From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #115 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, March 27 2003 Volume 12 : Number 115 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Watching the war ["FS Thomas" ] Re: Wonderful Merchandise [Christopher Gross ] Re: Wonderful Merchandise [Marcy Tanter ] Re: Wonderful Merchandise ["FS Thomas" ] Re: Heh heh [Miles Goosens ] Re: Wonderful Merchandise [The Great Quail ] Re: Wonderful Merchandise [noam tchotchke ] Fw: Re:Watching the war ["Mike Wells" ] RE: Watching the war ["Timothy Reed" ] RE: Watching the war ["Jason R. Thornton" ] RE: Watching the war [Miles Goosens ] RE: Wonderful Merchandise ["Timothy Reed" ] footnote to previous message [Miles Goosens ] RE: Watching the war ["Timothy Reed" ] Re: footnote to previous message ["FS Thomas" ] Re: Wonderful Merchandise [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: Watching the war [Glen Uber ] Re: Watching the war ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: Wonderful Merchandise [The Great Quail ] Donna Fargo [Miles Goosens ] Re: Wonderful Merchandise ["FS Thomas" ] Re: Donna Fargo [Glen Uber ] Re: Wonderful Merchandise [The Great Quail ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:19:22 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: Re: Watching the war - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Timothy Reed" > > It's a pretty scientific guess and the accepted way to count TV viewers > in the US and Canada. TV ratings are calculated by Nielson Media > Research. Viewing habits of thousands of Nielson households are > uploaded to the company on a nightly basis and used to calculate > ratings, which are published the following day. Ratings are broken down > a bunch of ways, including by sex, age group, ethnicity and income. I've always had such a problem with Nielson. My ex and I were approached *years* back to become one of the testing households. I don't think I answered some questions right, though, because they never followed up on it. Small (or relatively small, by comparison) statistical samplings are inevitably skewed and that's what you're dealing with when looking at Nielson. Now have signal providers tap boxes and dishes and you would have accurate data. A Big Brother society, too, but accurate data. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:21:51 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Wonderful Merchandise > one time at band camp, Marcy Tanter said: > > >I disagree. If they can put a gag on the reporters stating where they are > >exactly, they can put a gag on them showing any dead soldiers' faces, etc. You're conflating two separate things here, reporting and broadcasting. The military can stop embedded reporters in the field from reporting exact positions and other sensitive info (in fact they had to agree not to mention such info to enter the embed program). However, the military has no control over what the stations back home actually broadcast. At most, they can cajole them and threaten to withdraw access. Of course, the video showing the faces of dead US and UK soldiers was filmed by Iraqi reporters, so our military obviously had no control over them.... woj: > to my knowledge, the embedded reporters have not aired any images of dead > soldiers. al-jazeera originally broadcast the video of the dead and > captured uk/usa soldiers. cnn elected to not broadcast clips of the footage > until they knew the families had been notified but decided to air snippets, > despite pentagon requests not to do so at all. however, one mother learned > of her son's death because she was watching, on satellite tv, a filipino > station which aired the footage. That case was actually the mother of one of the live POWs -- I think his name is Hudson? Anyway, at least one of the mothers who saw her dead son on TV described her ordeal to the media in Spanish; so it might well be that she saw the video on satellite TV from Mexico or some other Spanish-speaking country. Of course, all this video is available on the Internet and Kazaa.... - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:25:23 -0600 From: Marcy Tanter Subject: Re: Wonderful Merchandise At 01:21 PM 3/27/2003 -0500, Christopher Gross wrote: >You're conflating two separate things here, reporting and broadcasting. >The military can stop embedded reporters in the field from reporting exact >positions and other sensitive info (in fact they had to agree not to >mention such info to enter the embed program). However, the military has >no control over what the stations back home actually broadcast. At most, >they can cajole them and threaten to withdraw access. > >Of course, the video showing the faces of dead US and UK soldiers was >filmed by Iraqi reporters, so our military obviously had no control over >them.... During war (which hasn't been declared, as far as I know), can't the government prohibit the media from distributing certain images? If they can stop reporters telling us where they are they must be able to tell the networks not to broadcast iamges--Rumsfeld said that it violates the Geneva convention for Iraq to film and broadcast the images of dead soldiers and POWs so surely that would apply domestically, too?? