From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #466 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, December 18 2003 Volume 12 : Number 466 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: bile and crap, together at last [Capuchin ] Bile and crap: The two geat tastes... ["Rex.Broome" ] obscure Detroit bands, continued ["Natalie Jacobs" ] Re: one bile-filled, horrifying piece of crap ["Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: bile and crap, together at last On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > Some people who are outraged about us going to war seem unwilling to > really speak out against or even be bothered by something which in my > mind is even worse - possibly because they are so afraid of being seen > as agreeing with the current administration on anything. Whom do you see doing this? > Even though I could give you a long list of reasons why I opposed the US > going to war with Iraq at the time, and still have numerous complaints > about the current occupation, I find it odd that anyone could not be > outraged by Saddam's brutal dictatorship. Who's not outraged by it? > Just because a politician I despise, like Bush, brings it up should not > mean I am any less horrified by Saddam's actions, Who's horrified any less than they should be? > nor any less thrilled that he will potentially be held accountable for > the crimes for which he is being accused. Wait... you're THRILLED that somebody is going to be punished? You're happy to hear about an increase in the amount of suffering and displeasure in the world? I mean, that IS what you mean by "held accountable", isn't it? Punished? Perhaps in some "humane" way like imprisonment or simply being put to death, sure... those are very pleasant things for a person, certainly... something you'd wish on another human being. > I refuse to be manipulated by even my own cynicism about Bush's > motivation about taking us into war in this particular case. Despite > the enormous costs, literally and metaphorically, of this war, the world > and the people of Iraq are still better off without him in power - and > holding him accountable for everything he did against humanity, and > anyone else who commits similar, BUT NOT EXACTLY THE SAME IN TERMS OF > SCALE, surely would make the world a better place. I cannot imagine how hurting one more person makes things better. And we are a long way from seeing whether or not the Iraqi people will be better off in the long run after this invasion and occupation. They're still living under a brutally oppressive dictatorship, but this time the soldiers in the street are from halfway around the world. And many are dying and without the basic necessities of life who had these before. It's like the embargo times fifty... only this time we've destroyed their own supply of water, electricity, and everything else as well. They'll be paying off the costs of rebuilding for a LONG time... no, we're not going to send them a bill for the US$87 billion, we'll just hand their nation's infrastructure over to some private corporation that will charge them for the services plus a little mark-up for profit from now until eternity. There is no reason, thus far, to believe the people of Iraq are better off now than before the invasion and certainly not better off than before the sanctions. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:01 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Bile and crap: The two geat tastes... Me then Eb: >>>> I rehearse in a plumbing shop >>Oh man...talk about a setup. ;) Wow, you're right. I never thought about it because it's totally true. Well, technically it's a plumbing *supply* shop, which happens to be owned by my drummer. Same place where we used to do the eight-guitar noise-fests back in '96 or so, and it's amazing how many implements of guitar-torture we were able to find just hanging on the wall and put to immmediate use. Thurston Moore's wet dream, truly. Goin' over there tonight. Still, umm, kind of figuring out how to sing lead. Seriously. Been in bands for a decade and a half and never had to sing the whole damned time I was playing before. Microphones (and their stands) are weirder than I thought in that context. The folk thing I've been doing for the past few years has let me be pretty loose about where my head is when I sing... seems like I have to anchor it in place now, which makes looking at the fretboard when the weird change comes up a little awkward. Maybe should just crane the whole thing forward? Really, the things you don't consider. np. Natalie faves the Pernice Brothers, the new one. Sounds pretty good, in some ways like a whole record of covers of Wilco's "Always in Love" (alt-country meets the Cure, honky tonk patrons nonplussed by installation of fog machine), so Natalie's enthusiasm tracks for sure. I've amassed some recently recommended non-fogey records over the past few weeks (Pernice Bros, Ted Leo, Long Winters, Iron & Wine)... tending towards the things whose descriptions have stuck with me the most this year and seemed most like my potential bag. So far I haven't chucked any of 'em out the window and can see Top 10 potential in a couple. More when I've absorbed 'em a bit more thoroughly, but any other last minute must-listens for the year-end lists? - -Rex "it's give your daughter a capo day... every day" Broome (Yes, I am kind of off today. This week. You knew that.