From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #76 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, February 27 2003 Volume 12 : Number 076 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: Impending REAP - BVTS ["Jason Brown \(Echo Services Inc\)" ] I repent. ["Natalie Jane" ] Re: I repent. [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Fwd: Hitchcock published [noam tchotchke ] Re: Come & have a go if you think you're hard enough [Jeffrey with 2 Fs J] Re: Re: Come & have a go if you think you're hard enough ["Stewart C. Rus] RE: Fwd: Hitchcock published ["scott clark" ] Re: Fwd: Hitchcock published ["Kenneth Johnson" ] You'll Have To Let The Old Moose Go [Christopher Gross ] Sloganistic ["Rex.Broome" ] RE: Sloganistic [Catherine Simpson ] Re: Come & have a go if you think you're hard enough [Eb ] RE: Impending REAP - B*T*VS [Miles Goosens ] RE: Come & have a go if you think you're hard enough ["Terrence Marks" ] Re: You'll Have To Let The Old World Go [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dig] Re: anti-war songs [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:48:57 -0800 From: "Jason Brown \(Echo Services Inc\)" Subject: RE: Impending REAP - BVTS Sumiko Keay: > We've had some excellent episodes this season - - this week's was > definitely one of them. But it is a good idea to watch the episodes in > order (I'm sure that you can get them through NetFlix). I agree there have been some excellent episodes this season for sure but also to lame and repetitive ones. But the last couple seasons I felt sorta uninspired at this point of the season and they really turned it around by the end and I loved them. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:07:56 -0500 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Chills/Time Between James: >>Dammit, how could I forget "Draft morning", especially since the Chills >>also recorded it (on the "Time between" Byrds tribute album)? And for years that was the only Chills song I'd ever heard. I didn't like it much-- the wash of keyboards was a little overwhelming and inappropriate (although nowhere near as dreadful as the Icicle Works medley of "Triad" and "Chestnut Mare"-- yup, it's a natural, put the song about the menage a trois together with the one about breaking a horse, and slow the whole thing down to a dirge... but I digress). Funny how the Chills' own material is often much more evocative of the Byrds than that cover was... I love them now. Overall that's a pretty good tribute, though, largely because it focuses on Byrds originals and some fairly obscure tracks instead of the hits by Dylan et al. It's probably a measure of the clout that Robyn and Pete Buck had in the indie world back then that they were the only artists who got away with covering a song *not* written by the Byrds. Nobody got to do "Tambourine Man" or "Turn Turn Turn", but there they were at the end with that lovely version of "Wild Mountain Thyme". - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:05:11 -0800 From: "Natalie Jane" Subject: I repent. O Fegs! I have just returned from a stint on Postcard, the Wilco/Uncle Tupelo/Son Volt list, where repeated exposure to whining, scorned-lover fanboys and endless conversations about obscure alt.country bands has given me a severe, itching pustulent rash. And so I realized that I must return to my feg-list "homies" or risk permanent disfigurement. Anyway, the whole experience made me appreciate the feg-list so much more. I love you guys. Really - each and every one of you. I really do. And anyone who starts bitching about how Wilco aren't an alt.country band anymore, is gonna get a pop in the chops. your sweetie, n., sad about Mr. Rogers... *sigh* "Unsubscribing from Postcard was like getting a check in the mail." - former listee _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:08:22 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: I repent. Quoting Natalie Jane : > O Fegs! > > I have just returned Yay! But you missed most of the whole Iraq debate - I believe we've posted about 500,000 words on the topic thus far. I'll dig through my archives and forward them all to you. ..