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:35:45 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: Re: Wonderful Merchandise - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcy Tanter" > > During war (which hasn't been declared, as far as I know), can't the > government prohibit the media from distributing certain images? If they > can stop reporters telling us where they are they must be able to tell the > networks not to broadcast iamges--Rumsfeld said that it violates the Geneva > convention for Iraq to film and broadcast the images of dead soldiers and > POWs so surely that would apply domestically, too?? Well the current situation seems to be one of reporters in the field, with units, doing damned close to live reporting with only seconds of delay. A fair amount of it is with crap video phones, granted (which look all right if run in a window on the screen, but not full-screen), but it's still alarmingly current. The first Gulf War was heavily monitored. Vietnam and Korea, you had to haul your film out of the bush, ship it to process, and then ship it to editing, where it finally aired after five days to a week. Not so this time around--or at least not yet. If things start going horridly wrong you may see one of two things: the military pulling the plug on the embed program, or (almost more believably) the bulk of the reporters saying 'enough' and getting the Hell out of Dodge. f. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:47:31 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: Heh heh At 12:35 PM 3/27/2003 -0500, Stewart C. Russell wrote: >Miles Goosens wrote: >> >> History shows again and again how Java points out >> the folly of man. > >JavaScript, surely ...? It was a choice between being accurate between Javascript/Java vs. replicating the syllable count from the original word ("nature"), and I opted for the latter. However, no choice is required for "Go go Mozilla!" later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:44:57 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Wonderful Merchandise > Poor Mike. He exercises his right to free speech and gets vilified for > it. Great country we live in. Errr....yes. Exactly right. Free speech goes both ways...right, Marcy? - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:45:28 -0500 From: noam tchotchke Subject: Re: Wonderful Merchandise one time at band camp, Christopher Gross said: >woj: > > however, one mother learned > > of her son's death because she was watching, on satellite tv, a filipino > > station which aired the footage. > >That case was actually the mother of one of the live POWs -- I think his >name is Hudson? oops. right. i appear to have missed out on the dead soldier footage being shown (probably just as well too). i agree that sucks but the military or government shouldn't be involved in the decision to air such footage or not. they certainly can and do make their feelings on the issue known but that's about it as far as i'm concerned. at least not until martial law is declared. ;) woj ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:59:42 -0600 From: "Mike Wells" Subject: Fw: Re:Watching the war Ross: > And why does TV actually have to show the reporter or anchor person so much? Can't they > just fill the screen w/ the footage? Or even a map? I'm not interested in the reporter or > anchor person. Either that, or give us some appeasement-oriented analysis, or something, in > the processs. On a side note, Geraldo has been REALLY good at using the videophone in Afghanistan. He doesn't have it jammed right up in his own face, but mounted on some sort of tripod or other stable surface...and he uses a remote from 15ft away to pan it across a wide field of vision while talking. I've seen some pretty interesting shots that way. Doesn't stop him from being a tool, though, in a black Aussie hat no less. And isn't Peter Arnett's crew in Baghdad filming most of their footage in HD? ISTR reading somewhere that Mark Cuban had outfitted them with full-on HD equipment prior to departure. Michael "ever watched pro bowling in high-definition? the ball looks SO real" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:01:14 -0500 From: "Timothy Reed" Subject: RE: Watching the war > FS Thomas > From: "Timothy Reed" > I've always had such a problem with Nielson. My ex and I were approached > *years* back to become one of the testing households. I don't think I > answered some questions right, though, because they never > followed up on it. Small (or relatively small, by comparison) > statistical samplings are inevitably skewed