From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #250 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, July 3 2003 Volume 12 : Number 250 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: California leaving on such a winter's day... ["Glen Uber" ] Re: Someone please extract me from California Dreamin' [Carrie Galbraith ] Re: Someone please extract me from California Dreamin' ["Glen Uber" ] Re: usual suspects [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: favorite facial hair ["Michael Wells" ] Lawndart at Large [Eb ] reap [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: From Nashville... / Dylan Covers [Capuchin ] Re: Power nipples [Capuchin ] Re: Try Apathy [Capuchin ] RE: Try Apathy ["FS Thomas" ] Re: From Nashville... / Dylan Covers ["Stewart C. Russell" ] [Ebmaniax] Kidneys a go-go [Eb ] re: Power nipples [Eb ] RE: Try Apathy [FSThomas ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:18:02 -0700 From: "Glen Uber" Subject: Re: California leaving on such a winter's day... Capuchin earnestly scribbled: >What's disqualified Portland; me or the job market? I would LOVE to move to Portland. I would be in brewpub heaven. I tried to convince Carol that Portland would be ideal, but she insists that we move somewhere that is within a day's drive of her mom and sister in Grand Junction, CO. She's lived in California since '89 and really feels that she should make up for lost time at this point in her life. Are you saying the job market isn't so good there these days? - -- Cheers! - -g- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:33:16 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: California leaving on such a winter's day... At 01:18 PM 7/2/2003 -0700, Glen Uber wrote: >Are you saying the job market isn't so good there these days? A good friend of mine just moved up to Portland a couple of months ago, and she told me the job market there seemed a lot worse than down here right now. She's a massage therapist, but she's been looking in a lot of other industries as well. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:36:39 -0700 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: favorite lyrics I was thinking about lyrics that have stayed with me... I believe written by John Sebastian. He was the one that sang them anyway. "You didn't have to be so nice, I would have loved you anyway" and "Hot town, summer in the city, back of my neck getting dirty and gritty, Cool cat looking for a kitty..." Both of these feel like compressed thoughts, rather essential in nature, along the lines of very, very short stories. Anyone else have similar lyrics, that they keep recalling? Barbara Soutar Victoria, British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 22:41:58 +0200 From: Carrie Galbraith Subject: Re: Someone please extract me from California Dreamin' On Mercoledl, lug 2, 2003, at 21:54 Europe/Rome, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > At 01:30 PM 7/1/2003 -0700, Elizabeth Brion wrote: > >> We've moved to San Luis Obispo since, which is a small improvement, >> but I would strongly advise anyone against this whole county. The >> cost of living has spiraled out of control, and the wages have not >> increased to match it. And I don't know, maybe it's just me, but the >> whole being-surrounded-by-nothing-but-white-people thing is creepy. > > I lived in San Luis Obispo county, in Paso Robles to be specific, > during my high school year. My sister and her husband are still stuck > there. Morro Bay and the entire coast up there are simply gorgeous, > but it's definitely not the most exciting place to live. Fantastic > place to go wine tasting, though. OK, OK, the place is b-o-r-i-n-g but it's a gorgeous stretch of coast. I think the county is the same ratio of redneck/hippy/yuppie that is Sonoma County, right Glen? One night a few friends and I camped at Morro Bay, out on the stretch of coast a bit south. Lots of coyotes in the night. I woke at 5ish and went for a walk and there sat the most beautiful bobcat across the road. Watched and drew her for at least an hour before another noise skitted her away. Ah wilderness...ain't no bobcats, mountain lions, grizzly bears, rattlesnakes, black widows, tarantulas or coyote in Italy. There are wolves however, in the mountains. And a funny, little, very poisonous, scorpion. On Mercoledl, lug 2, 2003, at 22:10 Europe/Rome, Glen Uber wrote: Which is the reason my wife and I will no longer be residents of this great state next year at this time. We're planning to move after the first of the year (March or so) I realize that going "home" may be difficult if not impossible when (and if) I return to the States. The idea that I can't afford to live in the place where 5 generations of my family are buried hurts like hell. However, I've been doing a similar search in my travels and found Colorado to be a very choice spot and I have a serious obsession with Wyoming, but I hate winter. Brewpubs are not important, open stretches of land are. AZ and NM are looking pretty good. Oh, right, the job thing... - - c ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:59:05 -0700 From: "Glen Uber" Subject: Re: Someone please