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:13:40 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: REAP Otto Graham, 82. Max _________________________________________________________________ Its our best dial-up Internet access offer: 6 months @$9.95/month. Get it now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:30:14 -0800 From: "Natalie Jacobs" Subject: obscure Detroit bands, continued >Don Blum, right? Huh. I just looked here:http://www.vonbondies.com/# >and saw his picture. Same asian-kinda-lookin-guy who played when I saw >them. I could've swore they said it was his 21st birthday, but maybe they >were joking and it was his 30th.?? Yeah, that's Don... I'd have to assume they were joking about his age. When he was in my friend Marc's band Mazinga, they did a (rather good) song called "That Yellow Bastard," named after the comic book of the same name, and written about the guy that the guitarist's girlfriend ran off with... they released it as a single, and some overly-PC punk zine accused them of being racist! (They assumed "yellow" referred to Asian-ness.) "It's not racist, our drummer is Chinese!" Marc howled in outrage. anyway, n. _________________________________________________________________ Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:15:15 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: bile and crap, together at last On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:06:25 -0800, "Jason R. Thornton" said: > At 01:47 PM 12/17/2003 -0600, Fortissimo wrote: > >What continues to bother me is the extent to which our (by which I mean > >U.S. citizens') outrage is so manipulable. If it's done by someone on our > >official enemies' list, we're outraged. If it's done by someone with whom > >we're "friendly" - or, indeed, by us - we shrug, yawn, and look for the > >remote. > > To be honest, this is much of what's bothering me here. Some people who > are outraged about us going to war seem unwilling to really speak out > against or even be bothered by something which in my mind is even worse - > possibly because they are so afraid of being seen as agreeing with the > current administration on anything. The flipside of this, though, is the disingenuous argument used against critics of Bush policy: "if you're opposed to taking out Saddam Hussein by any means necessary, it must be because you support him." (I'm not suggesting *you're* saying this.) Furthermore, and as a modification to what I wrote above last time (quoted), it does make sense that we (US citizens) be more outraged by bad behavior by our government and on its behalf than by bad behavior elsewhere in the world. Simply, we cannot control the world; we cannot ensure that all governments everywhere are humane, or even tolerable. However, we *can* control (theoretically, or actually - depending on your degree of cynicism) what our own government does - and so, even if far worse behavior than an embargo causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children (funny how that remains unmentioned so often...) can be attributed to the Dictator-for-Life of Whereverland, it is correct to be more outraged by your own nation's outrages than by equivalent outrages of other nations. This isn't just realpolitik; I think it's necessary for long-term prospects for peace and stability. (Cue the band playing "Regime Change Begins at Home.") One of the real problems (and I mean that: it's a real problem, lacking easy solutions) with the notion of "humanitarian intervention" is that it represents a break in the concept of national sovereignty. While it would be wrong to say, hey, what happens in Korruptistan stays in Korruptistan, it's also wrong to say that whenever *our* ideas are violated by other sovereign governments, we have a right to jump in and change things. Someone's going to mention the UN Security Council resolutions (quite possibly Ferris...) at this point - and that would be a good argument, were it not blatantly the case that the US uses its sole superpower status to rob the UN of the legitimacy it needs to conduct humanitarian interventions. So, yeah, I'm happy to see Saddam out of power and captured so that he can't return to power - but that doesn't make me any more sanguine about the US presence in Iraq or Iraq's future. (Likewise, I'm vehemently opposed to the death penalty...but found it very hard to shed any tears when Jeffrey Dahmer was killed by another prisoner. That's simply to say there's a difference between saying someone deserves to die and being the one to do it - much less authorizing the state to do it.) Oh goody - I brought up another impossible argument topic. Might as well discuss abortion while we're at it. - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Solipsism is its own reward :: :: --Crow T. Robot ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:31:13 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: vile and bap >I can't believe anyone would even try to compare some pissant >CIA-supported dictator in the Middle East to Adolf Hitler and the rise of >Naziism in Germany. It's a whole different kind of atrocity. Now, if you >want to compare Saddam Hussein to, say, early Pol Pot, we might have >something closer to real analogy. not even that. Pol Pot was responsible for the deaths of 1/3 of his country's population - some 3 million people. If you really want to rate evil dictators in this (strange) way, 400,000 deaths would put Saddam in the same ball-park as Leopold II of Belgium's rule of the Congo and Enver Pasha's Armenian pogroms. That's a country mile behind the top three: Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. After those three? Well, to quote the intriguing atlas of wars and democides of the 20th century : A pretty good case could be made that the following rulers [are next on the list]: >* Chiang Kai-shek (China: 1928-49) >* Enver Pasha (Turkey: 1913-18) >* Hirohito (Japan: 1926-89) >* Hirota