and that's what > you're dealing with when looking at Nielson. There's a margin of error deals with market research, although I don't know if Nielson publishes a one with their ratings. In terms of cable ratings, Fox News ratings were 12% higher than CNN and I doubt that the margin of error would be that high. This is also accounted for by the likelihood that another Nielson family also didn't answer questions accurately, but in a manner that compensated for your wrong answers. So if you're a 30 year old guy who said he was 60, there's probably a 60 year old guy who said he was a 30 year. I'm a little sceptical that this works all the time, but that was one of the premises that we worked under at the Harris Poll in my youth. > > Now have signal providers tap boxes and dishes and you would > have accurate data. A Big Brother society, too, but accurate data. > That's what Nielson does now. I don't know how they measure if a TV's actually turned on but I figure that the ratings box must control the TV power. I've got a Tivo connected to my set, so the cable box is always turned on and tuned to some channel. Speaking of Tivo, they are now providing details of their subscribers viewing habits. Michael Moore's speech and Julia Roberts presentation were the most replayed portions of last weekend's Oscar telecast. Tim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:03:48 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: RE: Watching the war At 12:17 PM 3/27/2003 -0600, Marcy Tanter wrote: >I know about using the Neilson counts, but I'm very dubious about how >accurate it really is. Almost everyone here at my work has been watching >CNN or MSNBC. Nobody's even mentined Fox. Now I know we're not a >scientific sample or anything, but if Fox were logging the most, wouldn't >someone I know be watching it? Not necessarily. Neilson's random samples are selected to represent the country as a whole, and local (and extremely localized) preferences may not reflect national trends. The Neilson is simply a survey, and its accuracy is dependent on how well the survey is conducted and the instrument is designed. I was surveyed by Neilson once, and I found their "TV log book" type questionnaire severely flawed. But, assuming 100% accuracy, you'd still find all kinds of variations across a population as large as that of the United States. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:19:17 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: RE: Watching the war At 02:01 PM 3/27/2003 -0500, Timothy Reed wrote: >Speaking of Tivo, they are now providing details of their subscribers >viewing habits. Michael Moore's speech and Julia Roberts presentation >were the most replayed portions of last weekend's Oscar telecast. Moore I understand. Julia Roberts' presentation, though? All I remember was that she demonstrated for the umpteenth consecutive awards show that despite a lifetime in formal wear, she still can't walk in heels. I'm beginning to think that a coked-up Donna Fargo was actually more graceful. Then again, Julia Roberts' appeal has always eluded me. If I had a Tivo and the inclination, I guess I'd be replaying Julianne Moore's presentation (just because I love her and the dress), Adrian Brody slipping the tongue to Hallie Berry, and the look on Marty's face when they gave out "Best Director," a look that said "At least they gave it to a real artist instead of a &*%&#@! first-time nominee." later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:16:25 -0500 From: "Timothy Reed" Subject: RE: Wonderful Merchandise > During war (which hasn't been declared, as far as I know), Congress doesn't get the opportunity to formally declare war these days, given how quickly they're over. The president has to notify Congress that he's sending troops to a conflict and then has 2 months to get its approval and (if he doesn't get it) 1 month to withdraw. So basically he's got 90 days to wage and end the war without Congress getting in the way. Tim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:33:20 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: footnote to previous message Before someone tells me that a first-time nominee may well be a true artist and deserving, which of course is very possible... ... Scorsese's two previous Best Director nominations were for RAGING BULL and GOODFELLAS. The guy who beat him in 1981 was first-time director/Hollywood Hunk Robert Redford, for the decent-but-workmanlike ORDINARY PEOPLE. The buy who beat him in 1991 was first-time director/Hollywood Hunk Kevin Costner, for the decent-but-workmanlike DANCES WITH WOLVES. The smart money this year was for Marty to be beaten out by first-time director Rob Marshall for the IMO decent-but-workmanlike CHICAGO, so I, like Marty, was pleased to see Polanski pull off the upset. And while I'm talking about CHICAGO, we finally saw it last Saturday, and while I was entertained, I was very underwhelmed overall. It was well worth the matinee money and wouldn't have been a disappointment at full price, but for all I'd read about how Marshall was so clever at staging it, and how wonderful the editing was, to me it seemed like all the cool artistic elements were direct from the Bob Fosse stage production, and Marshall pretty much photographed *that.