From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #36 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, January 30 2003 Volume 12 : Number 036 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: and taxes [steve ] Re: ps [steve ] Re: ps [Capuchin ] RE: ps ["FS Thomas" ] RE: ps [Marcy Tanter ] RE: ps [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: ps [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] RE: ps [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] RE: numbers with wings ["Terrence Marks" ] RE: ps [Capuchin ] Re: ps [steve ] RE: ps [Capuchin ] RE: ps [Capuchin ] Re: ps [Capuchin ] I heard raMomus sing... ["Terrence Marks" ] yay! [Jim Davies ] oxford encores [Jim Davies ] RE: ps ["FS Thomas" ] Re: ps [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:29:27 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: and taxes On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 01:37 PM, Jason Brown (Echo Services Inc) wrote: > Bushes proposed tax cuts won't do anything to help the economy its just > a bunch of supply side bullshit. I suspect that what is important to the Bush administration is the *appearance* of doing something about the economy. After all, economists of all stripes have pointed out that the largest part of their proposal, the elimination of the dividend tax, will have no stimulative effect. There is an honest argument for the elimination of this tax, which can be debated, but we won't hear it from the Bushies. What they're really about is slanting the tax system toward people who can play the capitalist game well. With this administration, the desired outcome always comes first, and they'll make up whatever lies and half-truths they need later. - - Steve __________ There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus.  What you've got is everythingand I mean everythingbeing run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. - John DiIulio, 2002 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:44:11 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: ps On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 09:46 PM, Capuchin wrote: > 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. This may be true, but the vast majority of Americans don't want to live in the kind of society implied by the above. Whether or not they suffer from false consciousness is open to debate. - - Steve __________ OS X is faster, smarter, prettier, and easier to use than any version of Windows. - Robert X. Cringely ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:24:18 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: ps On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, steve wrote: > This may be true, but the vast majority of Americans don't want to > live in the kind of society implied by the above. What "kind of society" do you think is "implied by the above"? How could you possibly claim to know what "the vast majority of Americans don't want"? Your statement belies a number of deep and unspoken assumptions that I don't think you have any reason to believe are shared by others. So much so, in fact, that it reads like an out-of-hand dismissal with not a shred of evidentiary rebuttal. > Whether or not they suffer from false consciousness is open to debate. I don't even know what you mean by that. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:07:50 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: ps - -----Original Message----- From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Capuchin How could you possibly claim to know what "the vast majority of Americans don't want"? - -----Original Message----- Relative security when they're on their home soil. Security, too, when they're on vacation. Something that's not guaranteed right now. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:40:58 -0600 From: Marcy Tanter Subject: RE: ps At 11:07 PM 1/29/2003 -0500, FS Thomas wrote: >Relative security when they're on their home soil. Security, too, when >they're on vacation. > >Something that's not guaranteed right now. > >- When are we EVER guaranteed security? Children are kidnapped from their beds with their parents sleeping down the hall, hotel rooms are broken into, planes come out of the sky into buildings, one of our local elementary schools had an incident last week when a convicted felon with a long rap sheet walked into the building through a back door and was caught rifling through a teacher's purse. Dropping bombs on Iraq, North Korea, anywhere won't guarantee anybody's safety. IF there are things that could harm us that get destroyed in the process, someone else somewhere else could build more. Hell, we've got tons of that crap in our own country--does that make us safe? Violence doesn't guarantee anything--anyone ever hear of the French Revolution? Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:43:56 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: ps Quoting Capuchin : > 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. Sure - but I was responding to your paragraph which almost sounded as if you were saying "don't improve cars, because that'll only encourage them." Saying that more efficient, cleaner cars is an improvement certainly doesn't preclude taking a larger look at the causes of the phenomenon. > 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. Probably so...and there can be little doubt that the erosion of any sense of community is at a low ebb (*two* b's). My theory is there's a strong correlation between the population density one prefers and both political orientation and paranoia: the righter and more paranoid one's politics, the more one wants to live in the middle of nowhere. (Generally. Of course there are exceptions.) Suburbia encourages the atomization of community, and pretends that selfishness is self-sufficiency when in fact it's most often blindness to each person's inextricable membership in a community. This is another version of Nagel's point re the socioeconomic structure. Cowboys did not ride alone. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: This album is dedicated to anyone who started out as an animal and :: winds up as a processing unit. :: --Soft Boys, note, _Can of Bees_ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:47:49 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: ps Quoting steve : > On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 09:46 PM, Capuchin wrote: > > > 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. > > > This may be true, but the vast majority of Americans don't want to live > in the kind of society implied by the above. I'm not sure what kind of society you mean...in that I don't think most Americans woul claim to favor more pollution, public health hazards, and apathy. I think you're referring to the urban/suburban thing...but until recently, people outside of a small handful of large urban centers weren't given much of a choice. It was either a boxed-in apartment in a congested city, or a steroid-enhanced McMansion in sprawlworld. Esp. in the relatively newer areas of the west, where anything older than 1940 is ancient, you don't have many other models. So we can't know what people want, since people can't want what they don't know exists. - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: PLEASE! You are sending cheese information to me. I don't want it. :: I have no goats or cows or any other milk producing animal! :: --"raus" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:54:29 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: ps > At 11:07 PM 1/29/2003 -0500, FS Thomas wrote: > >Relative security when they're on their home soil. Security, too, when > >they're on vacation. > > > >Something that's not guaranteed right now. As if it ever could be "guaranteed." But if you feel insecure on your "home soil" and on vacation, I've got a simple solution for you: Stop watching TV - particularly the news. The degree to which TV news exaggerates various threats is notorious...to the extent that there's a strong correlation between the fear people have of the outside world and how much TV they watch. I don't know where you live - but with very few exceptions (important government centers, perhaps), the odds that Al Qaeda or anyone else will strike you down in your sleep are vanishingly small. And where, exactly, do you want to vacation that you feel so threatened? And if you're threatened, is it because you're an American? All the more motivation to do what you can to stop policies that will only increase resentment of the US government, resentment which in rare cases boils over into resentment toward US nationals. (Of course, some of those Americans abroad are perfectly capable of stirring up personal resentment all by themselves...but that's another issue.) ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb :: --Batman ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:09:12 -0500 From: "Terrence Marks" Subject: RE: numbers with wings I'm more partial to the West Coast Pop Art Experimental String Band's "1906", Nilsson's "1941", or Tinkerbell's Fairydust's "2010" (or Cornelius' "20-10", both based on Bach's Minuet in G IIRC), or Ladytron's "Seventeen", but not much for Queen's "1939" or Nirvana's "1999". (Hmm...surprised nobody mentioned Robert Johnson's "32-20 Blues". Wonder if that counts. I think there was a law saying that all blues songs before WWII had to have the word "blues" in their name...) Terrence Marks http://nice.purrsia.com http://www.unlikeminerva.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org]On > Behalf Of The Great Quail > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 5:21 PM > To: Fegmaniax! > 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 21:49:08 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: ps On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, FS Thomas wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On > Behalf Of Capuchin > > How could you possibly claim to know what "the vast majority of > Americans > don't want"? > -----Original Message----- > > Relative security when they're on their home soil. Security, too, > when they're on vacation. > > Something that's not guaranteed right now. First, are you claiming that the vast majority of Americans don't want "relative security when they're on their home soil [and] security, too, when they're on vacation"? Second, I asked how a person (Steve, in particular) could possibly claim to know what the vast majority of American's don't want, not what other things people would like to claim they know about what the vast majority of American's don't want. Third, security can only be guaranteed by a nanny or shepard the like that ensures security by restricting freedom and controlling the environment. We all know what Benjamin Franklin said about this. I think he hit the nail on the head. Last, I think the Golden Rule applies very well here. If you want to feel relatively sure that you're not going to be the victim of a bombing or your air's not going to be unbreathably polluted or you and your loved ones are not going to be hauled off by the Secret Police, you must FIRST stop supporting bombing, polluting, and the Secret Police. Security is not bought or imposed, it comes about only by consensus. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:30:09 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: ps On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 10:24 PM, Capuchin wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, steve wrote: >> This may be true, but the vast majority of Americans don't want to >> live in the kind of society implied by the above. > > What "kind of society" do you think is "implied by the above"? One with fewer autos and detached single-family homes in the suburbs. And with a polity that does not currently exist. > How could you possibly claim to know what "the vast majority of > Americans > don't want"? Observation, education, intuition. The same way I made my prediction about the 2000 election. Suburbs developed just as soon as there were *trains* to take people out of the city. Of course, it was was the upper class that could afford it then. > Your statement belies a number of deep and unspoken assumptions that I > don't think you have any reason to believe are shared by others. So > much > so, in fact, that it reads like an out-of-hand dismissal with not a > shred > of evidentiary rebuttal. Describe your desired outcome to people and ask them if they are willing to give up their car and single-family detached home in exchange. I figure you'd get no more than 20 percent takers. >> Whether or not they suffer from false consciousness is open to debate. > > I don't even know what you mean by that. false consciousness - Any belief, idea, ideology, etc., that interferes with an exploited and oppressed person or group being able to perceive the objective nature and source of their oppression. - - Steve __________ The United States is exploring the development of a 'space-bomber' which could destroy targets on the other side of the world within 30 minutes. - Ed Vulliamy, The Observer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:00:12 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: ps On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Marcy Tanter wrote: > When are we EVER guaranteed security? Again, I don't think security can be guaranteed. Secure is something you feel, not something you ARE. I also think that fear is sort of an excuse for certain types of crime and other disrespectful behavior. People believe that, since they are going to be untrusted and feared anyway, they may as well take advantage of situations and people. If friendship and trust must be "earned", then a stranger has nothing to lose by hurting you. However, if all strangers are treated with trust, friendship, and respect, then they do have something to lose. > Children are kidnapped from their beds with their parents sleeping > down the hall, hotel rooms are broken into, planes come out of the sky > into buildings, one of our local elementary schools had an incident > last week when a convicted felon with a long rap sheet walked into the > building through a back door and was caught rifling through a > teacher's purse. Goodness gracious! Someone was looking into a purse?!? Phew, I hope you put some pretty good bars up on the school, then. Maybe surround the place in razor wire. Sheesh, if every state just adopted Texas' policies, we wouldn't have this problem as all convicted felons would just be dead! Sarcasm aside, I think we should remember that the most serious threats to the life and health of each person in this list are our own lifestyles. How do most people die or even get seriously injured? Mostly it's cars, diet, and pollution. > Dropping bombs on Iraq, North Korea, anywhere won't guarantee > anybody's safety. Well, it absolutely guarantees that the people of Iraq, North Korea or wherver else will NOT be safe. > IF there are things that could harm us that get destroyed in the > process, someone else somewhere else could build more. There's also the false and unspoken "it's us or them" doctrine that isn't being brought to the table for examination. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:15:41 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: ps On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > Quoting Capuchin : > > If you wanna "start somewhere" start with the cause, not one small > > symptom. > > Sure - but I was responding to your paragraph which almost sounded as > if you were saying "don't improve cars, because that'll only encourage > them." Saying that more efficient, cleaner cars is an improvement > certainly doesn't preclude taking a larger look at the causes of the > phenomenon. I don't think "cleaner" cars (I quote the word because there's nothing clean about miles of wide pavement, auto accidents, tire depots, or the other effluent of car culture outside petrol exhaust) IMPROVE the situation at all. The whole gambit is just an attempt to avoid the question of whether or not cars are the right way to deal with transportation. There are people who will be (and have been) led to believe that cars that do not pollute at the exhaust pipe aren't destructive to society (or even the planet). It's like saying