From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #81 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, March 2 2003 Volume 12 : Number 081 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Arrrgh ["Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" ] Postmodern Progressive Alternative Modern Indie College Rock (2% RH) ["Br] Re: Postmodern Progressive Alternative Modern Indie College Rock (2% RH) ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: Arrrgh [Sabina Carlson ] RE: Arrrgh ["Timothy Reed" ] RE: Arrrgh [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: Arrrgh [Sabina Carlson ] noise swap? [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: Lord of the G-Strings: The Femaleship of the String (update) [Ken Wei] storefront hitchcock [Caroline Smith ] 666 on the Floor ["The Mammal Brain" ] Re: Blame the ion storms... ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: in amongst all the "Buffy" reaps... ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Lord of the G-Strings: The Femaleship of the String (update) ["Mich] Re: Arrrgh ["Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" ] Re: You'll Have To Let The Old World Go ["The Mammal Brain" Subject: Re: Arrrgh I've always found that the "Sesame Street" theme song is a great way to unstick other songs from my head, and doesn't stick there itself. Kind of like a mental roto-rooter. Try it. Sing it out loud if you need to, or even better, have someone sing it to you. At 3:18 PM -0800 3/1/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "Eb" and whispered: >Ever since the Grammys, I can't get that damn Norah Jones song out of >my head. The entire thing only has about three lines of melody, but >it's STUCK inside me! Usually I can "cure" myself once I figure out a >song on keyboard, but this one keeps on nagging at me anyway.... Bleh. > >Does anyone here actually own the album, and have something >interesting to say about it? > >Eb - -- ======== 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: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 19:21:17 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: Arrrgh >From: Eb >Subject: Arrrgh >Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:18:37 -0800 > >Ever since the Grammys, I can't get that damn Norah Jones song out of my >head. The entire thing only has about three lines of melody, but it's STUCK >inside me! Usually I can "cure" myself once I figure out a song on >keyboard, but this one keeps on nagging at me anyway.... Bleh. Wendy by The Association also works to unclog. I pick up my bass and play it...then I can't stop...oh no Wendy, stop. Oh shit. Max _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 18:05:55 -0800 From: "Brooks Martin" Subject: Postmodern Progressive Alternative Modern Indie College Rock (2% RH) Previously on Fegmaniax: >>The Genre Formerly Known As Alternative Formerly Known As Modern Rock >>Formerly Known As Indie Formerly Known As Underground >Hey, it was also briefly known as "Postmodern". And I remember people > >used to use the term "progressive" to describe '80's college rock as > >well. But that's just too confusing. Wow. Yeah... God, I'm glad it wasn't just me. I recently was listening to some tapes of my first radio show that I did at WVAU (American University) in DC. The show was from 88 or 89 and was called "Uncorrected Personality Traits" fittingly enough. I was appaled upon listening to it when I heard myself desribe Love and Rockets as a "progressive" band! The rest of the tape is embarrasing too, but that line really took the cake for embarrasment value. So, as I said, I'm glad that it wasn't just me. What the hell do REM have to do with ELP anyway? Anyway... Oh, I still do a radio show weekly on KAOS in Olympia, WA. If anyone wants to listen you can tune in on the web via our website at www.kaosradio.org . It's on Tuesdays from 3-5 PM Pacific time. I promise that I won't play any "progressive" rock. : ) Rock it, roll it, Feg it, Brooks Martin _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 21:13:12 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: Postmodern Progressive Alternative Modern Indie College Rock (2% RH) >From: "Brooks Martin" >Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 18:05:55 -0800 >upon listening to it when I heard myself desribe Love and Rockets as a >"progressive" band! >I promise that I won't play any "progressive" rock. : ) Why not, you don't like Love and Rockets anymore? Max _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 08:33:28 -0600 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: Arrrgh >From: Eb > >Does anyone here actually own the album, and have something >interesting to say about it? Here's a rehash of something I posted in v12n16: I bought Norah Jones's album after hearing her cover of Cold Cold Heart in a thrift store in Austin and have enjoyed it immensely since. It's just a lovely record, and I've never felt much need to label it as jazz or pop or whatever. Heck, most people nowadays think Diana Krall is The Jazz Singer nowadays anyway, and I think Krall's playing and singing are rather pedestrian. Jones's album is recorded well, and she is backed up by a great band - -- Bill Frisell included. I think it's hilarious how Jones is getting so much attention. I think it shows just how starved for decent pop music we all are now. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 12:12:33 -0500 From: Sabina Carlson Subject: Re: Arrrgh eb: > Ever since the Grammys, I can't get that damn Norah Jones song out of > my head. The entire thing only has about three lines of melody, but > it's STUCK inside me! Usually I can "cure" myself once I figure out a > song on keyboard, but this one keeps on nagging at me anyway.... Bleh. > i heard something about "stuck song syndrome" (yeah, they have supposedly people or scientists actually researching and stuff on this) and i think you're supposed to hum "the girl from ipanema"... but DONT SING IT or it will be stuck in your head forever too. well, anyways, it's a good song so i wouldn't mind having it stuck in my head.... but that's just me :-) and it's only a poisonous plant, sabina sheena ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 12:32:49 -0500 From: "Timothy Reed" Subject: RE: Arrrgh According to this article http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story &ncid=594&e=2&cid=594&u=/nm/20030224/hl_nm/music_songs_dc they're called 'earworms' and they typically affect people who listen to a lot of music or are neurotic. Tim > > Ever since the Grammys, I can't get that damn Norah Jones > > song out of my head. The entire thing only has about three > > lines of melody, but > > it's STUCK inside me! Usually I can "cure" myself once I > > figure out a song on keyboard, but this one keeps on nagging > > at me anyway.... Bleh. > i heard something about "stuck song syndrome" (yeah, they > have supposedly people or scientists actually researching and > stuff on this) and i think you're supposed to hum "the girl > from ipanema"... but DONT SING IT or it will be stuck in your > head forever too. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 11:47:42 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: Arrrgh Quoting Timothy Reed : > According to this article (try this: http://tinyurl.com/6eth) they're called > 'earworms' and they typically affect people who listen to a lot of music > or are neurotic. Isn't that redundant? - --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: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 12:48:39 -0500 From: Sabina Carlson Subject: Re: Arrrgh me: > i heard something about "stuck song syndrome" (yeah, they have supposedly > people or scientists actually researching and stuff on this) sorry, i meant "yeah, they supposedly have people or scientists..." i had re-read my post and realized that i kind of said that the people researching are supposedly human...... eesh and it's only a poisonous plant, sabina sheena "chorus, verse, verse, chorus, verse, bridge, chorus" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 11:55:56 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: noise swap? On another list I'm on, I coordinate a mix swap. We're currently rather in need of some new contributors, so I thought I would invite people here to participate. Every two months (about), I send out a message to the people involved. The swap works sequentially: it's not an exchange between two people. You get a mix from one person, and send your mix to another person. There are no restrictions in terms of format, content, etc., although most people nowadays of course are swapping CDs (tapers are still welcome). What usually happens is that you ask the person you're making the mix for what they want to hear - most people, in fact, just leave that up to the mixmaker. In the past, I've asked that people post reviews of the mixes to the list: this hasn't worked. But I think it would be useful, to spur on discussion and simply to be polite, if you'd agree to at least tell the person who made the mix that you received it, and post the contents of the mix to Fegmaniax. (You don't even need to make any comments: just a track listing.) If you're interested in participating, let me know - and I'll fill you in a few more details. I'd like to get the next one going by the 15th of March, so let me know by then. ..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: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 13:01:04 -0500 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Lord of the G-Strings: The Femaleship of the String (update) On Fri, Feb 28, 2003, steve wrote: > >In the mystical land of Diddle Earth live bisexual folk called > >Throbbits, although as Dildo Saggins (Mundae) explains, they'd be more > >accurately dubbed trisexuals as "the horny little bastards will TRY > >anything! > > http://dvdtalk.com/cineschlock/column/index.html I did the review for it. Note that I never saw it, but it was just too funny not to. - -Ken, I mean Harry Meatwhistle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 13:39:21 -0500 From: Caroline Smith Subject: storefront hitchcock I picked this up at HMV this morning and watched it (finally). It's sooo good... but one question. Is that a pair of glasses hanging off of Robyn's mic stand? Once I noticed them I couldn't take my eyes off of them. Any one else notice this? Or are my eyes deceiving me and it is something else... Something for his harmonica perhaps? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 10:56:51 -0800 From: "The Mammal Brain" Subject: 666 on the Floor setlists from the italian gigs. apologies if these had already been posted... 1/15/03, La Scuderia, Bologna Kingdom Of Love Queen Of Eyes Mr. Kennedy Sudden Town Tonigh Insanely Jealous The Man With The Lightbulb Head I Wanna Destroy You He's A Reptile (I Wanna Be A) Seven-Winged Bat Only The Stones Remain Underwater Moonlight Narcissus Rock And/Or Roll Toilet The Bells Of Rhymney The Face Of Death 1/16/03, Jux Tap, Sarzana Hear My Brane Kingdom Of Love Tonight Queen Of Eyes My Mind Is Connected... Insanely Jealous Mr. Kennedy Sudden Town He's A Reptile ("Keep that fucker away from your niece, yeah.") I Wanna Destroy You Only The Stones Remain (I Wanna Be A) Seven-Winged Bat Underwater Moonlight I Love Lucy Astronomy Domine The Man With The Lightbulb Head Where Are The Prawns? 1/18/03, Teatro Toscanini, Chiari I Love Lucy Hear My Brane Tonight Kingdom Of Love Queen Of Eyes My Mind Is Connected... Each Of Her Silver Wands Insanely Jealous Airscape Mr. Kennedy Sudden Town He's A Reptile When I Was A Kid (I Wanna Be A) Seven-Winged Bat Underwater Moonlight The Bells Of Rhymney Vegetable Man I Wanna Destroy You _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 14:51:19 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Blame the ion storms... rosso@videotron.ca wrote: > > Canada has one too, or at least had one last time I was in Edmonton. > It's the "monster burger", from Motor's it's not the size that's remarkable; it's the flavour and care in preparation that is evident in the Red Top burger. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 14:56:10 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: in amongst all the "Buffy" reaps... James Dignan wrote: > > Or Chris Brasher, for that matter... oh man -- Brasher's company makes the best boots ever. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 12:05:16 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Lord of the G-Strings: The Femaleship of the String (update) on 3/2/03 10:01 AM, Ken Weingold at hazmat@hellrot.org wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003, steve wrote: >>> In the mystical land of Diddle Earth live bisexual folk called >>> Throbbits, although as Dildo Saggins (Mundae) explains, they'd be more >>> accurately dubbed trisexuals as "the horny little bastards will TRY >>> anything! >> >> http://dvdtalk.com/cineschlock/column/index.html > > 4/ref=sr_8_4/002-6681099-1936861?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846> > > I did the review for it. Note that I never saw it, but it was just > too funny not to. > > > -Ken, I mean Harry Meatwhistle Everyone must read Henry Raddick's Amazon reviews. He hasn't posted any for quite a while, but the 280 that he's done are fucking hilarious. I'm pretty sure this link will get you there: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-reviews/-/AA9IP6AYACFK5/102-1 764839-4720133 - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 15:44:11 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: 2001 tour set lists? I'm hoping some obsessive fan will have setlists of the shows on the 2001 tour... Anyone? Bueller? ..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 np: Townies _The Red Carpet Parlay of the Decade_ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 13:51:13 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: Lord of the G-Strings: The Femaleship of the String (update) Review for 'The Maltese : Diminutive Aristocrat' by Vicki Abbott: "A first rate guide to this extraordinary breed. The book deals with all aspects of ownership and care with admirable thoroughness it even gives tips on how to spot when your dog is liquefying into a pool of itself." BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! ROFL! For 'Make Your Backyard More Interesting Than TV' by Jay Beckwith :"My MTV addict daughter has finally conceded that I have indeed succeeded in making my garden more interesting than tv - and it's all down to Beckith's superb guide. Stephanie was enthralled as I filled the garden with posters of consumer goods and junk food and skateboarded into a barrel of toxic effluent." Thanks for that link! What a scream! Mike At 12:05 PM -0800 3/2/03, Tom Clark wrote: >on 3/2/03 10:01 AM, Ken Weingold at hazmat@hellrot.org wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003, steve wrote: >>>> In the mystical land of Diddle Earth live bisexual folk called >>>> Throbbits, although as Dildo Saggins (Mundae) explains, they'd be more >>>> accurately dubbed trisexuals as "the horny little bastards will TRY >>>> anything! >>> >>> http://dvdtalk.com/cineschlock/column/index.html >> >> >>> 4/ref=sr_8_4/002-6681099-1936861?