* In fact, I thought Marshall's photography and editing choices were just a few steps away from Merchant-Ivory disregard for editing. For all my complaints about how MOULIN ROUGE wasn't as innovative as Baz and its most rabid supporters made it out to be, IMO it was much more of an artistic achievement *and* entertainment than CHICAGO. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:31:45 -0500 From: "Timothy Reed" Subject: RE: Watching the war > Now I know we're not a > scientific sample or anything, but if Fox were logging the > most, wouldn't > someone I know be watching it? Unless you regularly quiz everyone about their viewing habits - and that would get pretty annoying - you may already know someone who does. _Someone_ is watching Survivor but no one in my circle is fessing up to that either. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:32:06 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: Re: footnote to previous message > And while I'm talking about CHICAGO, we finally saw it last Saturday, and while > I was entertained, I was very underwhelmed overall. Just as a general comment from one who spent three years working in theatre: IMHO musicals are, on the entertainment ladder, only a rung or two above potty humor and several below sarcasm. - -ferris. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:37:19 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Wonderful Merchandise Quoting Marcy Tanter : > During war (which hasn't been declared, as far as I know), can't the > government prohibit the media from distributing certain images? If they > can stop reporters telling us where they are they must be able to tell > the > networks not to broadcast iamges--Rumsfeld said that it violates the > Geneva > convention for Iraq to film and broadcast the images of dead soldiers and > POWs so surely that would apply domestically, too?? Leaving aside whether this would be a good idea...now Rumsfeld et al are appealing to international law? That's a good laugh: from the start (as here), they've used international law and agreement *only* when it supported actions and intentions they'd already decided on, and ignored it at all other times - even to the extent of simultaneously appealing to the UN (the '91 resolutions) while ignoring its clear, present intent (withdrawing a known loser of a proposed resolution). Aside from that, there's something deeply surreal and disconnected about "rules of decency" during wartime, approximately along the lines of someone getting upset because the rapist didn't say "please" before attacking his mother. We're killing people, and then complaining about what pictures should and shouldn't be shown? Why not not create the corpses in the first place? Actually, I think everyone in favor of the war should be mailed raw body parts from the battlefield, and be forced to carry them around with them: wouldn't W. look grand covered in rotting viscera on national TV? "Decency" is a complete deception in wartime - I say show people's heads being blown off during children's programming. If the pro-war folks can't stand up for what they're doing, they shouldn't do it. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: I feel that all movies should have things that happen in them :: --TV's Frank np: Absolutely Kosher 2003 sampler ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:00:12 -0800 From: Glen Uber Subject: Re: Watching the war Once upon a time somebody say to me -- this is Miles Goosens talking now -- what is your conceptual continuity? > At 02:01 PM 3/27/2003 -0500, Timothy Reed wrote: >> Speaking of Tivo, they are now providing details of their subscribers >> viewing habits. Michael Moore's speech and Julia Roberts presentation >> were the most replayed portions of last weekend's Oscar telecast. > > Moore I understand. Julia Roberts' presentation, though? All I remember was > that she demonstrated for the umpteenth consecutive awards show that despite a > lifetime in formal wear, she still can't walk in heels. I'm beginning to > think that a coked-up Donna Fargo was actually more graceful. Holy crap! Donna Fargo?!? I've been on this list for a long time and believe this is the first time her name has ever been dropped. My dad used to play her music on 8-track in the car whenever we would go on trips of more than 2 hours. I still can't drive between Santa Rosa and Sacramento without hearing "Happiest Girl in the Whole U.S.A." in the recesses of my brain. > Then again, Julia Roberts' appeal has always eluded me. You and me