cigarettes are not harmful if they have biodegradable filters. It doesn't address the real problem at all. > > 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. > > Probably so...and there can be little doubt that the erosion of any > sense of community is at a low ebb (*two* b's). Huh? Erosion is only at a low because there's almost nothing left to erode. Anyway, the problem needs to be addressed, not just the side-effects. > My theory is there's a strong correlation between the population > density one prefers and both political orientation and paranoia: the > righter and more paranoid one's politics, the more one wants to live > in the middle of nowhere. Well, for paranoia, that's pretty much required by the definition. The nature of authoritarianism leads to the belief that some people are inherently better than others and THAT leads to segregation. Combine that with egotism and you have clans of one that believe they are superior and do not need to associate with the "unwashed masses" or whatever. But I don't think it's a truism. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:26:46 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: ps On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, steve wrote: > On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 10:24 PM, Capuchin wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, steve wrote: > >> This may be true, but the vast majority of Americans don't want to > >> live in the kind of society implied by the above. > > What "kind of society" do you think is "implied by the above"? > > One with fewer autos and detached single-family homes in the suburbs. > And with a polity that does not currently exist. Well, that was all explicitly stated. What was implied? > > How could you possibly claim to know what "the vast majority of > > Americans don't want"? > > Observation, education, intuition. The same way I made my prediction > about the 2000 election. Well, that was over two years ago. Talk about resting on one's laurels. > Suburbs developed just as soon as there were *trains* to take people > out of the city. Of course, it was was the upper class that could > afford it then. Huh? Suburbs developed just as soon as there was *integration* in the cities that prevented people from ignoring folks in the slums so they had to move far enough away to avoid interacting with the people they exploited for their wealth. > > Your statement belies a number of deep and unspoken assumptions that I > > don't think you have any reason to believe are shared by others. So > > much so, in fact, that it reads like an out-of-hand dismissal with not > > a shred of evidentiary rebuttal. > > Describe your desired outcome to people and ask them if they are > willing to give up their car and single-family detached home in > exchange. I figure you'd get no more than 20 percent takers. Who said anything about giving up single-family detached homes? My neighborhood is at least 80% single-family detached homes, but you don't need a car to get around on a daily basis. Again, I think you've got all kinds of unstated assumptions about what it means to live car-free that probably aren't totally valid. > >> Whether or not they suffer from false consciousness is open to debate. > > I don't even know what you mean by that. > > false consciousness - Any belief, idea, ideology, etc., that > interferes with an exploited and oppressed person or group being able > to perceive the objective nature and source of their oppression. Ah, well, I think the term is rather condescending. I'm not about to go judging the value of a persons CONSCIOUSNESS, for goodness' sake. I will say that the greatest victory of oppressors in the modern age has been in their ability to sell the public on ideologies that obscure or ignore the sources of oppression. But I wouldn't say that's "false"... merely unenlightened. (By the way, I'm probably totally unenlightened when it comes to those things which oppress ME, for the most part. I don't have debt, an employer, a car, or any of that shit that keeps most people down. However, I do have a landlord and I know damned well what kind of oppression his usuring ass reigns down on me. So, in that one small way, I guess I can say I'm enlightened.) J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:10:13 -0500 From: "Terrence Marks" Subject: I heard raMomus sing... Actually went and listened to a Momus album (20 Vodka Jellies). His voice reminds me very very much of Donovan. I know it's a b-side/rarities comp, which usually means that the songs are very interesting and distinct to the artist's fans and very disorienting and samey to everybody else. Not sure if I like it or not. I may be more inclined to try and pick up albums by some of the Japanese singers he's worked with. I'm not sure if I'll like it or not, but it's on my "worth looking into" category. Recommendations: Leadbelly - by far the most accessible prewar blues singer. One of the few that my modern ears can decipher. I've got a big pile of Alan Lomax recordings that need listening to. I'm sure most people here are familiar with Lomax. For those who aren't, I strongly suggest looking into his recordings of American Blues. Rainbow Ffolly "Sallies Fforth" - Yet another Kinks/Beatles bit of pleasant British pop. Todd Rundgren's "A Wizard A True Star" - which I cannot think of an intelligent thing to say about. Pentangle - I've always considered them, not Fairport