Koki (Japan: 1936-37) >* Ho Chi Minh (North Vietnam: 1945-69) >* Kim Il Sung (North Korea: 1948-94) >* Lenin (USSR: 1917-24) >* Leopold II (Belgium: 1865-1909) >* Nicholas II (Russia: 1894-1917) >* Pol Pot (Cambodia: 1975-79) >* Saddam Hussein (Iraq: 1969- ) >* Tojo Hideki (Japan: 1941-44) >* Wilhelm II (Germany: 1888-1918) >* Yahya Khan (Pakistan: 1969-71) >>But still we're way out of scale. At least with Pol Pot we're talking >>about someone who confined the killing to his own nation and immediate >>surroundings. > >Immediate surroundings being other nations, of course. Sure, there's a >difference in number of people killed and number of nations attacked when >comparing the three. No one is saying that the numbers are exactly the >same, only that the three are comparable in the fact they were responsible >for the torture and deaths of extremely large numbers of innocent >civilians, and, especially in terms of Saddam and Hitler, since this point >has now been brought up, in aggressiveness toward other countries. Number of countries attacked (other than in self defenee) by Saddam - 2. Equivalent number for Hitler - by my rough eastimate, 19. By Pol Pot - 3. By Stalin - depends on definition of 'attack', but at least half a dozen. To make a half-assed analogy based on the half-assed comparisons of Hitler and Saddam based solely on lives lost, it's the equivalent of saying that - given it's population and area are one twentieth that of the US, Ecuador is as big a world power as the USA. Not that it matters one ant's rectum what any of us think. The history will be written by Washington and the world will all live happily ever after. Film at eleven. >>What continues to bother me is the extent to which our (by which I mean >>U.S. citizens') outrage is so manipulable. If it's done by someone on our >>official enemies' list, we're outraged. If it's done by someone with whom >>we're "friendly" - or, indeed, by us - we shrug, yawn, and look for the >>remote. > >To be honest, this is much of what's bothering me here. Some people who >are outraged about us going to war seem unwilling to really speak out >against or even be bothered by something which in my mind is even worse - >possibly because they are so afraid of being seen as agreeing with the >current administration on anything. Even though I could give you a long >list of reasons why I opposed the US going to war with Iraq at the time, >and still have numerous complaints about the current occupation, I find it >odd that anyone could not be outraged by Saddam's brutal dictatorship. Hell, who isn't? What's so outrageous is that for much of his career he was sponsored and supported by the US. After a huge loss of life the US decided to remove him. Not, it should be noted, when it first became obvious that he was a despot responsible for huge numbers of casualties and when it could, in all likelihood, have been achieved through the Iraqi people themselves, but after so much time had passed that his power within Iraq could only be toppled by invasion from outside. Thankfully, the US administration has learnt from this, and would never support, say, the likes of Niyazov in Turkmenistan... oh. James 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, 17 Dec 2003 22:47:10 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: one bile-filled, horrifying piece of crap On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:55:19 -0800 (PST), "Capuchin" said: > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > > Trials are a means to an end - justice. > > Justice is something that happens instead of crimes being committed, not > after. Abstractly, yes - but in actuality? We speak of "justice" as setting to right what's been put wrong. The argument is over how best to do that. Some argue for punishment. I agree that that goal is shortsighted and generally ineffective - although I'm not sure I'd completely rule it out. The classic example is: if one person's suffering and death can save the lives of millions, is it worth it? > When the trial is finished, we should be looking at what really happened > and asking "what can we do to make this situation better?" rather than > "what can we do to make life worse for the guilty?" And this is the real problem. Blurb for tonight's news: shot of fighter plane; voiceover: "what the military is doing to prevent another 9/11." The imaginary underlying this supposes the will to violence resides in the weapons, and that weapons to blow up weapons will prevent it. The real weapon is in the mind - and no fighter plane can cause a mind intending harm to stop intending harm. Self-righteousness prevents us from understanding the grievances that motivate terrorists - and such understanding (which is *not* the same as justification) is *necessary* if we hope to reduce incidents of terrorism. This is one of the strongest arguments against the war in Iraq: it absolutely has not reduced the likelihood of terrorism (at one point, at least, one of its justifications) and has almost definitely increased it. > > War is mass killing, and in a necessary war, the killing is justified. > > Intentionally killing civilians is murder, and extremely large numbers > > of them, is mass murder. > > There's your freakin' double-standard right there. "necessary war". > "killing is justified". Surely that has been the reasoning behind every > mass murderer in history. The only way to prevent that kind of atrocity > is to reject all killing and all intentional pain and suffering as > immoral. Twentieth- and twenty-first-century warfare inevitably kills civilians. I forget who wrote it, or the title, but a book came out last year on the history of bombing, and