both, brother. - -- Cheers! - -g- "Half the world's starving and have the world bloats; half the world sits on the other and gloats." --Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:19:57 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: Watching the war >From: Glen Uber >Subject: Re: Watching the war >Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:00:12 -0800 > >Once upon a time somebody say to me -- this is Miles Goosens talking > > Then again, Julia Roberts' appeal has always eluded me. >You and me both, brother. Three. I have a rule that I always seem to lapse on. I have never seen a movie with her in it that I did not find overrated, so I don't go. Sometimes she sneaks in and blamo. I think the worst was Conspiracy Theory, what a shit sandwich that was. Michael Collins was okay but she was superfluous. Oceans 11 was a mediocre film which was a remake of a unwatchable film(and I love the Rat Pack). Max _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:31:50 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Wonderful Merchandise Jeffrey with one J writes, > Aside from that, there's something deeply surreal and disconnected > about "rules of decency" during wartime, approximately along the lines of > someone getting upset because the rapist didn't say "please" before > attacking his mother. We're killing people, and then complaining about what > pictures should and shouldn't be shown? Why not not create the corpses in > the first place? War is indecent, that's a given. But your analogy is faulty, as it covers a criminal act -- which may be an element of war, as when civilians are killed, but is not a correct metaphor for the totality of war. On the battlefield, the distinction between rapist and mother is somewhat less clear. This is further complicated if you believe you are waging a "just" war. (I am not saying this is that; I am saying that this is a consequence of belief.) However, even in something like indecent war, there are varying degrees of what is generally considered acceptable and what is not. Decency is not an absolute. There are two basic reasons for the so-called "laws" of war. First and foremost, there's the general idea of minimalizing civilian casualties. Certain acts of war may be seen as increasingly less descent when they fail to discriminate between civilians and combatants. The Iraqi habit of using human shields, for instance. (They have been known to actually tie women to tanks.) Gassing towns, dropping A-bombs on cities, carpet-bombing, these may reasonably be seen as less decent ways of waging war. Or, in the present case, storing munitions in hospitals, schools, and religious buildings. Secondly, and this may not sit well with you, there are ideas of "decency" among the combatants themselves. There are even notions of chivalry, grace, and honor. (If you don't believe me, read some accounts by those who fight.) Humiliating prisoners, or worse, torturing the defeated -- generally not looked well upon in the West, or most parts of the world, for that matter. A white flag is to be honored -- when surrender is used as a ruse, it makes it more difficult for other enemy troops to truly surrender later down the road. When combatants dress like civilians and hide in the populace, it willfully endangers the populace. Now, I know that some of this is the point of guerrilla warfare. And as General Clark said, "Fair is how you fight when your survival is not at stake." And the Ba'athi regime is quite threatened indeed. But that still does not mean that there are no standards of decency, even when one may understand how some tactics evolve to meet a certain situation. After all, what was September 11th than the ultimate logical conclusion of this idea? War may be hell, but that doesn't excuse those who wage it from delineating different layers of the inferno. > Actually, I think everyone in favor of the war should be mailed raw > body parts from the battlefield, and be forced to carry them around with > them: wouldn't W. look grand covered in rotting viscera on national TV? There are those who support the war because they believe that Saddam is a greater threat in the long run, and though you may disagree, it is a credible and defensible position. What if a hawk said that those who not support the war should be mailed the charred remains of the future victims of an Iraqi nuclear strike? There are those who support the war because they want to see Saddam removed from power, hoping that he won't have the chance to keep killing, purging, torturing, and executing his people. What of one of these mailed you the eyeballs of a child, one of the reported hundreds that have been gouged out by the regime? What I am trying to say this that good people can be for and against the war, for good and defensible reasons. Wishing them draped in the gore of their consequences cuts both ways, and it does little to promote rational debate. Better