From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #135 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, May 14 2004 Volume 13 : Number 135 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Barney Kessel [grutness@surf4nix.com] re: [warning 50% religious screeching] (screeching removed) [grutness@s] the moral high ground [Jill Brand ] A Slipping Down Life ["David Willems" ] RE: the moral high ground ["FS Thomas" ] RE: the moral high ground ["Matt Sewell" ] RE: the moral high ground ["FS Thomas" ] RE: the moral high ground ["Fortissimo" ] RE: the moral high ground ["FS Thomas" ] Re: the moral high ground [steve ] Re: the moral high ground [steve ] Re: the moral high ground [FSThomas ] Re: A Slipping Down Life ["Sumiko Keay" ] Re: A Slipping Down Life [fingerpuppets ] re: [warning 100% kennedy) [] Day of the Locust ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: Day of the Locust [FSThomas ] RE: [warning 100% kennedy) ["Bachman, Michael" ] There goes all the good will Jessica Lych earned the state... ["Rex.Broom] RE: the moral high ground [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] RE: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] Neon Meate Dream of Octo-Sex [RE: squidmaniax-digest V13 #134] ["Rex.Broo] RE: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] Re: the moral high ground [FSThomas ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:57:26 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com Subject: Re: Barney Kessel >Did I just miss it, or has no-one reported the death of Barney Kessel? >Apparently John and George cited him as their favourite guitarist. > ISTR Pete Townshend dedicated one of the tracks on "Scoop" (or "Another scoop"?) to him. 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: Fri, 14 May 2004 12:01:20 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com Subject: re: [warning 50% religious screeching] (screeching removed) Greg wrote: >the last disabled >president was roosevelt wasn't it? he tried to hide his own disability. Kennedy, and he too hid his disability. 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: Thu, 13 May 2004 21:29:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Brand Subject: the moral high ground First of all, thanks to all who congratulated me (us) on our silver anniversary. I do feel very lucky. I haven't had an Iraq rant in a while, but listening and listening and listening to the talking heads on NPR has got me going. There's all this discussion of how "un-American" the behavior of the prison guards was/is and how terrible it is that a few bad eggs could be so devastating. What I want to know is who got the idea that Americans are somehow morally superior to everyone else? How superior have we been in our history with Latin America (I'm thinking of highlights from the Dominican Republic and Chile)? What about good old KKK lynchings? Or the murder of that gay student (Matthew Shepherd?) in Wyoming? Or the everyday behavior of most jocks in high school towards anyone who isn't one of them? I find this behavior no more or less American than soldiers giving gum to children in a village. My question is who put the idea in their heads to begin with. I'm sure Rumsfeld is about as shocked as Louis in Casablanca when he finds gambling in Rick's casino. Jill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 08:05:49 -0400 From: "David Willems" Subject: A Slipping Down Life Has this been discussed already? I just saw a preview for A Slipping Down Life and Guy Pearce is singing "Elizabeth Jade".... Strange world. - - David _________________________________________________________________ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page  FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 08:14:50 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: the moral high ground > What I want > to know is who got the idea that Americans are somehow > morally superior to everyone else? Compare and contrast the use of humiliation tactics with not only the decapitation of a civilian contractor, but the filming and posting of it on the Internet. Rah, rah, rah. God is great. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 13:36:24 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: RE: the moral high ground Well, I just don't buy it that just because the atrocities one is committing are of a lesser nature to that of someone else's, that makes it completely acceptable. The US Intelligence services sanctioned the torture and humilliation of Iraqi people - that's state-sponsored terror as far as I'm concerned. Sure the beheading of a US civillian is horrifying, but surely so is the beating to death of an Iraqi civillian, unless somehow Iraqi citizens are less valuable that US citizens. Also worth noting that, not that any of the coalition forces are that interested in keeping count, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has so far meant the violent deaths of upwards of 10,000 Iraqis, mostly civillian. As far as I see it, no-one has the moral highground in this filthy, illegal, immoral war of occupation. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I came over there and liberated you from your dictator<\facetious cheap shot> Morality is not relative. Cheers Matt >From: "FS Thomas" >Reply-To: "FS Thomas" >To: >Subject: RE: the moral high ground >Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 08:14:50 -0400 > > > What I want > > to know is who got the idea that Americans are somehow > > morally superior to everyone else? > >Compare and contrast the use of humiliation tactics with not only the >decapitation of a civilian contractor, but the filming and posting of it >on the Internet. > >Rah, rah, rah. God is great. > >-f. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Have more fun with your phone - download ringtones, logos, screensavers, games & more. Click here to begin! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 08:38:40 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: the moral high ground > ...The talking heads on NPR has got > me going. They should. Anyone who sees Fox as having spin on it would get dizzy just thinking about NPR. I'll admit that I like the programming, and often do listen, but c'mon, folks. It's *incredibly* biased. To the point of not even pretending. Example (taken from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/jj20040507.shtml): Palestinian gunmen ambush a mother and her four children. They're in their station wagon on their way to an ultrasound. Two terror groups -- Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committee -- claimed responsibility. 'The official Voice of Palestine radio praised the quintuple murder as a "heroic" operation against "five settlers," not bothering to mention that the victims were an unarmed pregnant woman and four children.' 'The savagery of the attack was similarly downplayed by National Public Radio in its broadcast the next morning. Actually, reporter Julie McCarthy did more than minimize the horror of the massacre. She blamed the victims for "provoking" their own murder -- not by anything they did, but by their mere "presence" in the disputed territory.' No mention of the fact that it was a mother and children. Just that they were settlers provoking the gunmen. Pregnant women on their ways to ultrasounds are very provoking, indeed. On a different note: Regarding Abu Ghraib. No one should mention the Geneva Convention in the same sentence with that situation again. The Convention was designed to protect the rights and conditions of soldiers. The Convention clearly states that to be granted protections, you must be uniformed. If you are not uniformed, you may be treated as an Enemy Combatant. Whether it's ethically correct to conduct interrogations and detentions in that manner is one thing, but having done so is clearly no violation of the GC, nor is it any sort of war crime. (Hense, no, Virginia, Rummy *shouldn't* resign.) - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 07:46:25 -0500 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: RE: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004 08:14:50 -0400, "FS Thomas" said: > > What I want > > to know is who got the idea that Americans are somehow > > morally superior to everyone else? > > Compare and contrast the use of humiliation tactics with not only the > decapitation of a civilian contractor, but the filming and posting of it > on the Internet. This is pointless. No one here would argue that *either* behavior is anything but utterly repugnant (I hope). Arguing over degrees of evil only serves to excuse evil. The difference is, we can directly do something about our own nation's behavior, but can only indirectly affect those of other nations. That is, we have responsibility for our own behavior - not for those of others. And regardless of whatever degree of actual "moral superiority" we might possess (I think it's a foolish question even to consider), our ongoing love affair with our putative innocence is harmful to us both in that merely telling the truth about unpleasant aspects of our history gets called unpatriotic (thereby causing those truths to be suppressed) and that no one likes a self-righteous asshole - thereby increasing resentment against Americans worldwide. Does maintaining such an attitude help anything? Not that I can think of. So why do so? - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: "In two thousand years, they'll still be looking for Elvis - :: this is nothing new," said the priest. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 08:51:15 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: the moral high ground > As far as I see it, no-one has the moral high ground in this > filthy, illegal, immoral war of occupation. I will start by saying that no, I am not fond of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think anyone wants to see the violence and destruction, the unsettling and ending of lives. I personally don't give a rat's ass about world opinion. When making a decision between right and wrong opinion should never enter into the equation. And, yes, I would say that the decisions to go into Afghanistan and Iraq, while difficult and wildly unpopular, were the *right* things to do. Face it: as a "ruling" body, the U.N. is as useless and ineffectual as a teat on a billy goat. Hussein was in flagrant violation of most if not all of the resolutions passed by this "ruling body," but was free to act however he damned well pleased because he knew that the U.N. would *never* do anything about it. At the end of Bush I's reign and throughout Clinton's eight years, any single instance of an Iraqi SAM site locking a jet in the no fly zone was a green light for military action. The worst he ever had to fear, though, was the U.N. wagging one finger at him, while it's other hand held out oil contracts from Russia, Germany and France. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 08:39:13 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: the moral high ground On May 13, 2004, at 8:29 PM, Jill Brand wrote: > What I want to know is who got the idea > that Americans are somehow morally > superior to everyone else? It's an affliction that we have, going back to the founding. The theory is good, but the actuality has often fallen short, in both the domestic and international areas. And the idea of American goodness is a handy tool for politicians, who often cloak their merely practical (or even base) policies in high flown moral rhetoric. - - Steve - ---------- The Himalayan marmot is one of the highest living mammals in the world. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 09:00:36 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: the moral high ground On May 14, 2004, at 7:38 AM, FS Thomas wrote: > Anyone who sees Fox as having spin on it > would get dizzy just thinking about NPR. Hello? NPR may be left of center, but Fox is little more than the propaganda wing of the Republican party. Homicide bombers, anyone? It's the difference between having a bias and having an agenda. > And, yes, I would say that the decisions to go into Afghanistan and > Iraq, while difficult and wildly unpopular, were the *right* things to > do. Pretty much everybody was with us on Afghanistan. But even if the Iraq invasion was the right thing to do, the Bushies lied about their motivation for doing it. And they obviously gave *zero* thought to the post conquest situation. They're arrogant and foolish, and can't legitimately claim any credit for the initial success of the world's most advanced military. - - Steve _________ I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness. - Tucker Carlson, on Karen Hughes ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:08:58 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: the moral high ground steve wrote: > Hello? NPR may be left of center, but Fox is little more than the > propaganda wing of the Republican party. Homicide bombers, anyone? > It's the difference between having a bias and having an agenda. If Fox is propaganda for the GOP, then NPR is their Moriarty, working night and day for the DNC. The difference is that Fox is paid for with advertising dollars and NPR gets at least some of its funding from the NEA. And, yes, Homicide Bomber is an accurate term. I prefer, however, Islamic Terrorist, which is a much more succinct and accurate description. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 09:19:57 -0500 From: "Sumiko Keay" Subject: Re: A Slipping Down Life Wait -- that's just coming out now? Or is it going to be on tv or something? sumi ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:28:32 -0400 From: fingerpuppets Subject: Re: A Slipping Down Life one time at band camp, Sumiko Keay (F90SXK1@wpo.cso.niu.edu) said: >Wait -- that's just coming out now? yeah, finally. it was filmed in what? 1999? as i recall, it had a few screenings at festivals but was never released to theatres. i guess that's finally changed. woj ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 09:51:11 -0500 From: Subject: re: [warning 100% kennedy) [demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text] On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:01 , grutness@surf4nix.com sent: >Kennedy, and he too hid his disability. he was on extremely high levels of opiates and steroids and many other drugs from 1945 until he died. but how much of that was by choice? for a man in so much pain, he sure managed to "get the leg over" other people's wives and daughters a great many times. that just never sounded like it would fit the actions of a man suffering through severe and chronic pain 24/7 for the last 18 years of his life. i wouldn't classify kennedy as disabled. gSs - ---- Msg sent via WebMail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 09:50:19 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Day of the Locust Melissa: >>I just saw my first few cicada nymphs last night while walking home from >>the grocery store. At first i thought it was g iant roach until i realized >>that it was too fat and slow. I ran into another 10 or so on the way home. >>They were moving like they just got up from a 17 year nap. I live a few >>blocks from Rock Creek park so i expect that it's going to be very noisy >>real soon. Now see, this is confusing me. Are the cycles off by a year or two regionally? I'm told the cicadas were rampant the year I was born, and I remember them distinctly when I was a teenager, and I'm pretty damned sure I was 17 (that unearthly noise was the aural backdrop for my very earliest "jam sessions" at my folks' place deep in the woods). And yet right now I really seem by all accounts to be 33, not 34. Nonetheless I'm hearing the cicadas are expected expected in the DC area this year, which seems close enough to my old home state* to indicate they're on the way there, too... what gives? Did I lose a year? - -Rex *for those who haven't kept track, I'm from Pennsylvania. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 12:52:13 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Day of the Locust Rex.Broome wrote: > Now see, this is confusing me. Are the cycles off by a year or two regionally? I'm told the cicadas were rampant the year I was born, and I remember them distinctly when I was a teenager, and I'm pretty damned sure I was 17 (that unearthly noise was the aural backdrop for my very earliest "jam sessions" at my folks' place deep in the woods). And yet right now I really seem by all accounts to be 33, not 34. Nonetheless I'm hearing the cicadas are expected expected in the DC area this year, which seems close enough to my old home state* to indicate they're on the way there, too... what gives? Did I lose a year? Apparently they're out in Maryland. http://i-technica.com/cicada2.jpg - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 12:56:40 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: [warning 