Convention, the top tier of British folk. Guckenheim Sour Kraut Band - I'm not sure if this is closer to Andre Popp or Spike Jones. Traditional German songs. It's one of those things where you know they're deliberately out of tune because it's always the same sort of dissonance and where they're off beat because the band all slows down at the same time. Insect Trust - Starts off as blues/folk. Then it freaks out. Recommended to anybody who likes Jefferson Airplane for the same reasons. Super Smash Bros. by the New Japan Philharmonic Orchestra - There's nothing like a horn fanfare performing the original Legend of Zelda theme. And they do some amazing things with the music from the Starfox and Kirby series. And in the miscadelic category, Earth Opera, Group 1850, Giles Giles & Fripp, The New Breed (who managed to do a decent version of "Pretty Woman" that sounds moderately original. Roy Orbison, Bob Dylan, and Bo Diddley aren't the hardest acts to cover, but they attract more than their share of weak covers). And Dantalion's Chariot who, along with Silver Apples, fall into this odd category where I don't really like the music but want to listen to it anyhow. Unrelatedly, I picked up a video card a few months back. Had DVD software which I ignored, having no use for. Now just this weekend I picked up a DVD drive because they were going for extra-cheap. Now I can't find the software for it. Is there any worthwhile DVD software that can be had for free? Terrence Marks http://nice.purrsia.com http://www.unlikeminerva.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:44:45 GMT From: Jim Davies Subject: yay! Not only is the FTSE index up 44 points, but the Feg Times Sense Exchange index just went up as well. There is hope for the tech sector. Jeme has returned. x ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:59:02 GMT From: Jim Davies Subject: oxford encores First off, don't read too much into the numbers. Oxford's a strange town, gig-wise. First Monday of Hilary Term. Secondly, despite the cold, there was a fair amount of enthusiasm. But only Jenny and some bloke dancing. And me, for a while, but you couldn't really call that dancing. Unless you wanted to point. Everyone I talked to loved it. Absolutely loved it. I would have driven over to Cambridge but for the fact that Ellie hasn't seen me for a while, and I seem to be coming down with the usual post air-travel flu. Yeah, I know I should take stuff beforehand, but I never do. That said, if they play Oxford again, I might have to come out of retirement and help with the publicity. (Back when I was 24, me and Mike and Richard used to run the place that is now the Zodiac. The fire limit, incidentally, was 200. Back then. Could be a little more now.) x ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 06:21:34 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: ps - -----Original Message----- From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org On Behalf Of steve Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:30 AM >> What "kind of society" do you think is "implied by the above"? > > One with fewer autos and detached single-family homes in the suburbs. Jimminy Christmas! What *is* the Utopian ideal you're shooting for? A Fritz Lang inspired universe where everyone lives in tower blocks? An entirely urban population? Metropolis? One piece of sub-text in the phrase 'Land of Opportunity' is the opportunity to live outside of the cities. - -ferris. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:46:54 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: ps Quoting Capuchin : > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, steve wrote: > > Suburbs developed just as soon as there were *trains* to take people > > out of the city. Of course, it was was the upper class that could > > afford it then. > > Huh? Suburbs developed just as soon as there was *integration* in the > cities that prevented people from ignoring folks in the slums so they > had > to move far enough away to avoid interacting with the people they > exploited for their wealth. Hmm...you're both right, to an extent. The original impetus behind suburbanization, say in the late 19th century, had much to do with anti-urban feeling, a move away from manufacturing centers and their noise and pollution (since those things were located *in* cities then) and to the country with its supposed purer lifestyle and clean air. But it's also true that this coincides with an influx of immigrants, and that while for a short time cities had the white and wealthy living in close proximity to poor, often immigrant or black workers, that period was vanishingly short - because the white and wealthy moved to the newly developing suburbs as soon as they could afford it. The post-WWII, auto-driven move toward suburbia, however, was pretty purely racist-driven - as was the accompanying, and ongoing, defunding of cities and funding of suburbia (not least in the massive subsidization still given to all things automotive: anyone who thinks mass transit doesn't pay for itself is...well, correct - but *no* form of transportation pays for itself. Auto transit is just much more heavily subsidized, so its costs seem invisible to most people). ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: I feel that all movies should have things that happen in them :: --TV's Frank ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #36 *******************************