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, 27 Feb 2003 13:12:38 -0500 From: noam tchotchke Subject: Fwd: Hitchcock published >Subject: Hitchcock published >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:56:36 -0700 >From: "Reynolds, Russ" >To: "woj" > >I hold in my hand a copy of the following book: > >CARVED IN ROCK (Short Stories By Musicians). Edited by Greg Kihn, >featuring stories by: >Kinky Friedman, Larry Kirwan, Jim Carroll, Joan Jett, Greg Kihn, Richard >Hell, Ray Davies, Graham Parker, Eric Burdon, Mark Laidlaw & John Shirley, >Suzzy Roche, Mick Farren, Johnny Strike, Pamela Des Barres, John >Entwistle, Pete Townsend, Lydia Lunch, Excenne Cervenka, Robyn Hitchcock, >Wayne Kramer, Steve Earle, Ann Magnuson, Willie Nile, Mary Lee Kortes, >Steve Wynn, M Gira, and Ray Manzarek. Hitchcock's story is called >"Narcissus" and runs 137 pages. Haven't read it yet. > >It's published by Thunder's Mouth Press at Avalon Publishing Group. I was >given a date of April 15 but I'm not sure what that refers to, as the >spine on this copy (an uncorrected proof) says "June 2003". > >-rUss ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:25:55 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Come & have a go if you think you're hard enough Quoting "Rex.Broome" : > No takers on my "Worst. Protest Song. Ever." challenge? Hmm... Wasn't there a song that people were forwarding links to a year or so back, something about Jesus and abused children? It was truly awful... But let me try... [opening: florid harp arpeggio, into generic pop hip-hop canned beat overlaid with very dated '80s orchestral stabs, add pedal steel to taste for appropriate flavor] Once there was a baby seal named Bucky Who lived in the wilds of Newfoundland-o With his best buddy, Foo-Foo the Lost Puppy, He rode free-range in the bliss of his True-Friend-Land, oh! And then one day, in the biggest SUV you've ever seen Came a big bad sexist man in a mullet He would whap the baby seals on their heads - so obscene! And use them to make wallets for Republicans! Poor Bucky cried a tear, it was organic And he rubbed his magic ancient mystic crystal So the Third World People's Sapphic Wheeled Avengers Rode to the rescue, being careful to preserve the environment. When they met Mr. Mullet, they held a long thoughtful conversation After which he was enlightened and empowered And became a vegetarian! Sing! Oh, we're free from the phallogocentric confines Of meter and of rhyme So don't diss me for this song which very clearly All by itself will rid the world of Weapons of destruction and cause everyone to love one another But only in an egalitarian, non-exploitative manner. [add children's choir and encourage tone-deaf audience members to sing along] - --------------- ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: sex, drugs, revolt, Eskimos, atheism ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:57:35 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Re: Come & have a go if you think you're hard enough Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > But let me try... wonderful. Are you sure you are not a script writer for Viz's "The Modern Parents"? Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:57:23 +0000 From: "scott clark" Subject: RE: Fwd: Hitchcock published > >CARVED IN ROCK (Short Stories By Musicians). > Hitchcock's story is called > >"Narcissus" and runs 137 pages. 137 pages?? that's no short story, that's a novella, at least! :) ============================================ Scott Clark * Charlottesville, VA, USA "The love of the irregular is a sign of the basic quest for freedom."-Soetsu Yanagi ============================================ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:10:37 -0800 From: "Kenneth Johnson" Subject: Re: Fwd: Hitchcock published has anyone actually read "Narcissus"? and has it ever been "published" elsewhere? Kenneth ************************************ ************************************* >From: noam tchotchke >Reply-To: noam tchotchke >To: the big Ebowski , fegmaniax-announce@smoe.org >Subject: Fwd: Hitchcock published >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:12:38 -0500 > >>Subject: Hitchcock published >>Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:56:36 -0700 >>From: "Reynolds, Russ" >>To: "woj" >> >>I hold in my hand a copy of the following book: >> >>CARVED IN ROCK (Short Stories By Musicians). Edited by Greg Kihn, >>featuring stories by: >>Kinky Friedman, Larry Kirwan, Jim Carroll, Joan Jett, Greg Kihn, Richard >>Hell, Ray Davies, Graham Parker, Eric Burdon, Mark Laidlaw & John Shirley, >>Suzzy Roche, Mick Farren, Johnny Strike, Pamela Des Barres, John >>Entwistle, Pete Townsend, Lydia Lunch, Excenne Cervenka, Robyn Hitchcock, >>Wayne Kramer, Steve Earle, Ann Magnuson, Willie Nile, Mary Lee Kortes, >>Steve Wynn, M Gira, and Ray Manzarek. Hitchcock's story is called >>"Narcissus" and runs 137 pages. Haven't read it yet. >> >>It's published by Thunder's Mouth Press at Avalon Publishing Group. I was >>given a date of April 15 but I'm not sure what that refers to, as the >>spine on this copy (an uncorrected proof) says "June 2003". >> >>-rUss _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:21:01 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: You'll Have To Let The Old Moose Go Whew! We don't hear from Eddie much these days, but he sure made up for it in that last post. Being both busy and lazy, I'll only touch on a few points, trying to stick to factual matters as much as possible.... > > >it's not your decision to make, nor is it george bush's. has anybody >asked the iraqis if they *want* to be "liberated" by the united states? No, but then, no one ever asked them if they wanted to be ruled by Saddam Hussein either. Lots of Iraqis *outside* of Iraq support a war to overthrow him, and they are the only Iraqis in the world able to make their feelings known in safety. >*nobody* outside the united states considers iraq to be a "threat". This is not true, even allowing for the hyperbole factor in "nobody." It would be more accurate to say that *some* people outside of America think Iraq is not a threat, and many many more think that it is a threat (or potential threat), but one that can be dealt with by means short of war. >died from a combination of Saddam's purges and internal attacks, as well >as his gross manipulation of sanctions.> > >actually, the number is over 1,000,000 killed since the gulf war -- >mostly children. This is one of the few times I've ever heard anyone claim "over one million" Iraqis killed. Most opponents of sanctions say "over half a million." (Based on a quick glance, the three sites you cite all make the half-million-plus claim). I suspect this lower figure is also too high. One interesting source I found is A. Baram, "The Effect of Iraqi Sanctions: Statistical Pitfalls and Responsibility," Middle East Journal, v.54:no.2 (Spring 2000). He argues that most higher claims of excess deaths due to sanctions are based on data that are demographically dubious, if not impossible, for example assuming too high a birth rate and underestimating the number of Iraqis who have fled the country. (BTW, Baram himself opposes the sanctions.) Of course, now that I've been drawn into this argument about numbers, I'd like to state that 250,000 or 300,000 is a horrible enough total, and good reason to get rid of the sanctions. (Especially since they aren't working anyway! But some argue against war by saying that the sanctions *have* worked, which puts them in the odd position of defending said sanctions.) >is >no longer the point of bombing, and it is done much more efficiently than >the 40s. I think your examples of Dresden and Nagasaki are out of touch.> > >uh-huh. is that why the architect of the bush administration's war plan >for iraq *explicitly* compared it to hiroshima? why the plan calls to >smother baghdad with 800 cruise missiles in two days, so that there will >be "no safe place" in the city? why the plan calls for the u.s. to "take >down their power and water"? why u.s. war planners openly boasted of doing >such a smash-up job of destroying civilian infrastructure in the first gulf >war that it would lead to "incidences, if not epidemics, of disease" (see >)? I'd like to see your source for these supposed war plans. What *I* have seen indicates that planners are, well, planning a much different campaign, one shorter and more focused than in the first Gulf war, with few or no attacks against civilian infrastructure like power and water plants. ("Taking down" civilian power plants refers to knocking them off-line temporarily, not destroying them.) Logic also backs this up -- since the plan this time involves the US occupying the country and installing a new government, why would US forces smash the very stuff they'd need to run the country afterwards? Note that the 800 cruise missiles you mention are used because they are extremely accurate, and one benefit of that is to reduce civilian casualties. Note also that the Progressive article you cite is concerned entirely with the first Gulf War, NOT plans for this next one. (Your use of the word "boasted" is misleading too; where do you see a boasting tone in the quoted passages?) Of course any "collateral damage" is terrible; but you're claiming that the US will deliberately target civilians, and I have yet to see any reason to believe that. >they say it's illegal to conduct indiscriminate bombing, precisely >*because* civilian casualties are *inevitable* (as the u.s. freely >admits), and unacceptable. But it apparently *won't* be indiscriminate bombing, unless you have some secret source that you haven't shared with us. See above. In general, I think arguments based on the horrors of war are true, but still fail to prove what they're intended to prove. In order to argue against a thing, you need to prove not only that it's bad but that it's *worse* than the alternative. Many people will die horrible deaths in a war, true. But