their income, than the middle class, who in turn pay proportionally less than the minimum-wage crowd. As for the hypothetical flat tax rate, estimates I've seen are all at least 21% and as high as 30% -- a considerable increase for those currently in the 15% tax bracket. Even if a flat tax seems "fair," I wouldn't want to jack up the taxes on people who are already struggling to get by. > 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? When you (assuming you're a millionaire) die, YOU don't fork over anything, because you're dead. Instead, your estate pays. Therefore in effect it's your heirs who have to pay tax on their sudden windfall; and why shouldn't they? I could live with lowering the estate tax rate or raising the minimum before the tax kicks in (though the minimum is already two million freakin' bucks). But I can't agree that this money should be tax-free on principle. I think it would make as much sense as not taxing lottery winnings. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:53:41 -0600 From: "Mike Wells" Subject: catfish bats Brian: > My ears got it as seven, I was pondering whether > it would have 3 on one side and 4 on the other or 3 pairs and another going > straight up off the spine. I'd kind of always envisioned it as 3 & 4, an evolutionary anomoly when bats were coming in all different wing configurations...(motioning with hands) kind of on the top of the upper side where it curves onto the back, above the three but sticking up at a jaunty angle and flapping rather pathetically and out of rhythm. Rex: > So, has any new information trickled out about "Luxor"? Like how many > tracks, and whether they're studio or live, or, like, anything? There's a few of things I've heard live that are probably due for an album...a) "creeped out american girl / behind your eyes" (title?), b) that instrumental from Chicago last April and c) "if you know time." I know the last is SB's stuff but I can envisage a nice percussive acoustic version, ala the "Unprotected Love" Robyn played solo. btw "if you know time" has not only become one of my fave songs of late (by anyone) but has also become the song that I'm changing the words to most frequently. "If you know bongs," etc. Many, many hours of fun. Michael "it depends on your definition of fun" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:53:24 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: Re: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) > When you (assuming you're a millionaire) die, YOU don't fork over > anything, because you're dead. Instead, your estate pays. Therefore in > effect it's your heirs who have to pay tax on their sudden windfall; and > why shouldn't they? I could live with lowering the estate tax rate or > raising the minimum before the tax kicks in (though the minimum is already > two million freakin' bucks). But I can't agree that this money should be > tax-free on principle. I think it would make as much sense as not taxing > lottery winnings. Except that it is double taxation. That income was already taxed when the formerly-living had it. The concept of anyone double-dipping on tariffs/taxes/levies annoys me to no end. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:52:45 +0000 From: "Maurer Rose, Inverse Nome" Subject: The 7th wing BHoare: >My ears got it as seven, I was pondering whether it would have 3 on one side and 4 on the other or 3 pairs and another >going straight up off the spine. Its close to quiting time and Im feeling goofy, so please forgive me -- please. I can think of a very good place for a 7th wing... if fact I'm suprised nobody(or maybe they have? Tom?) has made a porn movie about a winged penis? It could be kinda fun. With a Soft Boys sound track. I can hear it now... Kay Like pornography, conspiracy theory should be regarded strictly as entertainment, not a guide to real life. Chris Gross, Fegmania, 1-29-03 _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:20:57 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: numbers with wings Other than "2112," my favorite number song is Patti Smith's "1954," from the criminal underrated "Peace and Noise." - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:29:40 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Canadian voicemail Stewart writes, > easy Canadian mind-reading trick: If you work with a Canadian guy >30 years > old, amaze him by knowing his voicemail password. I think it's a legal > requirement for it to be 2112 ... Hey, some Yankies, too! My voicemail password is *so* "2112." - --Quail PS: Anyone else think it's odd that the second the Antichrist is mentioned Jeme appears? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:33:15 -0600 From: Jeffrey Norman Subject: RE: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) Quoting Brian Huddell : > 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 I haven't had the chance to look at this link yet, but it's almost a logical necessity that a flat tax would primarily benefit the rich, since our current system is moderately progressive (i.e., higher-income taxpayers pay more), any flat tax would necessarily lower the tax burden of those wealthy taxpayers, since it would be impractical and impossible to raise it for the poorest taxpayers. Also, a fellow feg offlist mentioned an interesting article in the Boston Globe co-written by philosopher Thomas Nagel. It's linked here: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/026/focus/Tax_travesties+.shtml