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846> >> >> I did the review for it. Note that I never saw it, but it was just >> too funny not to. >> >> >> -Ken, I mean Harry Meatwhistle > >Everyone must read Henry Raddick's Amazon reviews. He hasn't posted any >for >quite a while, but the 280 that he's done are fucking hilarious. > >I'm pretty sure this link will get you there: > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-reviews/-/AA9IP6AYACFK5/102-1 >764839-4720133 > >-tc - -- ======== 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: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 13:59:54 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: Arrrgh At 12:12 PM -0500 3/2/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "Sabina Carlson" and whispered: >i heard something about "stuck song syndrome" (yeah, they have supposedly >people or scientists actually researching and stuff on this) and i think >you're supposed to hum "the girl from ipanema"... but DONT SING IT or it >will be stuck in your head forever too. well, anyways, it's a good song so >i >wouldn't mind having it stuck in my head.... but that's just me :-) When I did some backcountry hiking in yosemite, my backwoodsman friend who was showing me the ropes cautioned my very strongly as to the last music I listened to before we set out, because "That's what you're going to be hearing for the next four weeks." He told me of a tripw/ some friends where they had accidently heard that old Motown song "Wait A Minute, Mr. Postman" on the car radio as they were just about to leave for a few weeks of hiking the Siskiyous, and they eventually had to start fining each other for humming or singing it. (The fines were paid out of their personal stashes of chocolate chips.) For my trip, I picked the live version of "Stay" from the re-release of Station To Station. It served me well for the next 3 weeks. At 12:32 PM -0500 3/2/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "Timothy Reed" and whispered: >they're called >'earworms' and they typically affect people who listen to a lot of music >or are neurotic. Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but that explains a lot to me. You know what got stuck in my head once and tortured the hell out of me? Not music at all, but Dana Carvey saying, "A sphincter says WHAT." 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: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 17:53:24 -0500 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Re: Arrrgh On Sunday, March 2, 2003, at 04:59 PM, Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat wrote: > You know what got stuck in my head once and tortured the hell out of > me? > Not music at all, but Dana Carvey saying, "A sphincter says WHAT." Didn't Jim Carrey (circa "Pet Detective" years) once attempt that during a visit to Leno? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 15:21:25 -0800 From: "The Mammal Brain" Subject: Re: You'll Have To Let The Old World Go okay, i know y'all have moved on to other topics. but i just want to (hopefully) tie up a few loose ends, after which i'll leave you in "peace". they want the united states to help put them into power, yes. but both the iraqi exiles and the kurds are royally pissed off at the u.s. after learning of its post-war plans for the country, which they say is "is guaranteed to turn that opposition from the close ally it has always been during the 1990s into an opponent of the United States on the streets of Baghdad the day after liberation." , . <> well, given that saddam was brought to power through anglo-american intervention, this hardly seems like a ringing endorsement of further u.s. intervention. indeed, the united states engineered, either solely or with help, the downfall of populist, democratic (or democratic-leaning) governments in indonesia, afghanistan, iran, iraq, and egypt -- a huge swath of the muslim world (but democracy is "anathema" to the uncivilised muslims, you see...). it also gives, or has given, massive amounts of military and non-military aid to autocratic, repressive regimes in indonesia, iran, afghanistan, egypt, saudi arabia, iraq, kuwait, and turkey -- the so-called "arab facade", protecting the u.s.' oil. <> here's an idea i posted on my blog (which is read by all of six people...) a few months ago. (i also submitted a letter to the Seattle Times -- this was right when the "liberation" angle first started making the news. not published, of course.) why couldn't the UN administer a plebiscite, simply asking iraqis to vote for or against an american invasion to "liberate" them? saddam, knowing that the writing's on the wall anyway, would surely allow it to take place. if everybody went into the voting booth (even those with no opinion, or undecided, could just vote as much), and if the anonymity of the votes were preserved, then there could be no fear of reprisal for voting "incorrectly". of course, the u.s. would never allow it to happen for the same reason that it never allowed the geneva-mandated vietnamese plebiscite to happen, or that it ignored the 1984 nicaraguan election, or that it couldn't allow allende to remain in power because of the "irresponsibility" of the voters, and so on and so on and so on. but that doesn't mean *we* should accept the line that there's no way of ascertaining iraqi public opinion, and therefore the only thing we can do is load up the bombers. <> *nobody* outside the united states considers iraq to be a "threat". This is patently untrue. You may argue to the degree of the threat, but Israel, Iran, and Kuwait certainly view Saddam as a threat.