to use this as an argument against the war, you also have to argue that either a.) *more* suffering will occur in the war than if we did not go to war, or b.) that it's unacceptable for us to cause *any* suffering, regardless of what the alternative might bring. The latter is a personal philosophical position, which I do not share; and the former is, given the nature of Saddam's regime, quite possibly wrong. Obviously I can't resist debating Eddie. But does that mean that I support the war? No. As mentioned earlier, I'm uncertain, but generally lean against the war. I do believe Iraq is a real menace, that they most likely have at least chemical weapons (but probably not nukes), and that Saddam's overthrow would be wonderful for Iraq and for the world. But I'm skeptical about the morality of a preemptive war against a *potential* threat, as opposed to a definite and proximate threat. I also fear that the war will be bloodier than the Bush administration thinks, that it will ruin our economy, and that it will lead to civil war within Iraq, destabilize the region, and turn Arabs and Muslims against us. While there are good arguments (and a lot of bullshit) for attacking Iraq, there are also good reasons (plus a lot of bullshit) *not* to; and while I'm not 100% decided, I find the latter case a bit more convincing. Or rather, I find the risks of attacking Iraq a bit scarier than the risks of leaving Saddam alone. Starting to meander, so I'll leave it there for now. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:41:58 -0500 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Sloganistic Curse my busted internet... who did the original version of "Over There", also performed by Billy Bragg? And what's the Teardrop Explodes song with the line "If you've got a son, send the blighter off to war"? (Surely there must be some relevant Gulf War-era Cope as well...) Also thought of Television's "Foxhole", or, better still Verlaine's solo track "Words from the Front", a really harrowing piece of work. Character study, kind of. I find these personalized stories a lot more moving than the average straight-up didactic tract-song. Neil Young's "Captain Kennedy" is a good one, too. Must be more "soldier" songs. But a nice, tight somewhat abstracted piece of "agit-pop" (groan) can be inspiring, too. See the nearly bottomless well of Gang of Four tracks... "Armalite Rifle", "Guns Not Butter", etc. Or the Minutemen, that's some good, succinct stuff. Some Fugazi, even. At least that stuff brings a perspective to the issues, as opposed to Rage Against the Machine whose lyrics pretty much quote the "How to Be a Leftist" manual. I heard on the radio that Italian war protestors are using the slogan "War on War" as they attempt to impede the movements of US troops through the country. I wondered if the resurgence of the phrase had anything to do with the Wilco song, or if it's just obvious. I know that a lot of my more activism-oriented friends have been turned on to Wilco through the Bragg/Guthrie connection... - -Rex "I Ain't Gonna Study War No More, But I Probably Should Brush Up on Grammar" Broome ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:06:07 -0800 From: Catherine Simpson Subject: RE: Sloganistic Rex - the Teardrop Explodes song is "Went Crazy," and the lyric is "if you have a daughter, bounce her on your knee. If you have a son, send the blighter off to sea". Catherine - -----Original Message----- From: Rex.Broome [mailto:Rex.Broome@preferredmedia.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 12:42 PM To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Subject: Sloganistic Curse my busted internet... who did the original version of "Over There", also performed by Billy Bragg? And what's the Teardrop Explodes song with the line "If you've got a son, send the blighter off to war"? (Surely there must be some relevant Gulf War-era Cope as well...) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:28:25 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: Come & have a go if you think you're hard enough >Miller has obviously gone so far off his ideological game that maybe >the "hip references" are slipping, too. Those Millers can be an exasperating clan. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:00:38 -0500 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: weakness? Quail (in his silliest statement -- in the course of the Iraq debate, anyway): >And frankly, I am still undecided, which I think is a weakness. Only from the perspective of dogmatic opponents. In fact, indecision in the face of difficult, multifaceted problems is a sure sign of a mind open to consideration of the conflicting evidence and priorities. Anyone who finds a question like this easy to decide -- and I include here both the gung-ho militarists and the reflexive pacifists -- isn't giving the other side of the argument a fair shake. (I should note, however, that I know a great number of committed pacifists who *do* consider the arguments in favor of using force, particularly where humanitarian reasons are among them, but who nonetheless determine that war is never justified. I tend to ask them to consider WWII, but that's too easy, really). There are very few (if any) "simple" moral decisions (I know that it is open to debate whether the Iraq invasion question is a "moral decision," but you have to admit there are a number of moral considerations involved, on both sides). The thing that makes certain elements on the political right so scary (and, at the same time, so politically effective) is their ability to reduce complex questions into simple black and white issues (ignoring in the process all of the nuance that made the question difficult in the first place): "Those Godless liberals want to throw Johnny in jail for saying "Grace" before eating lunch in the school cafeteria!" -- and so on. Anyway, all hail indecision -- I've gone back and forth about 50 times already, and expect to continue to do so. Hell, I marched against the first Gulf War (in Chicago, too, where protests have a history of ending badly...) and would have gone to the Jan 18 march in DC -- if I hadn't found out at the last minute that the organizers supported a host of other policies which I do not and were, effectively, deceiving a good many well-intentioned people into lending apparent support to same (the denunciation of "Israeli war crimes," for example). At the moment, I am cautiously in the camp of those who feel that US power can and should be used, very infrequently, when there are compelling reasons to do so and, under a rough utilitarian calculus, more good than harm will result therefrom. OF course, that may change any minute now... ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:12:57 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: RE: Impending REAP - B*T*VS >Subject: RE: Impending REAP - BVTS If we're going to include articles in acronyms, let's at least get them in the right order, shall we? Reminds me of how so many people enjoyed that YANKEE FOXTROT HOTEL record last year. :-) At 09:48 AM 2/27/2003 -0800, Jason Brown \(Echo Services Inc\) wrote: >Sumiko Keay: >> We've had some excellent episodes this season - - this week's was >> definitely one of them. But it is a good idea to watch the episodes >in >> order (I'm sure that you can get them through NetFlix). > >I agree there have been some excellent episodes this season for sure but >also to lame and repetitive ones. But the last couple seasons I felt >sorta uninspired at this point of the season and they really turned it >around by the end and I loved them. I think BUFFY's been excellent this year, and the only year I think they *mildly* slumped was last year, and then only for a few middle-chaptery episodes. The slump *seemed* longer because it came during the "new episode - new episode - repeat - preempt - preempt - repeat - new episode - repeat - preempt" pattern of the holidays, which meant that those four or five episodes got spread over about three months. Yeah, it seemed like forever, but on F/X's daily repeats, they'd be over in the space of a week. All I can say is that anyone who thought BUFFY sounded silly because of its title really ought to give a shot, and the existence of BUFFY DVDs and F/X reruns mean that it's easy to do so. Best Show Ever? It's right up there for me, along with (in no particular order) HILL STREET BLUES, SCTV, the first ten seasons of THE SIMPSONS, NEWHART, HOMICIDE, MONTY PYTHON'S FLYING CIRCUS, MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE 3000, and, of course, COP ROCK. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:11:24 -0500 From: "Terrence Marks" Subject: RE: Come & have a go if you think you're hard enough > No takers on my "Worst. Protest Song. Ever." challenge? We'd have to give "Student Demonstration Time" a handicap so that other songs could compete... Terrence Marks http://nice.purrsia.com http://www.unlikeminerva.