Here's a key passage: "The persistence of the idea that the distribution of tax burdens can be fair or unfair in itself stems from a very natural, but mistaken, picture of the relation between taxes and property rights: According to this picture, we own our pre-tax income, so in taxing us the government takes away some of our private property to pay for its activities. But in fact we don't own our pre-tax income, and what we do own is defined by a legal system of private property in which taxes play an indispensable role. "This claim may seem outrageous, but a little reflection shows that it must be so. Notice that we couldn't, as a matter of logic, have unrestricted property rights in the whole of our pre-tax income, because without taxes there would be no government, and consequently no legal system, no banks, no corporations, no commercial contracts, no markets in stock, capital, labor, or commodities-in other words no economy of the kind that makes all modern forms of income and wealth possible. "Modern property rights are not part of nature. They are created and sustained by a legal, political, and economic system of which taxes are an essential part." That is, "your" income is always already enmeshed in a network of social and political institutions and definitions, which already include the notion of taxes, and without which modern economic life would be impossible. (Those of us who wander into unowned fields, chop down trees with axes we made ourselves, carve the wood into various implements, and then barter with our neighbors for similarly made objects are exempt from this discussion.) ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: we make everything you need, and you need everything we make ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:37:53 +0000 (GMT) From: crowbar.joe@btopenworld.com Subject: Oxford, Iggy Rumours... >Godders writted >PS to jmbc: How come you got 2 sets of encores in Oxford with >fewer than >100 people? We had more people than that in Bristowe, but only >one tranche >of encores. We shouted like fuck for about 5-7 minutes after the first lot of encores. It was pretty much exactly 100 I'd say ;-) It was, bar the Electric Ballroom, the best I've ever seen them I'd reckon, and I've now seen them eight times since the comeback. Robyn did look a bit tired in the second encore. Godders, your law was invoked as well! Robyn compared Bush and cronies to the Nazis... Rex: 7-winged Bat all the way at Oxford. Anyone heard anything about the rumours that Iggy and the Ashetons have got back together? Eb? There's a prize for the first person who can make political and Hitchcockian extrapolations from the subject header to this e-mail ;-) Crowbar Joe ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:39:12 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, FS Thomas wrote: > Except that it is double taxation. That income was already taxed when the > formerly-living had it. The concept of anyone double-dipping on > tariffs/taxes/levies annoys me to no end. Eh.... I can appreciate your argument here, but it doesn't really move me. I'm much more annoyed by the accumulation of huge, unearned (by the recipient) hereditary fortunes. At least taxing them would wring some minimal social benefit out of 'em. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:43:07 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: ps Quoting Capuchin : > > 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. It might be misguided, and it might possibly be designed to forestall such a backlash, but it's also possible that such an attempt (I'm not judging Bush's claims here, and it's probably clear by now I'm highly skeptical of the truth of anything that comes out of that man's chimp mouth) is in fact an attempt to ameliorate a bad situation, and hopes to wean Americans (in particular) away from their car addictions gradually. Short of imposing a dictatorship, there's no way to eliminate cars by fiat (hah!), and so it's better to work toward reducing their usefulness and decreasing their harms. Besides which, I think even in a society radically less auto-dependent - close dwellings well integrated with non-residential buildings, efficient and flexible public transportation (preferably modular so that people could go where they want to go, when they want to, and not have to rely upon masses of people making the same decision), there may be *some* use for cars. For example, traveling to semi-rural recreational areas: small, less-polluting, and more efficient cars are probably less disruptive than rail, for example. Or not - but the point is, you've gotta start somewhere. And there's just no way that cars could be eliminated tout suite in one fell swoop (I like cliches today). So better to make things better than fulminate about how they're not perfect. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: we make everything you need, and you need everything we make ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:50:58 -0500 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: Re: double taxation >> When you (assuming you're a millionaire) die, YOU don't fork over >> anything, because you're dead. Instead, your estate pays. Therefore in >> effect it's your heirs who have to pay tax on their sudden windfall; and >> why shouldn't they? I could live with lowering the estate tax rate or >> raising the minimum before the tax kicks in (though the minimum is already >> two million freakin' bucks). But I can't agree that this money should be >> tax-free on principle. I think it would make as much sense as not taxing >> lottery winnings. > >Except that it is double taxation. That income was already taxed when the >formerly-living had it. The concept of anyone double-dipping on >tariffs/taxes/levies annoys me to no end. it is not double taxation. just because the same money is being taxed again doesn't count. it's the people that are being taxed. income is income. keno ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:31:30 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Jeffrey Norman wrote: > http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/026/focus/Tax_travesties+.shtml > > Here's a key passage: > > "Modern property rights are not part of nature. They are created and > sustained by a legal, political, and economic system of which taxes are an > essential part." This is a great statement of an oft-ignored truth. I hoped to express something like this when I wrote that higher tax rates on the wealthy just pay for the system that allows them to be wealthy. > (Those of us who wander into unowned fields, chop down trees with axes > we made ourselves, carve the wood into various implements, and then > barter with our neighbors for similarly made objects are exempt from > this discussion.) Well, the "unowned fields" just don't exist anymore and haven't since the Enclosure Acts in England. This was a time when the rulers decided they were sick and tired of some people getting by without making some wealthy person richer. So they claimed that everything must be owned by somebody and laid claim to all the land. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:50:56 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, FS Thomas wrote: > Except that it is double taxation. That income was already taxed when > the formerly-living had it. The concept of anyone double-dipping on > tariffs/taxes/levies annoys me to no end. Bullshit. Is it "double taxation" when you pay a sales tax since the money was taxed when you were paid? Is it "double taxation" when your paycheck is taxed since the company that pays you was ostensibly taxed on the revenue? Is it "double taxation" when a commercial organization is taxed on revenue since the people who paid for the goods or services were taxed at the point of sale? And is it quintuple taxation when you buy something from the company that employs you? According to that line of thinking, the only time a tax could be imposed without a "doubling" effect is at the initial loan from the Federal Reserve or possibly currency trading. And while it's true that taxes on these things as a deterrent to their practice would stabilize the world economy, it would also be such a deterrent (at the rates required to sustain a state of the magnitude of the United States of America) that these things would NEVER happen and hence the state would collapse, taking private property rights with it. Now, I'm not saying that's a particularly bad thing, but I think you might. However, I do hope that the state doesn't collapse and private property rights are not removed until a cultural adjustment has been made that brings the values of life, liberty, equality, and fraternity to the fore. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:30:55 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: The 7th wing on 1/29/03 1:52 PM, Maurer Rose, Inverse Nome at theyarenotlong@hotmail.com wrote: > > I can think of a very good place for a 7th wing... if fact I'm suprised > nobody(or maybe they have? Tom?) has made a porn movie about a winged penis? Huh? Wha? How'd I get dragged into this?? - -t "midget porn" c ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:45:23 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: The fucking idiot >> 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. >> When >> I see him incomprehensibly propose a tax break for SUV owners, try to >> start >> a war nobody else wants, declare that the US will not allow any other >> country to approach our military might, or nominate a rabidly anti-gay >> person to the federal HIV commission, the thought strikes me: I think >> he's >> trying to ignite the Apocalypse. 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? as a local cartoonist had it - "They searched Iraq for months, andll they found was some empty warheads. Didn't they know there's an empty war head in the white house?" >>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". to (mis)quote Mahatma Gandhi - "Christianity is a very good religion. It is a pity that so few Christians practice it." I'm imressed that the shrub can get Kay worked up enough to use the phrase "fucking idiot" seven times in one email :) >> 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. Brian and Jeff have said this, so I presume it's safe: "word". >i said at least two tax brackets, but three would probably be more workable. >the bottom 10-20% would pay 0%. so you advocate a flat tax with three different scales. ok... >um, no. A Yankee is someone from New England. People from NJ are not >Yankees. They may be Northerners, but Yankees they're not. if you wanna be really picky, Yankees were only the British settlers in New York. >And I think the fact that it makes Americans look defiant (or >something) on the world stage is supposed to be defiant. oh - is that how they're meant to look? To describe how they look