From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #63 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, February 21 2003 Volume 12 : Number 063 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: anti-war movement [steve ] Re: anti-war movement ["FS Thomas" ] Re: anti-war movement [Michael R Godwin ] More fires ["FS Thomas" ] RE: More fires ["FS Thomas" ] Re: anti-war movement [Miles Goosens ] Re: More fires [Ken Weingold ] Re: anti-war movement ["FS Thomas" ] Re: anti-war movement [The Great Quail ] Re: anti-war movement [Marcy Tanter ] RE: anti-war movement ["Timothy Reed" ] Re: anti-war movement [Christopher Gross ] Re: anti-war movement [The Great Quail ] Thoughts on Iraq [The Great Quail ] Re: Thoughts on Iraq ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: anti-war movement [Miles Goosens ] reap [Eb ] Re: reap ["FS Thomas" ] Re: reap [Eb ] A slight apology ["Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: anti-war movement On Friday, February 21, 2003, at 03:39 AM, matt sewell wrote: > the Rt Hon Member for Texas, T. Blair... Can we please swap Mr. Blair for the current governor? - - 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: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:49:55 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: Re: anti-war movement - ----- Original Message ----- Steve posed: > I like the argument that the Soviet economy had reached the end stage > of it's development and had nowhere to go but down. It puts the effect > of outside forces in better perspective. I don't think there's been a successful communist-run nation yet, has there? With a booming economy? (Question posed to no one in particular) - -ferris. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:56:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: anti-war movement > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat wrote: > > Wow, that's amazingly cynical, implying that the only reason France could > > be against this war is because they are "with the enemy", so to speak. > > Sure, France must be with the bad guys. That's it. Being, say, SANE, or NOT > > RULED BY GREED, or NOT FOOLED BY LYING AMERICAN LEADERS couldn't possibly > > have anything to do with it! Is it worth pointing out that the British government was happily (if clandestinely) supplying arms to Iraq in the eighties, at the same time as the French were supplying nuclear power stations? I remember a seminar on public finance given by an Iraqi professor about 15 years ago, in which none of us could understand how the country's income was so large. After some discussion, it emerged that the rich Arab states were donating huge sums to Iraq in the hope that Saddam would win the war against Iran and depose the mad ayatollahs. This article aslo suggests US government took the same view as the Brits, the French and the oil sheikhs, providing military intelligence and supplying the wherewithal to make poison gas. Come to think of it, wasn't Rumsfeld quite pally with Saddam in the eighties? And weren't the Bushes allied to the bin Ladens in Carlyle in those days? Sometimes I think that this looks like a family feud between people using armies instead of popguns... - - Mike Godwin n.p. John Fahey, Death of the Clayton Peacock ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:07:58 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: More fires From CNN: NEW YORK (AP) -- Fire broke out at an oil refinery on the edge of Staten Island, sending black smoke and flames hundreds of feet into the air over New York Harbor. It wasn't immediately clear how the fire started. It was reported shortly after 10 a.m., according to a spokeswoman for the New York Fire Department. No further information was immediately available. F S Thomas ferris@ochremedia.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:08:51 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: More fires "The explosion and fire, in the waterway known as Arthur Kill between Staten Island and New Jersey, sent huge clouds of black smoke and flames into the sky that could be seen from Manhattan." - ----- Original Message ----- From: "FS Thomas" To: "The Oracle" Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:07 Subject: More fires > From CNN: > > NEW YORK (AP) -- Fire broke out at an oil refinery on the edge of Staten > Island, sending black smoke and flames hundreds of feet into the air over > New York Harbor. > > It wasn't immediately clear how the fire started. It was reported shortly > after 10 a.m., according to a spokeswoman for the New York Fire Department. > > No further information was immediately available. > > F S Thomas > ferris@ochremedia.