100% kennedy) [demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text] On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:01 , grutness@surf4nix.com sent: >Kennedy, and he too hid his disability. Speaking of JFK, imagine if the Bushies had JFK and his staff spots during the Cuban Missile Crisis. War probably would have broken out in Cuba and then WW III would have probably begun. Michael B. NP Sam Phillips - a boot and a shoe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 12:18:55 -0500 (GMT-05:00) From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: Day of the Locust >Now see, this is confusing me. Are the cycles off by a year or two regionally? >I'm told the cicadas were rampant the year I was born, and I remember them >distinctly when I was a teenager, and I'm pretty damned sure I was 17 > (that unearthly noise was the aural backdrop for my very earliest "jam sessions" >at my folks' place deep in the woods). And yet right now I really seem by all >accounts to be 33, not 34. Nonetheless I'm hearing the cicadas are expected >expected in the DC area this year, which seems close enough to my old >home state* to indicate they're on the way there, too... what gives? >Did I lose a year? There isn't a single Year of the Locust. There are many cicada broods in the Eastern U.S., and they're on different cycles. The ones here in Davidson Co., TN, are the 13-year variety, which we last saw flit around in '98. The currently-hatching Brood X is the largest, but only hits the periphery of Middle Tennessee. More than you probably want to know on the XXIII broods: I think the ones from my part of "southern Pennsylvania" are Brood XIV ('74, '91, '08). But judging from the maps, I think this year's Brood X crop is, like Lynndie England, presently infecting your old stomping grounds. It's possible that the Mineral Co. ones were stragglers if you're absolutely certain of an '88 plague. From the same webpage: =========== Sometimes periodical cicadas emerge "off-schedule" by one or more years. This phenomenon is often referred to by the general term "straggling," although straggling cicadas can emerge either later or earlier than expected. Straggling makes it difficult to construct accurate maps of periodical cicada brood distributions, and historical reports of emergences often contain little or no information about how many cicadas were seen. Straggling emergences in which one or two cicadas are present are common; larger unexpected emergences of thousands of individuals have been reported (e.g. Dybas 1969). =========== Your other likely candidate is Brood V, the largest brood in "southern Pennsylvania," but the dates are way off ('82, '99). later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:24:57 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: There goes all the good will Jessica Lych earned the state... Dunno if any of the Tinfoil Thoths recipients have noticed this, but look where this chick is from: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/06/1083635286181.html Swell. That's my mom's birthplace, and the town where my grandmother still lives, and, of course, the title of the song I wrote and recorded with Rainland and included on Tinfoil Thoths. About as apolitical song as one could muster, until now... And it gets worse: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/printedition/bal-te.md.cumberland30apr30,0,475166.story?coll=bal-pe-asection Ummm... *I* was born in Cumberland, MD. I guess it doesn't do much to balance things out to mention that William H. Macy and quintessential geek-portrayal actor Eddie Deezen are also from Cumberland? Didn't think so... In happier news related to the Thoths comp, I am now the proud owner of an original Natalie Jacobs duo-tone tinfoil thoth. Lovely indeed... thanks, dear! - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:37:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: RE: the moral high ground FS Thomas wrote: > On a different note: Regarding Abu Ghraib. > > No one should mention the Geneva Convention in the same > sentence with that situation again. The Convention was > designed to protect the rights and conditions of > soldiers. The Convention clearly states that to be > granted protections, you must be uniformed. If you are > not uniformed, you may be treated as an Enemy Combatant. > > Whether it's ethically correct to conduct interrogations > and detentions in that manner is one thing, but having > done so is clearly no violation of the GC, nor is it any > sort of war crime. (Hense, no, Virginia, Rummy > *shouldn't* resign.) Well, no, he should resign. It's just that he should resign because his post-war plans were non-existant, he was so invested in his cocamamie plan to have only a minimal ground force that he ignored that far more troops would be needed to maintain the peace than to depose Hussein. He should resign because, contrary to Dick Cheney delusions, Donald Rumsfeld is not only _NOT_ the best Secretary of Defense/War this country has ever had, he's (one of) the worst. ===== "Life is just a series of dogs." -- George Carlin "I'm going to keep playing music until somebody shoots me." -- Scott McCaughey __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:43:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Thu, 13 May 2004, Jill Brand wrote: > I haven't had an Iraq rant in a while, but listening and listening and > listening to the talking heads on NPR has got me going. There's all > this discussion of how "un-American" the behavior of the prison guards > was/is and how terrible it is that a few bad eggs could be so > devastating. What I want to know is who got the idea