extract me from California Dreamin' Carrie earnestly scribbled: >OK, OK, the place is b-o-r-i-n-g but it's a gorgeous stretch of coast. >I think the county is the same ratio of redneck/hippy/yuppie that is >Sonoma County, right Glen? I would say so. Sonoma County is really weird in that you have people who have been here for years (like my family since the 50s and my friend Megan's family who has been here since the 1890s) and then you have the people who have moved here in the last 10 years because it was cheaper than SF. Still, there is a huge disparity between the haves and the have- nots. The demographics of the county is strange, too. On one hand, there are the $400k + homes and wineries and other yuppie- ish things in and around Sonoma, Petaluma, Sebastopol and Healdsburg. Out by the river and closer to the coast, you have the hippies and bikers -- not to mention a large gay population. The rednecks are all over, but especially in Petaluma and Santa Rosa. And, because of all the wineries and agriculture in general, there is a large immigrant population who can barely survive because of prices spiraling out of control. It's a very weird scene and just driving from one town to the other can be like driving through several different countries. There's no sense of unity or cohesion in the county anymore. >I realize that going "home" may be difficult if not impossible when >(and if) I return to the States. The idea that I can't afford to live >in the place where 5 generations of my family are buried hurts like >hell. Yeah, it's going to be difficult for me to leave behind the place of my birth and the place where, aside from my 18-month stint in Seattle for college and a 9-month long "lost weekend" in Sacramento, I have lived my entire life. However, Carol's happiness is as important to me as my own and I can tell that she's really growing homesick and needs to be close to her family. We've been close to mine all this time and she has been extremely patient. It's her turn to be close to hers. >However, I've been doing a similar search in my travels and found >Colorado to be a very choice spot and I have a serious obsession with >Wyoming, but I hate winter. Brewpubs are not important, open stretches >of land are. AZ and NM are looking pretty good. Oh, right, the job >thing... Wyoming has been mentioned as Cheyenne is only 2 hours from Denver, thus it's only 6 hours from Grand Junction. I don't mind winter. In fact, I find it easier to function in cold weather than I do in hot. I'm just gonna have to buy a truck or SUV or Subaru Outback or something different than what I have now. My little Camry definitely won't last very long in that sort of climate and terrain. As for jobs, I'm ready for a career change if needed. I've seriously considered looking into getting a job as a park ranger or in some other capacity for the National Parks service. I'm not so found of being cooped up in an office anymore. - -- Cheers! - -g- "Remember when you're out there trying to heal the sick that you must always first forgive them." --Bob Dylan, "Open The Door, Homer" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:01:46 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: favorite lyrics On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Barbara Soutar wrote: > I was thinking about lyrics that have stayed with me... I believe > written by John Sebastian. He was the one that sang them anyway. "You > didn't have to be so nice, I would have loved you anyway" and "Hot town, > summer in the city, back of my neck getting dirty and gritty, Cool cat > looking for a kitty..." Both of these feel like compressed thoughts, > rather essential in nature, along the lines of very, very short stories. You're right in both cases that those are Sebastian's (or at least, Lovin' Spoonful songs). I won't argue here for the general merits of that band - but those two songs, at least, are among my favorites of the era. I like the arrangement of "You Didn't Have to Be So Nice" in particular. As for "Summer in the City," that's just plain one of the great singles ever. First, damned near everything in the arrangement - the Wurlitzer piano, that organ sound, the slapback echo on that piano, the agitated rhythm, and of course the street sounds - evoke the feel of the lyric, to the extent that it would sound like a hot, urban day even w/o the lyric. And the transition to "at night it's a different world": the electric autoharp splashes, the slower movement and sustained chords, but still the agitation - again perfectly evoke *that* idea. And I love the sheer exhaustion in the repetition of "in the summer, in the city, in the summer in the city" followed by that syncopated piano figure, the single organ note, and back to the opening piano riff. All that, in under three minutes. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::As long as I don't sleep, he decided, I won't shave. ::That must mean...as soon as I fall asleep, I'll start shaving! __Thomas Pynchon, VINELAND__ np: _Where Has the Music Gone? The Lost Recordings of Clem Comstock_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:31:15 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: usual suspects >> Anyone who han't seen The Usual Suspects and who still wants to (anyone?) >> may not want to read the following: > >Uh... ditto. and ditto again >> one of the more obvious of the thousand and one plot holes. > >Um, you're prefacing YOUR proposed plot hole, not the comment earlier >about Kobayashi not being his real name, right? >Um, was the name not used AT ALL by Verble (or however you spell that as a >name) before it showed on the police report? Which report has his name on >it? I guess I just assumed any reference to the story outside the office >was from the recordings being made and the police madly tracking down >clues based on this "confession". Real plot hole. Verbal mentions Kobayashi, presumably the name on the cup, but a police report referring to a meeting between lawyers (unconnected with Verbal's commentary) also mentions the name. James PS - belatted (covered in coffee? Better make that belated) happy Canada Day, an early Happy 4th of July, and - for today - happy holidays for those in Idaho and the Cayman Islands! 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: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:33:02 -0500 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: Re: favorite facial hair Je2frey writes to say: > You're right in both cases that those are Sebastian's (or at least, Lovin' > Spoonful songs). I won't argue here for the general merits of that band - > but those two songs, at least, are among my favorites of the era. And sideburns, baby, sideburns! John's were world-class. Michael "he could breed sparrows in there" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:33:15 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Lawndart at Large http://home.comcast.net/~rokymanson/ You L.A. folks should drop by tonight. ;) (Lawndart uses a *pseudonym* when he DJs, naturally.) Or you could just share my joy, instead: http://www.radiologyresource.org/content/ivp_radiology.htm Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 23:16:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: reap Jazz musician Herbie Mann ===== "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 01:31:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: From Nashville... / Dylan Covers On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Eb wrote: > I read something today, which I never knew: Mark Hamill had some > horrible car accident between Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, > which required reconstructive surgery and left him permanently scarred? I thought it was a motorcycle accident, if that matters. > Never noticed this. Furthermore, the same source said a scene in Empire > was rewritten to acknowledge the facial changes? Surely, one of you > sci-fi zealots can tell me what the explanation was? As has been pointed out, it's the attack by the Wampa (which I wouldn't have been able to name without the posts here) as well as the consequential scenes in the sick bay and the plastic thing on his face to quickly heal his wounds into scars. There are some who say that those face wounds are the reason he didn't become a big star later like Harrison Ford. Don't know how that accounts for Carrie Fisher, though. However, a disfiguring accident is SURELY the reason Bud Cort didn't go on to be the greatest actor of the eighties and nineties. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 01:56:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Power nipples On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 brian@lazerlove5.com wrote: > Bob Crane liked nipples. Alot. Just saw Auto Focus last night. What an > interesting fellow. Unfortunately, Auto Focus is a badly made movie giving inaccurate information about a guy stranger and more interesting than the movie depicts. First, he never drank. The part about him getting into the booze as he got into the ladies is bogus. Second, he was into the ladies (and the photography of same) long before he was married to his first wife and there was no secret for her to discover. She made all that stuff up later to sort of hide her own acceptance of Bob after they divorced. She didn't want to be complicit as he went public, though she was. The film actually has a terrible timeline hole caused by this (and a plot hole in a supposedly true-life biopic is pretty sad). Bob's agent mentions that he showed his photo album to Doris Day and was almost fired for it or something like that. Bob worked on that show before the events in the film took place, so he couldn't have gotten into photography during the film's timeline. Third, the penile enhancement surgery rumor is also totally bogus. Again, his first wife claims it's true, but there are no medical records and photographic evidence from the early-mid 1950s shows a startlingly well-endowed guy. Again, this is before the film's timeline. The purpose of that rumor eludes me. Perhaps his first wife didn't want her new husband to feel bad. Lastly, while Bob was separated from his second wife at the time of his death, divorce was not at all a certainty and she claims he was her only love to this day and did not remarry. I know way too much about Bob Crane. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 02:29:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Try Apathy On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, FSThomas wrote: > What I would rather see, frankly, is a Supreme Court that sticks to a > strict interpretation of the Constitution, and not one that is > influenced by television shows, parades, or high school clubs. That's > their job after all, isn't it? To interpret the Constitutionality of > laws, right? Not whether they fit into the mores of the moment. Well, first, the Court gave itself the power to judge the "constitutionality" of laws passed by Congress. Justice Marshall basically just stepped up and declared it even though the Constitution does not grant the Court that power. So if the Court were to strictly adhere to the Constitution, it would have to take away its own power to declare things null and void for being unconstitutional. It's a neat little paradox. And what exactly does "strict interpretation of the Constitution" mean? I attended a lecture at Viv's law school given by Justice Scalia in January 2002 and he definitely sees his work as strictly interpreting the Constitution. In fact, he's one of the leaders of a political judicial movement called "constructionists". (To give an example that he actually used in his lecture, children who testify against an alleged molestor cannot give their testimony via video tape or in another room shielded from the potentially threatening glare of the person accused of attacking the child because Scalia says that denies the accused the right to face his accusor. Others argue that the right to face your accusor is satisfied by the defense's ability to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution in person or through counsel. Scalia disagrees because of the word "face".) > (And as an aside, I'm completely for their action last week. Morality > and the practices in the bedroom aren't--last I checked--covered in the > Constitution.) Recall that Scalia also voted against Lawrence in Lawrence v. Texas last week and went so far as to read his dissent from the bench (which is an extremely rare occurence). Indeed, Texas argument in this case was essentially that the Constitution DOES NOT cover morality and practices in the bedroom and therefore, as the Constitution states, it is up to the various states to decide whether or not to pass laws effecting that realm. Read the Constitution, it's very clear in that point. I believe it's at either the beginning or end of Section 8 in Article I. O'Connor, another Republican appointee, voted with the majority, but gave a different rationale. Her argument is that the anti-sodomy law in Texas is only unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection of people under the law and applies only to homosexual men. She would have upheld the law (and, indeed, did in 1986 when another state's law--I believe it was Alabama's--was questioned on similar grounds) if it banned sodomy outright, regardless of perpetrators. Like it or not, Marshall politicized the judiciary. There's no going back. I don't like many of the consequences either, but it really makes no sense to even HAVE a Constitution that guarantees political rights and defines state power if there is no mechanism to test whether or not the legislature is respecting those rights or the state is staying within its bounds. Just as a point of interest, I once asked someone who knows more about legal theory than I do why the Court does not simply interpret law as it is passed and declare unconstitutional those things outside the scope of the legislature as it is voted into law (or even BEFORE the vote comes down). Turns out that the Court's job ISN'T to interpret the law and judge whether the LAW is unconstitutional... that's just a sort of verbal short-hand for the truth. The Court's job is to judge whether the ENFORCEMENT of the law violates the rights of the people or is outside the scope of defined state power. That's why a Court's opinion does not remove a law from the books. The law is still in place because it might possibly be enforceable without a Constitutional violation. I think that's fascinating. I wonder how often "clean-up" bills go through local or federal legislature to remove those items that are unenforceable by Court ruling. I guess the law just hangs around until either the Constitution or the prevailing interpretations of the Constitution change... or somebody figures out another way of enforcing it. Anyway, I'm just avoiding sleep. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:04:15 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: Try Apathy > Texas argument in this case was > essentially that the Constitution DOES NOT cover morality and practices in > the bedroom and therefore, as the Constitution states, it is up to the > various states to decide whether or not to pass laws effecting that realm. No, it doesn't cover private "in-house" morality. There is a lot of allowance by omission. Amendment X to the Bill of Rights states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Reading that might make one, on the side of logic, side with Scalia. > O'Connor, another Republican appointee, voted with the majority, but gave > a different rationale. Her argument is that the anti-sodomy law in Texas > is only unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection of > people under the law and applies only to homosexual men. She would have > upheld the law (and, indeed, did in 1986 when another state's law--I > believe it was Alabama's--was questioned on similar grounds) if it banned > sodomy outright, regardless of perpetrators. That, to me, is the heart of the argument. Equal protection. The *SAME* argument that should have abolished Michigan's admissions policies in their decision, what, the week before? > Like it or not, Marshall politicized the judiciary. There's no going > back. I don't like many of the consequences either, but it really makes > no sense to even HAVE a Constitution that guarantees political rights and > defines state power if there is no mechanism to test whether or not the > legislature is respecting those rights or the state is staying within its > bounds. Just like the tax system, laws on the Federal level should be carefully reviewed and (probably) mostly thrown out. It really ought to be up to the states, from sodomy to selling shitty home-made meth out of your trunk. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 9:18:11 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: From Nashville... / Dylan Covers Jeme wrote: > > However, a disfiguring accident is SURELY the > reason Bud Cort didn't go on > to be the greatest actor of the eighties and > nineties. Amen to that. I haven't watched Harold and Maud for at least a week, so I must again. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:16:34 +0000 (GMT) From: brian@lazerlove5.com Subject: Re: Power nipples Quoting Capuchin : > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 brian@lazerlove5.com wrote: > > Bob Crane liked nipples. Alot. Just saw Auto Focus last night. What > an > > interesting fellow. Jeme A Brelin: > Unfortunately, Auto Focus is a badly made movie giving inaccurate > information about a guy stranger and more interesting than the movie > depicts. > > First, he never drank. The part about him getting into the booze as > he > got into the ladies is bogus... > I know way too much about Bob Crane. Thanks for the info Cap! I may pollute my head with some further reading on ol Bobby. "I don't drink. I don't smoke. 2 out of 3 ain't bad." -Bob Crane - -Nuppy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:04:50 -0500 From: "Eugene F. Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: iSight test anyone? > From: stevetalkowski@mac.com > Subject: iSight test anyone? > > (New G5's...drool...) I managed to drive/touch/fondle a dual 2GB G5 at the NECC conference in Seattle yesterday. That has to be the sexiest computer I've ever touched. The cool aluminum and clear plastic is just stunning. And yes, the that thing screams, too. Didn't get to play any games on it that would have showed off its power, but Photoshop and Maya did things in half a blink of an eye. It occurred to me -- Steve Jobs always has us Mac cultists waiting for the Next Big Thing: Panther, G5s, iChat AV. And it always works. He's such a shithead genius. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:40:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: Try Apathy On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, FS Thomas wrote: > No, it doesn't cover private "in-house" morality. There is a lot of > allowance by omission. > > Amendment X to the Bill of Rights states "The powers not delegated to > the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the > states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." > Reading that might make one, on the side of logic, side with Scalia. Right. That was my whole point. The decision is contrary to strict Constitutional interpretation. In other words, if it weren't for more flexible rationale on the part of the courts, folks like Scalia would dominate and it would be nearly impossible for new ideas and morals to take their place in government. The old way would be the only way. > That, to me, is the heart of the argument. Equal protection. The > *SAME* argument that should have abolished Michigan's admissions > policies in their decision, what, the week before? Well, the equal protection argument was a secondary opinion that sided with the majority. The majority opinion was based on plain privacy. > Just like the tax system, laws on the Federal level should be carefully > reviewed and (probably) mostly thrown out. It really ought to be up to > the states, from sodomy to selling shitty home-made meth out of your > trunk. Do you realize what happens when you weaken the federal government and force the states to regulate everything themselves? They become instant push-overs for big corporations. Right now, it takes a multinational behemoth like Enron or Dow or even Caterpillar to push around the federal regulators. They have to have the clout to say, "If you don't give us what we want, we're jumping ship. Run the country as we say or we'll leave." That threat is meaningless when you're a 600 employee company in a midsized city. Those kinds of organizations can't threaten the federal government, but they can intimidate local governments by threatening to take their jobs and tax revenue across state, county, or city lines. The result of weak federal regulation would be total translation of economic power into political power. The common person would have no hope of making changes in the face of the economic threats of every medium sized corporation in their city or state. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:12:41 -0700 From: Eb Subject: [Ebmaniax] Kidneys a go-go So I had the IVP procedure (http://www.radiologyresource.org/content/ivp_radiology.htm), this morning. They pumped me full o' iodine, then took 13-14 x-rays of my kidneys and lower abdomen. Took a hour and a half or so -- they seemed to take a few extra pictures, because they had trouble getting shots which properly encompassed all the goodies of a tall person. They didn't give me any results as yet, but at least no one told me "Don't you DARE run in that 10K tomorrow!" I'm feeling kinda ugly and headachy, as always happens when I go too long without eating. (In this case, it was about an even 24 hours.) I sure hope the headache disappears by tonight, because I don't want to wake up tomorrow feeling yucky. And when I go to bed with a headache, I usually wake up with one too. I was aiming to run the 10K in under 52 minutes, but considering this health problem and my disappointing runs during the past week or so, I've reluctantly dropped that goal to 53 minutes. The competition in those 10Ks is hardcore, man. I'll be lucky to finish within the top two-thirds of the field. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:13:32 -0700 From: Eb Subject: re: Power nipples >I know way too much about Bob Crane. I've noticed that when Jeme weighs in with film criticism, his complaints often seem centered on splitting factual hairs rather than assessing the filmmaking or acting. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:15:00 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: RE: Try Apathy At 12:40 PM 7/3/2003 -0700, Capuchin wrote: >...if it weren't for more >flexible rationale on the part of the courts, folks like Scalia would >dominate and it would be nearly impossible for new ideas and morals to >take their place in government. The old way would be the only way. Not true. The secondary opinion (equal protection) would then become the leading opinion. I did a search for the word "privacy" in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It doesn't come up once. Where's the "right to privacy" defined in the Constitution? Is it broadly included under protection from unlawful search? (This is a genuine question and not sarcastic baiting...I honestly don't see it clearly defined anywhere.) >Do you realize what happens when you weaken the federal government and >force the states to regulate everything themselves? Bliss? Freedom from, on a Federal level, ridiculous amounts of bureaucracy, red tape, and ineffectual employees? Hmm... The idea that a team of bureaucrats in Washington DC have a flying fig's worth of knowledge about land use policies in, say, Anchorage (or the Keys, or Montpelier) is ridiculous. It should be regionalized on a state level and, when the state is large enough, on a county level. As an example: Even in as small a state as Connecticut (where I lived for 30 some-odd years before moving to Georgia this past Easter) years ago they disbanded the county government system. In so small a state you wouldn't necessarily think that it would make a difference, but life in Fairfield County (just east of NYC) is *very* different from that in Tolland County (near the RI border, in the n.e. part of the state). Land use is different. Property values are skewed. Business saturation is different. Median incomes vary greatly. Expand that difference by, say, 3000 miles, and how can a Senator sitting on a panel make a decision business legislation and be informed? He or she can't. The Feds should stick to what is defined in the Constitution and leave the rest to the state governments who, on a better scale, understand their constituents. >Right now, it takes a multinational >behemoth like Enron or Dow or even Caterpillar to push around the federal >regulators. "Push around" or "force into action?" >They have to have the clout to say, "If you don't give us >what we want, we're jumping ship. Stanley Works tried that in Connecticut not too long ago. They were going to pull their headquarters out of New Britain, CT, and move to Bermuda for a tax break (to the tune of $30 million a year). The AFLCIO rang in on it, and the State's Attorney General (Tricky Dick Blumenthal) brought litigation against Stanley Works to guarantee that the shareholders had the opportunity to fairly participate in the vote on whether to change its place of incorporation. It's a good example of a large corporation and manufacturer attempting to bully the state into a tax reduction (or face total loss of revenue) resolved *on the state level*. It's completely possible. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #250 ********************************