the author makes the point that when it was first proposed to use aircraft to drop bombs during wartime, military leaders were appalled at the suggestion - since it would mean civilian casualties. That attitude, obviously, went away. As for "terrorism": Winston Churchill quite intentionally structured bombing runs to increase the terror of the population. Modern warfare cannot meet any of the classical, Augustinian standards for "just war." Furthermore, I would argue that an army of conscripts, or an army of soldiers with no other options, are effectively coerced into non-civilian status - and just as the person asked to do wrong while a gun is being held to his head is *not* found morally culpable for his actions, such soldiers should be regarded as civilians in assessing the justness of any given war. As I said: modern warfare cannot meet just-war criteria. (Here's an interesting article on the same - which I haven't read completely yet: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm. Not particularly the section headed "The Principles of _Jus in Bello_." I don't necessarily say that such criteria *do* justify war; only that insofar as they provide a commonly accepted standard thereby, modern warfare cannot meet them.) > I'd really like to hear how a defense of liberty, brotherhood, and > equality can come from someone who hates humanity. Without reference to the current discussion, I can think of a couple of answers: hypocritically, pragmatically, intellectually (abstract but not believing), etc. - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: crumple zones:: :: harmful or fatal if swallowed :: :: small-craft warning :: ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:52:06 -0600 From: steve Subject: Fwd: It's Christmas - your very own XTCmas Card Goofy Xmas greeting from Mr. P. And for your swap discs, a cover of Thanks For Christmas (plus other things). - - Steve - ---------- The Himalayan marmot is one of the highest living mammals in the world. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:45:55 -0500 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: What I Want For Xmas... For all the roboGeeks out there you simply MUST check out this new Sony QRIO Dream Robot! http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/QRIO/ This site has some incredible movies (wmv format only) Be sure to watch the entire dance performance on sony_06.wmv http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2003/1218/sony.htm - -steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:18:16 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: one bile-filled, horrifying piece of crap At 03:55 PM 12/17/2003 -0800, Capuchin wrote: >On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > > At 11:49 AM 12/17/2003 -0800, Capuchin wrote: > > >It seems like you think he should be punished more than you think he > > >should be tried. > > > > It seems that you would be better off not attempting to put words in my > > mouth. > >We'll let your own words do the talking, then... The point of contention here was the phrase "more than," which I made quite clear. > see as follows: > > > I am interested in seeing that the responsible person punished, yes > >So, there it is. You're hoping for more pain in the world. You haven't a clue what I "hope" for Jeme. The sort of cowardice and inaction you advocate will in the end bring much more pain into the world. I can only surmise that is you that desires more suffering on the planet. >[now, going back to the beginning of the paragraph] > > > Trials are a means to an end - justice. > >Justice is something that happens instead of crimes being committed, not >after. This is quite simply a silly false dichotomy. It occurs both before and after. >A trial is the means to an end, yes, but that end is a finding of fact and >law that will (hopefully) provide an accurate picture of that which >occured. A trial is a seeking of truth. The finding of that truth (or at >least permanently setting the record crooked) is the most important thing >a trial can do. Incorrect. If the "truth" were the simple end-goal, we wouldn't put the accused on trial at all, we'd form fact-finding commissions. Seeking the truth is important so that justice can be served. That a trial find the truth is tremendously important - the process must be fair and accurate, not speculative and biased. >What do you think that means "bringing... to justice"? To you, it means >punishment... it means dealing out more pain. And, in the fantasyland where you reside, no criminal would ever be incarcarated? You fail to realize that does more harm, causes more pain, than good. >You're talking about two separate things "assigning guilt AND punishing >certain acts" [emphasis mine], but then you ask me why I see them as two >separate things. > >They are separate and do not necessarily belong together. Instead of >calling it "assigning guilt", I call it "finding truth". You figure out >what happened. The purpose of a criminal trial is to assign guilt - finding truth, figuring out what happened, for a reason. And, like it or not, that reason is to punish. >When the trial is finished, we should be looking at what really happened >and asking "what can we do to make this situation better?" rather than >"what can we do to make life worse for the guilty?" Another false dichotomy. Making life worse for the guilty can quite often make the situation better. >Jeffrey's summed this up better than I would have, I think. The Hitler >analogy is a button-pusher and not appropriate here. Of course it's a button-pusher. As I explained to Jeffrey, it would be inappropriate to compare say Ashcroft to Hitler, but not another