> their *governments* *say* that they do. but that's not the same thing. <> a Time Europe poll with almost 630,000 respondents to-date finds that 87.7% consider the united states the "greatest threat to world peace in 2003." iraq and north korea split the remaining votes. . u.s. ambassadors are cabling in from around the world warning that, "There is an absence of any recognition that Hussein is the problem," (they're worried about george bush). . as stated in my previous e-mail, opposition to war grows strongest the closer one gets to the region -- those, in other words, that would be most threatened by saddam. now, i realise that viewing the u.s. as the "greatest" threat can also mean viewing saddam as a lesser threat. and i realise this is anecdotal evidence. but something like half the american population believes that saddam was complicit in 9/11 (still less than the number who believe in angels, for what it's worth). so it's not altogether unreasonable for some americans to consider saddam a "threat". i haven't seen any polls with this specific language. but i would be surprised if more than 5% of people not living in the u.s. perceive saddam as a threat, and shocked if more than 10% do. why saddam, though? he's far from the only world dictator, and surely not even the most repressive. and why do we have to completely destroy the society to do it? it's been widely reported that the sanctions have *strengthened* saddam's grip on the populace. why not end the sanctions, and let the *people* have their say? last time they tried to rise up, the u.s. *aided* saddam in suppressing the rebellion. let's let them alone this time. meanwhile, the u.s. accounts for more arms shipments that the rest of the world combined. simply discontinuing these would go a *very long* way to ending many dictators' regimes. you don't say *which* sources these are, or *why* you place the most faith in them. <> a 1998 UNICEF report estimated 90,000 *children* per year killed by sanctions -- which have been in place for over 12 years now. summary at , full report at . a 1999 UNICEF survey estimated 500,000 *children under 5* had been killed by sanctions to that point in time. denis halliday, in 1998, estimated 6,000 *children* per month, which corroborates with the New England Journal of Medicine's findings from 1991. in her famous 1996 CBS interview, madeleine albright acknolwedged that roughly 500,000 *children* had been killed to that point in time. (for those not familiar with this interview, she said that in her opinion, "the price is worth it.") <> indeed. yet we've known of the problem for many, many years. in fact, people were calling for the end of sanctions even before the gulf war ended - -- saying already at that time that they were causing a humanitarian disaster. <>killed not by *saddam's* "manipulation" of the sanctions, but by the *united states'* propagation of and "manipulation" of (placing billions of dollars worth of "holds" on needed supplies, for example) the sanctions. this has been *extremely* well documented. see for example Again, where we get our facts. You select them from the most extreme, ant-American, radical sources.> i select from the united nations generally, and halliday and von sponeck specifically. *all* of which have stated *emphatically* and *repeatedly* that the iraqi government has distributed food and medicine to the best of its ability. see for just one example. that's just not true. as stated in my previous post, iraq was "qualitatively" disarmed by 1998. yet it was the bush and clinton administrations which continually "moved the goalposts" (see , for example), even going so far as to say that sanctions would "be there until the end of time" or until saddam was gone. much more likely that saddam would be out of power within this decade -- so long as the west would not arm and otherwise aid him as it has done so often in the past. not so much "so what", as, why don't we *lead the way* in disarmament. it's perfectly obvious that the third world is trying to arm to *protect itself* from the first world. and reading the bush administration's *plans* for the third world, and knowing the 500 year history of western "intervention" in the third world, why wouldn't they be frightened? i'm all for non-violent resistance of imperialism. but it just seems awfully hypocritical for those of us not on the receiving end of the first world's military bombardments to condemn those trying to fight back. what we should instead be spending our time and energy upon is pressuring *our* governments to disarm, and reducing *our* consumption of the world's resources. <> yet, the sanctions stayed on. why? and why, when UN 687 mandated iraqi disarmament *in the context* of region-wide disarmament, did the united states continue to arm to the teeth israel, turkey, saudi arabia, and egypt? This has nothing to do with Iraq, and is a different matter.