From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #252 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, July 5 2003 Volume 12 : Number 252 Today's Subjects: ----------------- The art of lowered expectations [Eb ] Re: favorite lyrics [Barbara Soutar ] The blues [Barbara Soutar ] Re: Privacy "rights" (was "Try Apathy") [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: Privacy "rights" (was "Try Apathy") [Ed ] Re: Lefty bassists [Eb ] reap [Eb ] Re: Lefty bassists [Ed ] RE: Try Apathy [Barbara Soutar ] Re: Lefty bassists [Ken Weingold ] Re: Lefty bassists ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: Lefty bassists [Glen Uber ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:12:13 -0700 From: Eb Subject: The art of lowered expectations Well, I ran in an official 10K this morning. There are always loads of them on July 4th. And I managed to avoid exploding my kidneys, at least as far as I know. (For those of you Bcc'ers who don't know yet, I developed kidney-stone symptoms this week and spent yesterday morning at the hospital getting X-rayed. A few people told me I was foolish for not aborting my race plans.) I don't have any exciting anecdotes about this race. It's one of the "cleanest" routes I've run -- dead flat, and a perfect rectangle on major four-lane streets (temporarily coned off and police-patrolled) except for a brief detour through a residential block. There was both a 5K and a 10K -- the 10K people simply ran an extra lap around the course. The race started at 7:30am, but even at that bleary hour, it was already hot. I bet it was close to 80 degrees, though I'm not especially good at estimating temperatures. I had downgraded my goal time from 52 minutes to 53 minutes, in view of the kidney stone and sluggish practice runs. This turned out to be a canny manuever, because my time was... 52:41! That works out to a 8:28 mile pace. I think the heat definitely cost me a little time, and I was dragging in the end. It was a bit depressing, because I don't know if I passed *anyone* during the second lap. I just watched everybody run by me. This always happens, because my pacing sucks. I would say that I'm a "rabbit," except that I'm not very fast to begin with. ;) I was 10th out of 14 in my age/gender division, and 56th out of 113 overall. Almost dead-center. There must have been four serious ringers in the 10K race, because the top four times were incredible. The winning time was a blazing 33:11 (usually, the top time seems to be a couple of minutes slower than that), and three other people finished in under 34 minutes. But after them, there was almost a *four-minute gap* before anyone else crossed the finish line. Those four people were in a whole different class from the rest of us. I would have enjoyed seeing them finish -- runners like that are poetry to watch. This was only the fourth time I've run in my new Asics shoes, and they're giving me blisters. :( I have good-sized blisters on the back of each heel, down low. I had a "blister period" with the previous pair, but it came after several months and the trouble spot was about an inch higher. My body fared better than another guy's, though -- some 40ish man apparently fell during the race, and bloodied himself on the asphalt pretty good. I saw him after the race, and he had raw places on his face and a bloody shirt. How did your girlfriend do in her race, FS? :) Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:23:07 -0700 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Re: favorite lyrics Said Jeffrey: >...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 > Yes, it's a fascinating world in a nutshell, and you describe the mood-setting elements well. I wasn't sure why it came across so strongly but everything works towards the main idea. That was some good music. >"She's wearing her 'don't talk to me' face as she makes the kids' lunches. >I oblige and softly shut the front door as I leave" (Muttonbirds) > >The last of these is such a beautifully compact description that sets the scene for a whole domestic life. > >ah.. that'll do. I could list dozens more, but you're bored already. > >James, surrounded by the white, snow-clad hills of winter > No, not at all bored. Very interested, as I find that songs can be as good as or better than short stories. I mean Dylan's Tangled Up in Blue! I have speculated on that one for years. Enjoy the snow while you can! And referring to John Sebastian, Mike said >Excellent songwriter, burned out too quickly. > >- - Mike Godwin > I have never seen the one "Four Eyes" though "Nashville Cats" is firmly stuck in my memory. Yes, he was a special writer and had such a gentle voice. (Oh and Michael Wells mentioned his sideburns, they were something special too!) I hope McDonalds paid him a LOT of royalties for "Do You Believe in Magic?", if only for the crassness of connecting magic with junk food. Oh John, why did you let them do that to your song? Barbara Soutar Victoria, British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:28:56 -0700 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: The blues I was just reading in the paper that the American Congress has designated 2003 as the Centenary of the Blues. This is nice and all, but somehow ridiculous. I'm sure that the blues has been around for much longer than that. What they are really celebrating is the invention of recording devices, I believe. I can picture someone in the government investigating the blues and saying, "Well, I can only find recordings of it going back to 1903, that's when it all must have started!" Next thing you know, people will be researching the year 1903 to see what could have inspired black people to sing the blues all of a sudden... And speaking of the blues, poor Eb and his kidney problems... though I have never experienced a kidney stone I know it's a real drag Barbara Soutar Victoria, British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 15:10:33 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Privacy "rights" (was "Try Apathy") I probably should just shut up - but, what the hell. Anyway, it seems to me that overly literalist or strict constructionist interpretations of law fall flat because they assume a literality to language that's insupportable. Scalia's bit about "face" is an example: the word is clearly used metaphorically, but if it's interpreted literally in "face one's accusers," then why not literally in "face charges" (the person must actually see the charges written down), or why not recognize that, apparently, one can't really charge a blind person with anything, since that person cannot "face" in the sense of literally see those who accuse. Unfortunately, it seems that I then have to rely upon an unfashionable notion of "intention" or "main idea": to me, the idea of "face accusers" is that charges not be leveled anonymously and capriciously w/no accountability. Ultimately, the contradiction means simply that courts perforce must *interpret* the law - and therefore that a strict constructionist view falls away into nonsense. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: it's not your meat :: --Mr. Toad ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:20:42 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Lefty bassists So I am playing bass again after a ~15 year hiatus. I'm lefty. What lefty bassists are there out there? The only one I know of is Stuart Chatwood from The Tea Party. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:15:30 -0400 From: Ed Subject: Re: Privacy "rights" (was "Try Apathy") On Friday, July 4, 2003, at 04:10 PM, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > Unfortunately, it seems that I then have to rely upon an unfashionable > notion of "intention" or "main idea": to me, the idea of "face > accusers" is > that charges not be leveled anonymously and capriciously w/no > accountability. > > Ultimately, the contradiction means simply that courts perforce must > *interpret* the law - and therefore that a strict constructionist view > falls > away into nonsense. nicely said. I think that 'originalists' and strict constructionists do not give enough weight to the fact that it's a constitution -- not merely a statute -- that is being considered. The drafters of the Constitution clearly intended to craft an organic and evolving framework for the regulation of competing powers -- the states v. the federal government, the legislative v. the executive, the individual v. the government, etc. The deliberately amorphous nature of many clauses (e.g. "due process," or "unreasonable search and seizure") allows for the adaptation to new circumstances (or technologies, etc). In other words, the 4th Amendment could have been written to prohibit holding a criminal defendant in contempt of court for refusing to testify to self-incriminating matters (or some other, specific practice of the time), but instead the Amendment provides that individuals may not be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The broad principle thus established precludes obtaining confessions through involuntary administration of "truth serum," which obviously could not have been a circumstance considered by the Framers. A good constitution must be able to grow and adapt through interpretation and extension of its principles to new circumstances. Now, it's another question entirely whether the Framers intended for the judiciary to wield the ultimate (if not exclusive) power of interpretation, but Justice Marshall settled that for us 200 years ago (see Marbury v. Madison). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:19:48 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Lefty bassists >So I am playing bass again after a ~15 year hiatus. I'm lefty. >What lefty bassists are there out there? The only one I know of is >Stuart Chatwood from The Tea Party. What's-his-name in the Beatles plays lefty. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:21:02 -0700 From: Eb Subject: reap Barry White, 56 I understand the prime cause was kidney failure. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:43:03 -0400 From: Ed Subject: Re: Lefty bassists On Friday, July 4, 2003, at 04:20 PM, Ken Weingold wrote: > What lefty bassists are there out there? The only one I know of is > Stuart Chatwood from The Tea Party. I think one of those 60's "British Invasion" bands had a left-handed bass player... umm, I think his name was Paul McSomething-or-other. I think he had a solo career, too. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:50:19 -0700 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: RE: Try Apathy In a very intelligent essay written by a man called Thom Hartmann, there is a discussion of this topic about the American person's right to privacy. It turns out that it's based on common sense rather than the Constitution. > In that view of American law, Justice Clarence Thomas - George W. > Bush's "role model" for future Supreme Court nominees - agrees. > > In his dissent in the Texas sodomy case, Thomas wrote, "just like > Justice Stewart, I 'can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any > other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,' or as the > Court terms it today, the 'liberty of the person both in its spatial > and more transcendent dimensions.'" > > Echoing Thomas' so-called conservative perspective, Rush Limbaugh said > on his radio program on June 27, 2003, "There is no right to privacy > specifically enumerated in the Constitution." Jerry Falwell similarly > agreed on Fox News. > > Limbaugh and Thomas may soon also point out to us that the > Constitution doesn't specifically grant a right to marry, and thus > license that function exclusively to, say, Falwell. The Constitution > doesn't grant a right to eat, or to read, or to have children. Yet do > we doubt these are rights we hold? > > The simple reality is that there are many "rights" that are not > specified in the Constitution, but which we daily enjoy and cannot be > taken away from us by the government. But if that's the case, Bush and > Thomas would say, why doesn't the Constitution list those rights in > the Bill of Rights? > > The reason is simple: the Constitution wasn't written as a vehicle to > grant us rights. We don't derive our rights from the constitution. Barbara Soutar Victoria, British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:43:35 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Lefty bassists On Fri, Jul 4, 2003, Eb wrote: > >So I am playing bass again after a ~15 year hiatus. I'm lefty. > >What lefty bassists are there out there? The only one I know of is > >Stuart Chatwood from The Tea Party. > > What's-his-name in the Beatles plays lefty. Oh yeah, that guy. Okay, who else besides Sir Paul and Stuart Chatwood? - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:52:18 -0400 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: Lefty bassists >From: Ken Weingold >Subject: Lefty bassists >Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:20:42 -0400 >So I am playing bass again after a ~15 year hiatus. I'm lefty. >What lefty bassists are there out there? The only one I know of is >Stuart Chatwood from The Tea Party. Sir Paul McCartney. Max _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 11:16:31 -0700 From: Glen Uber Subject: Re: Lefty bassists On Friday, July 4, 2003, at 02:43 PM, Ken Weingold wrote: > Oh yeah, that guy. Okay, who else besides Sir Paul and Stuart > Chatwood? Jimmy Haslip of the Yellowjackets is a southpaw. - -g- ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #252 ********************************