that Americans are > somehow morally superior to everyone else? See, the invasion of Iraq was made under the umbrella of "Humanitarian Intervention". The entire idea depends on the "liberators" being morally superior to the "liberated". The whole concept of Humanitarian Intervention was invented so that the Enlightened States could justify bringing their ideals to the poor savages. Basically, it's been the justification for colonialism for the past century. But in order to make the claim of Humanitarian Intervention, you have to maintain the illusion that you are better than the people you're subjugating. Lose the illusion and you lose the justification for occupation. That's why this is such a big deal. But nobody's putting it in those kinds of direct terms. Everybody knows it means SOMETHING, but public discourse has become so disconnected from real analysis that the media don't really have words for why it's so important. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:48:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, FS Thomas wrote: > > What I want to know is who got the idea that Americans are somehow > > morally superior to everyone else? > > Compare and contrast the use of humiliation tactics with not only the > decapitation of a civilian contractor, but the filming and posting of it > on the Internet. Wow... your moral relativism knows no bounds. You take that "lesser of two evils" thing to extremes! Condemn both acts with all of your strength. There is no point at all in considering which is more or less brutal and inhumane. But if you really must compare, consider that the decapitation is done by desperate people to show that since they do not have the straight numbers in fire- or manpower to throw off their oppressors, they feel they must show that their violence can be as brutal as that seems to be the only thing the occupying force understands. But this whole thing should just make us all realize that violence is not the answer and power enforced by violence and threat of violence brings out the absolute worst in human intentions. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:00:05 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Neon Meate Dream of Octo-Sex [RE: squidmaniax-digest V13 #134] In the absence of any good squid news... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4969842/?GT1=3391 - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:07:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, FS Thomas wrote (RE: NPR): > I'll admit that I like the programming, and often do listen, but c'mon, > folks. It's *incredibly* biased. To the point of not even pretending. Why should one pretend to be unbiased? It's strictly true that we are all biased and have views and opinions, from the individual to the corporate. And in order to put up a front of "objectivity", one must present even the statements of liars and looneys as viable, rational alternatives. If someone is lying, the lie must be exposed. If someone is talking nonsense, that must be pointed out. If that means only presenting one view as credible, so be it... perhaps there is only one credible view being put forward. > On a different note: Regarding Abu Ghraib. > > No one should mention the Geneva Convention in the same sentence with > that situation again. The Convention was designed to protect the rights > and conditions of soldiers. The Convention clearly states that to be > granted protections, you must be uniformed. If you are not uniformed, > you may be treated as an Enemy Combatant. > > Whether it's ethically correct to conduct interrogations and detentions > in that manner is one thing, but having done so is clearly no violation > of the GC, nor is it any sort of war crime. (Hense, no, Virginia, Rummy > *shouldn't* resign.) The law is the BARE MINIMUM standard to which we hold one another in society. I don't think a person has to be breaking the law to be doing the dead wrong thing. The call for resignation should not be in regard to a violation of international law, but for straight up lying to the world about why he felt it was necessary to invade and occupy Iraq (the whole argument that it was freeing the people from brutal, undemocratic rule is clearly false, else they would not be brutally ruling the nation undemocratically) and how it was going to be done (i.e., without being brutal and repressive). But Rumsfeld is just a liar, plain and simple. Here's a nice clip showing how he'll say whatever he thinks he can get away with saying: But he's too old to understand that it's getting to be that you can't just lie on TV anymore when a journalist has access to the newsroom. They can pull up your record as you speak and call your bullshit. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 14:09:02 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: the moral high ground Capuchin wrote: > Wow... your moral relativism knows no bounds. You take that "lesser of > two evils" thing to extremes! The terrorists were quoted on the tape saying that the killing was in retaliation to the treatment of the prisoners at the prison. In their minds, then, the two *are* on equal footing. > But this whole thing should just make us all realize that violence is not > the answer and power enforced by violence and threat of violence brings > out the absolute worst in human intentions. What, then, is the answer to Islamic Terrorism? The U.N.'s universal policy of appeasement? Spain's knee jerk reaction to the Madrid bombings; a country that now, in essence, sports an Al Queda-installed government? ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #135 ********************************