> it's only a "different matter" if we accept the bush administration's framing of the agenda. but if we do that, we may as well accept that "2 + 2 = 5" and be done with it. why should we accept that the open defiance by the united states of 687 is a "different matter" that iraq's defiance (yet, in the end, compliance) of the same resolution? and why should we accept the principle that iraq and iraq only must "disarm" (and that even if it *does*, the u.s. will invade)? we may as well be speaking in tongues. you know, i *might* even argue that saddam would be more irresponsible with WMDs than any country *other* than the united states. (though, given the level of "responsibility" shewn by russia, india, pakistan, north korea, and israel, it's not by any means an open-and-shut case.) it's not just hiroshima and nagasaki and bush's "idiotic comments". it's vietnam, korea, the first gulf war, the balkans, afghanistan, and colombia (and many more) as well. unless you don't consider depleted uranium a "weapon of mass destruction". unless you don't consider agent orange and napalm and "agent green" (the fumigation agent currently being used to destroy colombia's peasantry) chemical weapons. unless you don't consider the destruction of civilian infrastructure biological warfare. the u.s. is in its own universe when it comes to "irresponsibly" using WMDs. it's difficult for me to imagine that anybody could even conceive of the *possibility* of it being otherwise. besides which saddam only ever used WMD when he had (or perceived he had) received a green light from washington. i was just repeating bush's and rumsfeld's stated plans. maybe they're bluffing, but i see no reason to *assume* that they are. i don't *think* we will either -- if only because they don't think they can get away with it. but just the fact that the administration has "lowered the bar" for using "the nuclear option" () seems to me reason enough for us to do everything in our power to make sure that they don't have *any* option -- except to get the fuck back home. that their (depleted and/or non-depleted uranium munitions) widespread use by the united states is not a major scandal is, well, scandalous in my opinion. <> . i *think* CBS broke it, but it was actually a fairly big story for a few days. <> in fact, it appears that the plan intends to *focus* on non-military targets, in an attempt to destroy the country's morale. it's not really a new "paradigm", alas. to a very large extent, the various wars against "communism" or "drugs" or "terrorism" have been wars on third world civilian populations. it's just that this appears to be a larger undertaking than usual -- and that the civilian infrastructure in iraq is already in a fragile state. <<("Taking down" civilian power plants refers to knocking them off-line temporarily, not destroying them.)>> even if this were true -- which it is not -- it would still be disastrous. <> the bush administration has already announced that reconstruction will be paid for by iraq. (how's that for orwellian logic? even surpasses carter's refusal to pay reparations to vietnam on the grounds that, "the destruction was mutual.") it's further announced that the contracts will go to american companies. still sounds illogical, i'll agree. but i suppose it stems from the fear of the "vietnam syndrome", which is still quite real: american casualties will be unacceptable to americans. therefore, rely on airpower to devastate the population, and the ground forces will be able to easily sweep in. they're not *my* charges. they're the warnings of the UN and the relief agencies that are going to be on the ground dealing with the situation. they're predicting absolute calmity *in the event of war*, irrespective of whether the u.s. will help "rebuild". the latest word from those planning to deal with the aftermath (and remember, the u.s. is refusing to participate in this planning): , , , . <> except that they're being used to *target* civilian infrastructure. also, from what i can make out reading different accounts, it looks like the cruise missile assault will be accompanied by carpet bombing. and i guess i should note that the administration's plans may very well have been altered by the massive world-wide resistance to *any* war. but, as with the possiblity of using nukes, i don't think we can count on that. <> but it demonstrates the sorts of things we've done in the past, in the same country. <<(Your use of the word "boasted" is misleading too; where do you see a boasting tone in the quoted passages?)