from here, I'd have to appropriate a phrase from Kay... James PS - welcome back to both Cap. and Perry! PPS - Bush seems convinced that nuclear weapons should be kept out of the hands of 'rebel states'. Does that include Florida? James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:45:42 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: names and numbers >>Tom - Tom's Diner (several versions); Saint Tom (Brian Eno); > >Oh, come on, man...you can do MUCH better than that! > >Start with "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues," "Tom Violence" and "Tom >Traubert's Blues"...there are several other great candidates, too. > >"Tom Boy," "Tom Courtenay," "Tommy Can You Hear Me," "Tommy Gets His >Tonsils Out," "Tommy the Cat," "Tommy Gun"...even your local boy >Chris Knox has "Uncle Tom's Cabin".... true - I just found the first two I laid my eyes on and stopped. >> I might go with the Who's "1921" or the Stooges' "1969"? I think? > >I've always been a big fan of John Mayall's '2401', which used to be on >one of my favourite juke boxes, along with 'Mixed up confusion' and 'My >Sweet Lord'. Shona Laing's "1905" and Barbara Manning's "1212" are both possibles for me. But I think my favourite number title is probably Grant Hart's "2541". James 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: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:03:12 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: Shrub, "Christianity," and the moral sewer (delete now!) >Capuchin counterpointed: >Bullshit. I guess Drew got out, just in time. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:23:45 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: it's a wonder we can even feed ourselves On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, James Dignan wrote: > >i said at least two tax brackets, but three would probably be more workable. > >the bottom 10-20% would pay 0%. > so you advocate a flat tax with three different scales. ok... i use the term flat tax as an absolute percent based on personal income. but even more workable is a sliding scale that starts at 0 and works up to about 20, and there being essentailly no deductions. > if you wanna be really picky, Yankees were only the British settlers in New > York. without change what would there be? i think the boundary is closer now to north of the red river and east of the mississippi. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:16:53 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Camper Van article on the macing http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/article.asp?ArtID=5071 _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:10:28 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: ps (cars) >> 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. On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 04:43 PM, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > It might be misguided, and it might possibly be designed to forestall > such a > backlash, but it's also possible that such an attempt (I'm not judging > Bush's claims here, and it's probably clear by now I'm highly > skeptical of > the truth of anything that comes out of that man's chimp mouth) is in > fact > an attempt to ameliorate a bad situation, and hopes to wean Americans > (in > particular) away from their car addictions gradually. I don't think that this is anything more than an attempt by the Bush administration to blunt the calls for higher CAFE standards (and making them apply to SUVs). Fuel cell cars are clearly more than six years away, and guess who'll be out of office by then. - - Steve __________ I know that it's cynical, but I feel that civil liberties-for a lot of these people in Congress-are either an inconvenience or a campaign slogan. They care only about money and power. - Wil Wheaton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:46:50 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: ps On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > Or not - but the point is, you've gotta start somewhere. And there's > just no way that cars could be eliminated tout suite in one fell swoop > (I like cliches today). So better to make things better than fulminate > about how they're not perfect. I don't think anyone believes it's reasonable for cars to "be eliminated tout suite in one fell swoop". However, "cleaner" cars address only one tiny aspect of the destructive nature of car culture and totally ignore all the other damage. If you're going to spend billions in an attempt to decrease the damage caused by cars, a reduction in the NUMBER of cars would decrease the air pollution and also improve public health, tighten up the urban areas, decimate the suburbs, and increase community involvement. If you wanna "start somewhere" start with the cause, not one small symptom. Personally, I've come to believe that ecological damage is merely a side-effect of poor community involvement and a breakdown of democratic fora. When people care about their neighborhoods and communities, they care about other people and that concern translates into more respect for those alive and those to come. In other words, the more people are directly involved with each others' lives, the more they care about people and the planet. It doesn't take much time working with others before you realize the benefits of reason and empathy. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #35 *******************************