to try an understand *why* people support the war, and counter these reasons without hysteria. > "Decency" is a complete deception in wartime - I say show people's heads > being blown off during children's programming. If the pro-war folks can't > stand up for what they're doing, they shouldn't do it. Here I mostly agree with you. I think that we should have access to those images denied to us, from the executed American POWs to dead Iraqi children to the crushed bodies from the Twin Towers. I think we deserve the full reality -- war is terrible, and we should be aware of its cost. Just for the record, this war makes me utterly depressed for very many reasons. But not all of these reasons reside with Bush, Rumsfeld, and dead Iraqi civilians. I pray that it ends as swiftly as possible with the destruction of Saddam's regime, that we use the UN to build a more free Iraq, and that we do not let greed of oil corrupt what could be a vibrant society once again. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:58:20 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Donna Fargo At 12:00 PM 3/27/2003 -0800, Glen Uber wrote: >Once upon a time somebody say to me -- this is Miles Goosens talking now -- >what is your conceptual continuity? >> lifetime in formal wear, she still can't walk in heels. I'm beginning to >> think that a coked-up Donna Fargo was actually more graceful. > >Holy crap! Donna Fargo?!? > >I've been on this list for a long time and believe this is the first time >her name has ever been dropped. My dad used to play her music on 8-track in >the car whenever we would go on trips of more than 2 hours. I still can't >drive between Santa Rosa and Sacramento without hearing "Happiest Girl in >the Whole U.S.A." in the recesses of my brain. Eeep! She was omnipresent in the early and mid-'70s, before Tanya Tucker stole her crown of Country Music Strolloping Road Whore (the brunette Fargo was doomed to lose the title, as blondes always have the inside track on it; current-day reigning one is Faith Hill). She'd go on that show hosted by Jim Ed Brown and Helen Cornelius and lip-synch the hits while stomping her high heels up and down like a defensive lineman on steroids. As much a part of my childhood as Watergate and Puffinstuff. Rex, you got any memories of her, or is this one of the very few times that our slight age difference, well, makes a difference (in your favor in this case!). I'm hoping that mentioning her at this time doesn't somehow generate a revival of "U.S. of A." >> Then again, Julia Roberts' appeal has always eluded me. > >You and me both, brother. Woo hoo, that's two of us! later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:51:32 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: Re: Wonderful Merchandise I am finding that I'm having a hard time watching more than a half hour of news at a time. Is it the immediacy? Is it the growing fear of a protracted engagement? Dunno. Quail wrote that he hopes... > ... we use the UN to build a more free > Iraq, and that we do not let greed of oil corrupt what could be a vibrant > society once again. I think it's that very greed--to some extent at least--that has entrenched Hussien in power this long and driven him to the lengths to which he's gone in the past. Money and power feed off each other in an ouroborosian manner; one begetting the other, often in its own lap. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:05:01 -0800 From: Glen Uber Subject: Re: Donna Fargo Once upon a time somebody say to me -- this is Miles Goosens talking now -- what is your conceptual continuity? > She'd go on that show hosted by Jim Ed Brown and Helen Cornelius Wow! You're busting out all the B-List country stars of the 70s. Next, I suppose you're going to bring up Johnny Carver or Billy "Crash" Craddock or Dave and Sugar. - -- Cheers! - -g- "Half the world's starving and have the world bloats; half the world sits on the other and gloats." --Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:10:17 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Wonderful Merchandise Fast Sammy writes, (Isn't that what FS stands for?) > I think it's that very greed--to some extent at least--that has entrenched > Hussien in power this long and driven him to the lengths to which he's gone > in the past. To Saddam's credit, one of the best things he did was nationalize the Iraqi oil industry. He actually used much of that revenue to build a better country with electricity, high literacy rates, and decent health care. Favorite Saddam Story #46: There is a 600+ page Koran in Baghdad that is supposedly written entirely in Saddam's blood, with every single page on display under glass. Saddam purportedly donated over 24 liters of blood over a few years or so to make it! Woo-hoo! (Too bad he's not a fan of Proust.) - --Quail ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #115 ********************************