>> maybe "approving" would've been a better word. but the point is that it *intentionally* targeted civilian infrastructure, assuming that it would result in a humanitarian catastrophe -- which is exactly what happened. see also, for example, from air force publishing, "Strategic Attack" (). select quote: "The loss of electricity shut down the capital's water treatment plants and led to a public health crisis from raw sewage dumped in the Tigris River." yes, the quote, taken out of context, could connote "concern" rather than "approval". but reading the document -- as well as those cited by nagy -- in context makes absolutely clear that this is not the case. at any rate, are you saying you don't believe the warnings of humanitarian disaster being issued by the UN and the relief agencies (none of which even take into account uranium munitions)? if so, on what grounds? also note that the u.s. last week announced that it couldn't guarantee the safety of the western human shield activists -- though they're *explicitly* setting up at non-military sites. i didn't word that very well. i don't think it's the *motive* for invading. (oil is the motive. taken on an especial urgency when the iraqi government requested oil-for-food sales be denominated in the euro rather than the dollar -- a move other OPEC countries are considering as well.) it's, in the planners' estimation, the best/easiest (and, unfortunatley, most politically feasible) way to *achieve* the motive. <> just to repeat from my previous post: even if it *weren't* the case, the u.s. openly admits that "collateral damage" is "inevitable", yet proceeds with its plans. that's not just a war crime. it's a contravention of one of the *principle* tenets of international law: civilian casualties are *unacceptable*, whether "intentional" or not. it should also be noted that as the *war itself*, being an unprovoked war of aggression, will be illegal, even targeting of *military* or "strategic" sites (and people) would be a war crime. <> well, frankly, if you want to use this logic to argue for a military intervention in this specific case, you should be arguing for the UN to conduct "surgical strikes" (or what have you) on military targets in washington and london (or anglo-american military units in the gulf), until the sanctions are called off, and until they otherwise discontinue their current policies. sounds absurd, right? yet it's the only argument for using force that makes even the remotest moral or logical sense. actually, i'll give you an example of a situation that could prove to be of such an emergent nature that using force *might*, in the abstract, actually save lives: the occupied territories. israel is openly planning to militarily ethnically "cleanse" the palestinians from the territories ("transfer" to use its term). if it weren't for the fact that the u.s. would prevent them from happening, it seems that limited air-strikes upon israeli military sites in this even might in the long-run save a great many lives. but note that this would be a decision for the *international community* to make, *not* george bush and tony blair, damn what the rest of the world thinks. u.s. (and kuwaiti) aid certainly contributed to the length of the war and the huge number of casualties. this does not absolve saddam, of course. but it's the type of thing american citizens need to take responsibility for preventing their country from participating in. reading through human rights watch's 2002 report on iraq, it looks a lot like ashcroft's vision for the united states. we're not quite there yet, of course. but if PATRIOT II passes, we'll be getting awfully close. which is to say, in iraq's case: still plenty bad, but not nearly as bad as it was. <>stop bombing third world countries whenever there's an itch to scratch. This is just an exaggeration.> . that's not quite the correct way to phrase it, in my opinion. i think we should be asking it this way: will the united states accede to international law, or not? self-determination is one of the founding principles of international law. american citizens (and citizens of "powerful" countries generally) should be primarily concerned with putting enough political pressure on their countries to force them to act within the established framework, and to be bound by established treaties and documents. i think we can all agree that the UN charter, the geneva conventions, and the universal declaration of human rights are all pretty damned enlightened documents. our *first* goal should be to make sure *we're* on the right side of these principles. *then* we can worry about dealing with others who might not be -- and there are established means of doing just that. sorry this was so long -- not at all what i'd intended (though, believe it or not, i cut short some replies because of length). and once again, this is likely to suffer from only the most cursory of proof-reads. i probably should just send it to quail and chris privately, but, what the hell... KEN "Are you some kind of a hypnotist?" THE KENSTER _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #81 *******************************