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:22:24 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: I repent. We knew you'd be back. I think from time to time we all stray to other lists, only to realize that they're mostly populated by whiny fanboys who want to do a "favorite song" poll every two weeks. This is more than a list - - it's a family. The kind of family that drinks a lot and brandishes handguns at the slightest disagreement. The kind of family that can quote James Joyce and Lemmy Kilminster in the same thought, and have it make sense. Yes, even the kind of family that can spawn its own incestuous hippie-meets-farmgirl relationships. Like the plaque in my mom's kitchen reads: "A family is for growing up in, moving away from, and coming back to." Welcome back, and fuck you. - -tc on 2/27/03 10:05 AM, Natalie Jane at emma_blowgun@hotmail.com wrote: > O Fegs! > > I have just returned from a stint on Postcard, the Wilco/Uncle Tupelo/Son > Volt list, where repeated exposure to whining, scorned-lover fanboys and > endless conversations about obscure alt.country bands has given me a severe, > itching pustulent rash. And so I realized that I must return to my feg-list > "homies" or risk permanent disfigurement. > > Anyway, the whole experience made me appreciate the feg-list so much more. > I love you guys. Really - each and every one of you. I really do. And > anyone who starts bitching about how Wilco aren't an alt.country band > anymore, is gonna get a pop in the chops. > > your sweetie, > > n., sad about Mr. Rogers... *sigh* > > "Unsubscribing from Postcard was like getting a check in the mail." > - former listee > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:35:17 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: You'll Have To Let The Old World Go I'm impressed by both Quail and Eddie's relatively rational argumant (and argumants) on you-know-what. My own views (surprise, surprise) lie between those two - the trouble, as always is, as Quailie put it, "comes down to where we get our facts, and who we believe". There ain't no such thing as an unbiased news source at the moment (ever?), especially not with the mainstream US media (having caught some of CNN recently, I think it would be hilarious if it wasn't so damn serious). There are one or two small quibbles with what TGQ had to say in his last missive that I must draw him up on, though: >> it's not your decision to make, nor is it george bush's. has anybody asked >> the iraqis if they *want* to be "liberated" by the united states? of course >> not. > >Many Iraqi defectors and exiles agree that the US can play a role in >removing Saddam. Some want an all out invasion, others advocate more >political means. And the post-Gulf-War Iraqi intifadah -- which we callously >betrayed -- seems to indicate that their is certainly grounds for popular >support. Hardly an unbiased opinion of Iraqis in general, though, is it? I suspect that defectors and exiles from any country would have bad things to say about the government in charge of it and want it overthrown. Otherwise they wouldn't have defected or been exiled. >And many of these inspectors change their mind on and off as new evidence >comes to light, from defectors or discoveries. Remove inspections now, lift >all non-humanitarian sanctions, and Iraq will have the bomb within this >decade. But didn't you say earlier that sanctions weren't working? This statement of yours clearly suggests that they must be! James PS - what Voltaire said 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: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:37:35 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: anti-war songs >I do find it a bit odd that there's so few garage bands who sang about war. >It may be that British and Canadian bands are overrepresented in my sample, >but I've got a lot more songs by Americans about how people are hassling >them than about the draft. similarly, I cannot offhand think of a single NZ band that has done an anti-war song (other than the Chills' rendition of "Draft morning")> I will however add Aussie Russell Morris's "Rachel's coming home" - unique, I think, in being about the experiences of a woman serving in a MASH unit. And unnervingly haunting musically, even given it's obvious 1971 stylings. Perhaps, if you replace words directly relating to communism with words connected to Iraq, hen Billy Bragg's "Marching song of the covert batallions" is the most apt at the moment - it even presages such comments as "if you ain't for us you're against us" >No takers on my "Worst. Protest Song. Ever." challenge? hmm... Godley & Creme's "Air force one"? Their "Goodbye Blue Sky" album is all about impending nuclear war, and mostly pretty good, but that one is just plain bad. And, despite recent comments on this list, I've always thought "Masters of war" was too shrill and preachy - and how the fuck dare Dylan state who or what Jesus would and wouldn't forgive! Even as a non-Christian that rankles. James PPS - how the hell could you spell Jeffrey WITHOUT two Fs? 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") ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #76 *******************************