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:16:38 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: anti-war movement At 09:49 AM 2/21/2003 -0500, FS Thomas wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >Steve posed: > >> I like the argument that the Soviet economy had reached the end stage >> of it's development and had nowhere to go but down. It puts the effect >> of outside forces in better perspective. > >I don't think there's been a successful communist-run nation yet, has there? >With a booming economy? > >(Question posed to no one in particular) Well, of course one of the obstacles that "communist-run" nations seem to have to face is being cut off from the world's largest economy and most of the other large economies, with that blockade enforced by by that country's powerful military and the military forces of its allies, so I think that's got at least a little something to do with it. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:14:49 -0500 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: More fires On Fri, Feb 21, 2003, FS Thomas wrote: > "The explosion and fire, in the waterway known as Arthur Kill between Staten > Island and New Jersey, sent huge clouds of black smoke and flames into the > sky that could be seen from Manhattan." Yeah, we tried to see it from work, but just saw what looked more like a dark cloud between two buildings. And I work at the bottom tip of Manhattan. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:20:06 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: Re: anti-war movement > Well, of course one of the obstacles that "communist-run" nations > seem to have to face is being cut off from the world's largest > economy and most of the other large economies, with that blockade > enforced by by that country's powerful military and the military > forces of its allies, so I think that's got at least a little something to > do with it. I can't help to think that they crash by design, though. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:32:48 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: anti-war movement Michael rants, > Wow, that's amazingly cynical, implying that the only reason France could > be against this war is because they are "with the enemy", so to speak. > Sure, France must be with the bad guys. That's it. Being, say, SANE, or NOT > RULED BY GREED, or NOT FOOLED BY LYING AMERICAN LEADERS couldn't possibly > have anything to do with it! Can you possibly step aside from your rabid America-bashing for long enough to really examine France's Middle Eastern policy, from the colonial period to the present day? They have behaved no differently than American governments; and at times, such as in Lebanon, even more reprehensibly. I invite you to do a little research on who they supported and didn't support in the last few decades, to whom they have sold weapons and nuclear materials, and finally, where they have numerous oil contracts. But of course, the French must be always sane, and not ruled by greed. Naturally, from the time of the Kings through Napoleon to their colonial activities in Africa and Vietnam, all the way up to their massive oil and weapons contracts in the Middle East. Let's see, France and Russia are two of Iraq's biggest clients, and -- ho ho! -- they are against the war? Go figure! But of course, the United States has a monopoly on evil, greed, and political mendacity. Man, the knee-jerk ranting that passes for political commentary on this list is all too typical of why the left has nearly rendered themselves impotent. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:48:35 -0600 From: Marcy Tanter Subject: Re: anti-war movement I haven't really been keeping up with this thread (I have to grade papers sometime!) but it seems to me that one must bear in mind that France was the most ravaged country during both of world wars and they have a little perspective on what war does to a nation and what the implications could be for nations who support an offensive on Iraq. Foreign policy aside, there are humanitarian issues involved that the US gov't doesn't care about, as George Bush so eloquently noted the other day when he said that he doesn't care about the peace rallies held around the world last weekend, if he wants to bomb Iraq he will. Attacking Iraq is not equivalent to deposing Hussein from power, a lot of people will be killed, including Americans both there involved in the fight and around the world. No one should kid themselves into believing that if we attack Iraq no one is going to attack us somewhere. Once we strike Iraq, anything could happen. Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:49:18 -0500 From: "Timothy Reed" Subject: RE: anti-war movement > From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org > [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of matt sewell > I expect that someone's already pointed out that war didn't > end communism, haven't they? Not unless you count the cold war which arguably had a direct hand. Tim ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:58:17 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: anti-war movement On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Miles Goosens wrote: > >I don't think there's been a successful communist-run nation yet, has there? > >With a booming economy? > > > >(Question posed to no one in particular) > > Well, of course one of the obstacles that "communist-run" nations seem > to have to face is being cut off from the world's largest economy and > most of the other large economies, with that blockade enforced by by > that country's powerful military and the military forces of its > allies, so I think that's got at least a little something to do with > it. I don't recall the US ever *blockading* any Communist country for any extended period. The closest thing is our *embargo* (different thing from a blockade) of Cuba, which has hampered, but not eliminated, their foreign trade. ISTR that we did once embargo trade with the USSR, but that was only for a few years early in the Bolshevik regime, and did not have the same effect on trade with third countries that the Cuban embargo has. The Soviets made a lot of money selling the West grain in the 1930s (despite domestic famine!) and oil in the 1970s, and there were more than a few Yugos on American streets in the 1980s. And I think countries where a Communist party had a quite explicit, openly acknowledged, legally enshrined monopoly on political power can be called Communist-run without the scare quotes. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:23:06 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: anti-war movement Marcy writes, > I haven't really been keeping up with this thread (I have to grade papers > sometime!) but it seems to me that one must bear in mind that France was > the most ravaged country during both of world wars and they have a little > perspective on what war does to a nation and what the implications could be > for nations who support an offensive on Iraq. This is utterly irrelevant. If anything, it should serve them as a reminder what an unchecked and expansive regime can do to their neighbors. >Foreign policy aside, there > are humanitarian issues involved that the US gov't doesn't care about, as > George Bush so eloquently noted the other day when he said that he doesn't > care about the peace rallies held around the world last weekend, if he > wants to bomb Iraq he will. That's not a humanitarian issue, that's just typical Bushian arrogance. >Attacking Iraq is not equivalent to deposing > Hussein from power, Yes, it is, this time. > a lot of people will be killed, including Americans > both there involved in the fight and around the world. Citing the fact that people will be killed is not an argument for or against war; it is a defining aspect of war. The real question is, "Are the goals of victory worth the projected loss of life?" >No one should kid > themselves into believing that if we attack Iraq no one is going to attack > us somewhere. Once we strike Iraq, anything could happen. Marcy, I hate to tell you this, but the Islamic fundamentalists are going to attack us whether or not we invade Iraq. While this invasion will be used as more fuel for the fire, it has been burning for a while now, and there's a reasonable argument that deposing Hussein might, in the long run, even ameliorate terrorism. See my "Thoughts on Iraq" for a more wordy discussion of this. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:22:30 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Thoughts on Iraq Actually, I have been struggling with this whole Iraq issue, and I have to say, I feel very conflicted. While I mistrust the Bushies, there are several valid reasons I feel that a war against Hussein's regime is more desirable than containment. The government of Saddam Hussein is a tyrannical, evil regime -- truly one of the most murderous and repressive on the planet. In my heart, which is conveniently located in a body conveniently located in an armchair, I would love to see us wade in there like the wrath of God and yank up his poisonous plant by the roots. I have always been more of an interventionist. You see your neighbor beating his wife and kids, you step in. But of course, the problem is, it's easy for me to say that -- the fact is, I won't be the one doing the actual intervention. Not being in the armed services makes me feel somewhat of a hypocrite; though this is tempered by two additional facts: our current military is voluntary, and as a US citizen I have a responsibility to care where we commit our troops. And, yes, I do believe we have a moral obligation here in Iraq, despite our own hypocrisies. (I am nauseated at the way we prop up tyrannical regimes in the first place.) War is loathsome, but I am not a pacifist. In this case, war probably a better solution than the horrible sanctions and this interminable waiting game, where we bomb Hussein on-and-off while his people suffer under our sanctions and his ruthless rule. Though it has obvious tones of propaganda, this account by an Iraqi exile makes an arguable moral case for liberating the Iraqi people: http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030210&s=alsuwaij021003 Secondly, to address inspections, the holy grail of the UN and most US liberals. I do not believe inspections will work without the immediate threat of overwhelming violence. I believe that anyone who "trusts" either the effete and compromised UN or Hussein himself is hopelessly naove. The UN is a joke, and the inspections are the punchline. Of course, they may be a necessary joke to tell, as credibility and allies are two nice things to have. But they haven't worked in the past, and they are not working now. Thirdly, related to the above, I am afraid of what Hussein would do with a nuke. There's little doubt in my mind that he would aid any enemy of the U.S. without hesitation. He is wealthy and canny, this attack-dog we helped create. Now, just how close he is to having a nuke, I don't know. All I have is mediated information, which is naturally biased and untrustworthy. But I certainly believe in his dangerous *intentions,* and it's hard to ignore the claims of many defectors. Pollack makes some good points in today's NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/opinion/21POLL.html Finally, I do believe that if we had the staying power to really make an honest attempt at "nation-building," within a generation or so a democratic Iraq could change the face of the Middle East for the better. And, yes, I am aware of the whiff of Imperialism in my views. This concerns me less than the fact that I do not trust the Bushies to follow through -- more on that below. So, looks like on the surface, I'm for the war. But yet, I feel very conflicted. Why? The problems for me are context and aftermath. First, there are numerous other unjust and murderous regimes out there; so why particularly this one? Well, of course oil is a major player, whether directly or indirectly, such as if Saddam Hussein becomes a bigger threat to Saudi Arabia. Granted, this certainly falls under the category of "national interest," but that interest itself is complicated by Big Oil Money and an apathetic SUV-happy nation. Like France, Russia, and everyone else, our leaders are untrustworthy, because they are financially self-interested. While I am not so naove as to think we would commit such a number of troops with no other interest than liberating people from oppression, the presence of oil makes me nervous. That kind of wealth changes everything. Secondly, the war has to be placed in the context of Bush's administration, which turns a blind eye to the Saudis -- a more "natural" enemy, in many ways -- and offers nearly unconditional support for Ariel Sharon. (These are typical of American politics in general, not just Bush.) We behave like a bully in this region, we support Israeli almost unconditionally, and our current plans for Iraq are not helping our image. I think we need an entirely different approach to the Middle East; but given Big Oil, the Israeli lobby, and the incessant beating of Bush's war drums, this is probably a fantasy. Also, what about bin Laden and his madmen? Is mucking about with Hussein is a distraction, more bread and circuses to detract from the failures of the Afghanistan campaign? While I don't place an all-consuming value on this, and of course Hussein would naturally help bin Laden, it is still something to consider. And finally, and *most importantly,* no one has yet been able to state a clear and coherent plan for rebuilding Iraq after the Baath regime is broken. Our record hasn't been so good lately in follow-up or nation-building, and some of Bush's plans look like a recipe for trouble -- wham, bam, thank you ma'am, and we are out of there. It's ludicrous to believe that Iraq would be a better place unless we plan to invest much "blood and treasure" over many years. But of course, the Bushies will probably sell out the Kurds and screw over the Iraqi people yet again. Again, a good piece in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/opinion/21KRUG.html So there's the rub -- while morally I would like to see us help out Iraq by ridding them of this dictatorship, I know that we are not doing it for the right reasons, nor would it play out in the context of a more justifiable and sane Middle-East policy. And of course, what happens after the war? So I have very ambivalent feelings about this war -- I hate Bush and his cronies; I hate them with a passion. Though I think some good may eventually come of defeating Hussein, I suspect that only greater evil will eventually emerge. In other words: right war, wrong reasons, disastrous aftermath. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:41:10 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Iraq At 12:22 PM 2/21/2003 -0500, The Great Quail wrote: >I do not believe inspections will work without the immediate >threat of overwhelming violence. I might agree with this, if the message coming out of the White House really seemed to be something like "comply with the inspections, or we're going to blow the fuck out of your country." But instead, intentional or not, the administration seems to be saying "despite whatever the inspectors find or don't find, we're going to blow the fuck out of your country either way, because we view you as a threat/want your oil/suspect you're hiding weapons anyway/whatever." Too much of a threat could actually hinder the inspection process; if Iraq believes they're going to be attacked regardless, what motivation are they going to have to comply? They may even be more likely not to comply, because they're going to think they'll need those weapons to defend themselves when the US eventually, inevitably invades. On a more amusing note, here I am at the grassy knoll: http://ugr8.ucsd.edu/jasonweb/thornton2.jpg - --Jason "Pearl Harbor was a 'pre-emptive strike'" Thornton "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:08:05 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: anti-war movement At 11:58 AM 2/21/2003 -0500, Christopher Gross wrote: > >I don't recall the US ever *blockading* any Communist country for any >extended period. The closest thing is our *embargo* (different thing from >a blockade) of Cuba, which has hampered, but not eliminated, their foreign >trade. ISTR that we did once embargo trade with the USSR, but that was >only for a few years early in the Bolshevik regime, and did not have the >same effect on trade with third countries that the Cuban embargo has. >The Soviets made a lot of money selling the West grain in the 1930s >(despite domestic famine!) and oil in the 1970s, and there were more than >a few Yugos on American streets in the 1980s. While I always appreciate Chris' correctives and level-headedness in debate, this list sometimes reminds me of the things I hated about grad school, one of them being that you couldn't have a friggin' casual conversation without defining every word in a goddamned sentence. And in turn, I'm reminded why I don't post more often here. Thankfully, this happens more in the political/history threads than in the music ones. Regardless of "blockade/embargo" semantics, I don't think it's too much to say that despite the prominent exceptions Chris cites above, the US has worked to hamper the trade and prosperity of every ostensibly Communist (see below for more on that word) regime. Am I saying it's the only factor in those countries' failure to produce viable economies? No, but I think it's one of many important factors, and with Cuba, it's perhaps the major factor. >And I think countries where a Communist party had a quite explicit, openly >acknowledged, legally enshrined monopoly on political power can be called >Communist-run without the scare quotes. "Scare quotes?" Huh? Never heard that term before. Anyway, I used quotes because "Communist" (or lower-case "communist") can mean any number of things, and even though I didn't include a full-blown definition of what it means to me specifically, I feel better putting quotes around the word than letting it stand all Capital C Definitive, Dogmatic And Proud, As Though We All Agree On What It Means. However, you just defined pretty neatly what I think "Communist" means in this discussion, so OK, cool. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:43:07 -0800 From: Eb Subject: reap Half of Great White's fanbase. Bad, Ebby...bad! Never mind. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:46:08 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: Re: reap - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eb" To: "fgz" Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 13:43 Subject: reap > Half of Great White's fanbase. > > Bad, Ebby...bad! Never mind. > > Eb OUCH! Any news on their guitarist? Has he turned up? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:01:52 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: reap >Any news on their guitarist? Has he turned up? Not that I know of. I was online last night, and saw a brief mention of the fire in a newsgroup. Turned on CNN, and they were saying at least 10 dead. After watching CNN for about 20 minutes and getting no information beyond what was in the "crawl," I switched to Fox News, who *completely* kicked CNN's ass. They were already showing the club footage, etc. The death toll went to 24, then 25, then 26...39 by the time I went to bed. Got up, and it was 65...then 75.... 75 dead, and 160something in the hospital. And a club capacity of 300. There's still an ugly hole in that math. That's the same size club which I usually attend...brrrr. Hard to imagine going to a rock concert, and having a 75% chance of returning alive. The Who's Cincinnati gig is strictly second-fiddle, now. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:05:14 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: A slight apology After my outburst yesterday, somebody contacted me off list, very gently defending Ferris. I thought about it a while and thought maybe I'd offer a slight apology to the list. Actually I usually don't get pissed at someone who I haven't already taken notice of as a bit of a troll, and I knew Ferris wasn't someone I thought of that way. I felt a little bad about it afterwards, too... I don't usually jump the gun like that. I've had a pretty low boiling point lately; I don't usually let the kettle boil over so quickly, and I especially try to keep it out of my online life. Mostly I save it up for my friends and loved ones :-) That's a joke. I've un-killfiled Ferris, but seeing as how I'm at a point in life where I get set off really easily, for a while I'm just gonna killfile Fegmaniax posts that contain any of the strings "Iraq", "protest", "bush", "war ", "weapons", "terroris", "reagan" "Clinton" "Marx" "Communis" "politic" "movement" "destruction" (unless they contain any of "RH" "Robyn" "Hitchcock" "Soft Boys" "Egyptians". Thank heavens for Bayesian filtering.) 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: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:06:28 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: fame awaits... At 8:47 PM -0600 2/20/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey" and whispered: >http://www.scenario.com/people/hello/001071.html > >Someone is apparently impressed with one of my .sig files...which came from >a member of this very list! The "Entrances To Hell" link was posted on this list as well... somebody is watching us... At 5:43 PM -0800 2/20/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "Rex.Broome" and whispered: >Jeff D: >>>"Hey! You've got penis on my record sleeves!" >>>"Oh yeah? You've got record sleeves on my penis!" > >What's really funny is that you ommitted the inevitable next line: "Tastes >great!" ROFLMAO! Thank you. >_________ > >MEKWAPH: >Hey, you're not wearing a pointy hat in that photo! I get asked this all the time. The pointy hat is a metaphorical burden. >But you can retain the initials... "Michael E. Kupietz, waving a >political..." ummm... what starts with H and means "slogan" or something >like that? "Hieroglyph" just won't cut it, will it? "with a political hairstyle". Strictly in the interests of staying metaphorical. At 8:46 AM -0500 2/21/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "Jonathan Fetter" and whispered: >Never liked the covers for "Warchild" and "A" either. I do, however, >highly esteem the covers for "Minstrel in the Gallery" and "Thick as a >Brick." I'm right with you on those. I actually have something of a soft spot for the cover for "Too Old To Rock 'n' Roll: Too Young To Die", mostly as a spoof of the sort of thing some other bands would do quite (over)seriously. I've always wanted to name a band "Spoke Norton And The Wheelies". >"J-Tulldotcom" just slipped right by me. What was Ian thinking? It >looks like Tull has finally achieved their own "Smell the Glove," if you >can call that an achievement. So is the music as bad as the concept? >Jon No, the music isn't bad at all. Not great at all, but not bad. Mostly fairly straight-ahead pop. After listening to this album, I had to finally admit to myself that Tull hasn't done the things I fell in love with them for in 20 years. That said, I do give J-Tull.com a spin every once in a while, it's an ok album. t 9:04 AM -0500 2/21/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "FS Thomas" and whispered: >----- Original Message ----- >Jonathan Fetter exclaimed: > >> Never liked the covers for "Warchild" and "A" either. I do, however, >> highly esteem the covers for "Minstrel in the Gallery" and "Thick as a >> Brick." > >"A" is such a classically wretched design! Tres, tres 80s (though only >hitting the skids in 1980 proper!) I wish I could've found a scan of the >inside artwork, but for the un-initiated, here's the cover : >http://remus.rutgers.edu/JethroTull/Photos/a.jpg My favorite cheezy thing about the "A" cover is the photo on the back cover of them bolting out of the "Avionics" building like there's some sort of emergency... "Avionics" is flight simulation. It's like, "Quick! Evacuate the flight simulators! They've been been hijacked by simulated terrorists! Everybody out!" You can tell they just thought it looked cool or something, but it's totally cheezy. At 9:16 AM -0500 2/21/03, Jonathan Fetter wrote: >> "A" is such a classically wretched design! Tres, tres 80s (though only >> hitting the skids in 1980 proper!) I wish I could've found a scan of >the >> inside artwork, but for the un-initiated, here's the cover : >> http://remus.rutgers.edu/JethroTull/Photos/a.jpg > >Maybe somebody knows the answer to this, but what is the box of golf >tees in front of Ian doing on an air-traffic controller's desk? What? How dare you! How come nobody asks these questions about "The Prisoner"? :-) MK (w/a PH) - -- ======== 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 ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #63 *******************************