genocidal maniac to Hitler. >I'm showing vital, healthy skepticism. No, you're showing a sick, twisted cynicism. There hasn't even been a trial yet, but you've already decided that it will be a sham. >Liberty can only be maintained >with eternal vigilance against tyranny. And such vigilance demands action from time to time. >You don't find people guilty of wrong-doing in a court of law. Yes, you do. >Courts >determine whether or not law was broken. Wrong-doing and law-breaking are >very different things and only sometimes coincide in one action. They're not "very" different, although there is a slight distinction. Ideally, law-breaking should always be a subset of wrong-doing. Your nit-picking is annoying. >However, the things the CIA did to bring Saddam to power and knowingly >supply his nation with the means to carry out his regime's plans were >brought to light through investigative hearings in Congress. They are not >courts of law and make no findings of law, but they do find facts. My only point here is that there are other means besides criminal trials to find and acknowledge facts. >If Saddam Hussein's armies had marched on Mecca and Jerusalem, for >example, we would have had a more analogous situation. How about Kuwait and Iran? How about funding acts of war (or what is more popularly called "terrorism" in this situation) against Israel? >There's a difference of an order of magnitude. Right. But there's a similarity in the order of magnitude as well, in the sense that in both cases, we're talking about extremely large numbers of people. > > War is mass killing, and in a necessary war, the killing is justified. > > Intentionally killing civilians is murder, and extremely large numbers > > of them, is mass murder. > >There's your freakin' double-standard right there. "necessary war". >"killing is justified". Surely that has been the reasoning behind every >mass murderer in history. There's no argument that the unjust twist morality for their own purposes. But, there is a difference between "murder" and "justifiable homicide." >The only way to prevent that kind of atrocity >is to reject all killing and all intentional pain and suffering as >immoral. Hardly... sometimes to prevent a greater atrocity, one must kill and cause pain and suffering. Rejecting all killing and pain only works when every single person agrees to it. Not necessarily a goal we shouldn't shoot for, and you and I would probably agree on some of the ways to eventually achieve it - but in the meantime, complete pacifism practiced by a few will only allow massive atrocities to occur. Rather than prevent it, you open the door for it. >Your double-standard is the classic US/them dichotomy. If we think it's >right, it's justified. Exactly. There's always a context to consider. We have no other guide, in a situation, be it a decision for peace or war, than what we think is "right," hopefully based on a thorough assessment of the facts and all possible courses of action. >If we don't think it's right, it's not... >regardless of what the person who did it thinks. Regardless? Hardly. Quite often, it is the thinking and actions of the other person, for example them thinking they want you dead, and then attempting to kill you, which forces you into action. No one would assert that you don't have to take into consideration the other person when coming to your own conclusion about what is or is not right. > > Sure, there's a difference in number of people killed and number of > > nations attacked when comparing the three. No one is saying that the > > numbers are exactly the same, only that the three are comparable in the > > fact they were responsible for the torture and deaths of extremely large > > numbers of innocent civilians, and, especially in terms of Saddam and > > Hitler, since this point has now been brought up, in aggressiveness > > toward other countries. > >This whole paragraph assumes guilt. These are merely the facts of the matter, which show responsibility. >I'd really like to hear how a defense of liberty, brotherhood, and >equality can come from someone who hates humanity. So would I. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:21:40 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: bile and crap, together at last At 04:04 PM 12/17/2003 -0800, Capuchin wrote: >Wait... you're THRILLED that somebody is going to be punished? Yes. >You're >happy to hear about an increase in the amount of suffering and displeasure >in the world? I'm happy to hear about a decrease in the amount of suffering and displeasure in the world. >And we are a long way from seeing whether or not the Iraqi people will be >better off in the long run after this invasion and occupation. It's fairly clear they most likely will be. >They're >still living under a brutally oppressive dictatorship... That's merely your spin on it. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:35:35 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Feg Comp and How It Got There (Eventually) Paging Hamish Simpson: Could you please send another copy of your submission? I believe sweet young Miranda, she of Sleater Kinney t-shirts and gyrating to the Feelies, has placed my original copy in a deeply hidden pocket of the dimension only known as Miraspace. My bad. As might be gathered from this plea, the comp ain't gonna be ready for Santa's sleigh to deliver. But it won't be much longer after that. Thanks again to all the contributors for their efforts and their patience... I'm hoping to make this thing worth the wait. 'Course all I'm really doing is putting it together... - -Rex ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #466 ********************************