From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #136 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 136 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] Re: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] RE: [warning, a bit more kennedy) [] Re: the moral high ground [FSThomas ] Re: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] Re: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] RE: the moral high ground ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: the moral high ground [FSThomas ] RE: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] Re: the moral high ground [FSThomas ] news [Eb ] Re: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] Re: the moral high ground [] Re: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:11:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, steve wrote: > Hello? NPR may be left of center, Uh, NPR is FAR right of center. There's a whole lot of left to the left of NPR, but not a whole lot of right to the right of Bush and friends. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:22:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, FSThomas wrote: > And, yes, Homicide Bomber is an accurate term. It's redundant, for one. Second, we should go ahead and call our troops Homocide Infantry and our pilots Homocide Bombers, etc. If you're going to underscore the foulness of violence, at least keep it "fair and balanced". > I prefer, however, Islamic Terrorist, which is a much more succinct and > accurate description. Shall we call Bush's troops Christian Terrorists, then? This is only superficially a religious issue insofar as religion provides the righteous justification for the brutal, otherwise immoral, action (this applies to both teams). For some it is their belief in God (be that YHWH or Allah or whomever), for others it is their belief in Freedom (be that the Consitution of the United States of America or the basic idea of local sovereignty and home rule). A terrorist, according to the USA PATRIOT Act, is a person who commits an action that is intended to change a population's behavior or opinion through violence or threat of violence[1]. That is exactly the intent of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, so the actions by US troops there are terrorist actions. J. [1] I've omitted irrelevant word from the statute's definition ("illegal action" instead of just "action") because it cannot apply in Iraq where there is no rule of law, only rule of force. If either side is terrorist, then both sides are terrorist. Personally, I think the word should be stricken from the statute (if the statute is to stand at all) because it defines an arbitrary double-standard that exempts the ruling regime from prosecution. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 13:23:13 -0500 From: Subject: RE: [warning, a bit more kennedy) [demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text] On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:56 , Bachman, Michael sent: > 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. we already had nuclear missiles less than 150 miles from russia. it is another entry in the long list of things that are sometimes ok for us but not ok for certain others. khrushchev bowed out, but he had already given orders to his field commanders to launch their nuclear weapons if the us even attempted to invade cuba, again. just after the first failed invasion, the us staged a mock invasion near cuba to overthrow "ortsac". what has changed in regard to the tactics of the us government towards the rest of the world even after our victory over, and ultimately the miserable failure of, the soviet socialist system? gSs - ---- Msg sent via WebMail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 14:34:52 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: the moral high ground Capuchin wrote: > 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. Are we talking Don Rumsfeld here or John Kerry? I think I may have lost track... - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:38:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, FSThomas wrote: > 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. Does that mean you must have the same mind? Two wrongs don't make a right, etc. Come ON, man, rise above it. > > 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? "Islamic Terrorism" isn't a question. The question should be, "How do we end the cycle of violence?" The answer is complex, of course, but the first step is to simply stop being violent. This includes all forms of violence from physical violence to economic violence. First, do no harm. > The U.N.'s universal policy of appeasement? The U.N. doesn't go nearly far enough in appeasement. Appeasement should be such a universal doctrine that people don't even know they're being appeased. Worldwide effort to decrease suffering would go unimaginably far to decrease violence and, therefore, terrorism. Consider what would the reaction would be if, say, the United States sent the Army Corps of Engineers into Fallujah and just started rebuilding homes a la Habitat for Humanity and beautifying the cities with no strings attached. This would actually improve the lives of the people and completely undermine the justification for violence against the American presence. Consider what would happen if the rebuilding of Iraq was done without provisions for the future management by foreign corporations, where the people are left with better quality surroundings without owing something in return (they should not have to pay for having their dictator removed). Remove the fears of the people and you make friends of enemies. In short, terrorism can be killed with kindness. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that this is the wealthiest nation in the world. We have abundance galore. We have an enormous apparatus for production and distribution of killing machines and training killers when the world does not need more killing machines or killers. The world needs friggin' PENS. If a significant portion of the U.S. economy (production and distribution of goods and services) could be turned over to the service of the world, generally, and the underprivileged, specifically, there would be just about zero threat of terrorism. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:43:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, FSThomas wrote: > Capuchin wrote: > > 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. > > Are we talking Don Rumsfeld here or John Kerry? I think I may have lost > track... Wow, is that misdirection AND relativism in the same one-liner? I don't give a shit about John Kerry and there's no frickin' way I'm voting for the guy. Get off it. The fact is that Rumsfeld is just a plain liar and the fact that he has been caught in a lie to the public should be enough to cause him to resign or be ejected from his office. If that cannot be done from within, it must be done from without, by the people. If it cannot be done by election, it must be done by revolution. A government that cannot govern itself to maintain minimum standards of public service must be removed from power. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 15:05:12 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, FSThomas wrote: > Capuchin wrote: > > 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. > > Are we talking Don Rumsfeld here or John Kerry? I think I may have lost > track... Jeme responded: >The fact is that Rumsfeld is just a plain liar and the fact that he has >been caught in a lie to the public should be enough to cause him to resign >or be ejected from his office. I can't see Bush ejecting any of his key staff, no mater what 1/2 of the country thinks. Bush doesn't care what the other half country thinks of him anyway, and he won't allow any chinks in the armor, so to speak. I don't think Kerry is a miracle worker, but he can't be worse then Bush, which is why I'll vote for Kerry. Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 12:19:52 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Follow the Locust Ferris: >>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. Were they unpopular when they happened? I kinda thought a larger-than-slim majority of public opinion was behind those actions, and I don't think they would've happened otherwise. Sure, they're unpopular now, and the administration likes to blame to media for overplaying the negative aspects of US involvement in those situations, too, but if you cast your mind back to the ramp-up period to those military actions, that same media was widely accused of beating the war drums and being the administrations' lapdogs (and largely ignoring domestic anti-war protests). Basically, conflict made a better story than peace then as now; it just means that differing sides of the US political spectrum have ended up at the pointy end of the stick at different times. Slightly off-topic, but interesting. Anyway, moving on from one insectoid plague to another: >>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. Only one thing fer it: I'll ask the folks when I talk to them this weekend. It's all sorta coming back to me now... I think our cicadas were indeed a year offset from those in what now seem to me like "neighboring" areas in Maryland, but at the time seemed half a world away. However, I am starting to doubt the 1988 thing. I pulled up a release date for U2's Joshua Tree in Spring of 1987, and I know the band I was rehearsing with during the cicada days did a truly awful version of "With or Without You" and I can't imagine we would still have been doing that song more than a year after it was a hit single. Oh, well. Another fragment of self-mythologization shot to hell. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 15:18:00 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: the moral high ground Capuchin wrote: >>>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. >> >>Are we talking Don Rumsfeld here or John Kerry? I think I may have lost >>track... > > Wow, is that misdirection AND relativism in the same one-liner? Think less misdirection more aside. And yes, in the grand scheme of things everything is relative. > The fact is that Rumsfeld is just a plain liar and the fact that he has > been caught in a lie to the public should be enough to cause him to resign > or be ejected from his office. I've watched the moveOn piece and it's semantic arguing. Did he get tripped up? It looks like it. I would, however, like to hear the rest of his piece after they faded the video out. Without the remainder of the interview I would remain skeptical. I realize that the scale of issues is vastly different, but why hasn't anyone ever pinned Clinton to the mat and asked him pointedly about his under oath testimony? (Or, more interestingly, the deaths of Ron Brown or Vince Foster?) The easy answer: he's on the left. Members of the current administration have it bad because they're not liberal democrats, the by-far favs of the majority of mass media in the is country. > If it cannot be done by election, it must be done by revolution. I had a snipe typed out, but got rid of it. I don't know what to say other than, if you don't like it, vote. If you vote for a third-party or fringe candidate, then get used to either another four years or the catastrophe that would be a sKerry presidency. > A government that cannot govern itself to maintain > minimum standards of public service must be removed > from power. Through the damned process. Anyone (*anyone*) who lives in this country and bitches about the state of politics or their ruling officials--be they local, state, or national--who can and doesn't vote has very little place to disparage their condition. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 12:26:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, Bachman, Michael wrote: > Jeme responded: > >The fact is that Rumsfeld is just a plain liar and the fact that he has > >been caught in a lie to the public should be enough to cause him to > >resign or be ejected from his office. > > I can't see Bush ejecting any of his key staff, no mater what 1/2 of > the country thinks. Bush doesn't care what the other half country thinks > of him anyway, and he won't allow any chinks in the armor, so to speak. Well, this is certainly a problem. Even if the Bush team had 80% support from the population, they would still be wrong in lying to the public. The doublethink required to operate under that kind of "majority rules" rationale and fight so heavily to give private interests more power than public interests boggles my mind. > I don't think Kerry is a miracle worker, but he can't be worse then > Bush, which is why I'll vote for Kerry. Oh, he can be MUCH worse than Bush... Imagine if the effective policies do not change, but the rhetoric becomes more rational-sounding with a veneer of liberalism. The result is an "opposition" party with even more allowance to move to the right by enacting policies that depart from those of their supposedly leftist counterparts. Kerry could be much worse if he takes any stance milder than open disgust for the Bush cabinet and their policies. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 15:36:30 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: the moral high ground Bachman, Michael wrote: > > I don't think Kerry is a miracle worker, but he can't be worse then > Bush, which is why I'll vote for Kerry. One may not whole-heartedly (or partially, or at all) agree with the Bush administration's stance on issues (I don't), but at least you know _where_ he stands. Kerry is null and void when it comes to getting a stance on any issue. He waffles more often than a short order cook at IHOP. In his twenty-plus years as a Senator, can anyone name _one_ major piece of legislation that he has his name on? I've seen his name crop up as a co-sponsor on some zero-value items (such as the "Resolution commemorating the 30th Anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem"), but nothing I would deem important. Sure, he's served on a pile of committees, but what is that worth in the end? - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 12:48:29 -0700 From: Eb Subject: news [I'm just posting this for Chris Gross (I don't remember his email address), or anyone else foolish enough to be impressed by this band. ;) Eb] SKINNY PUPPY RETURN WITH 'THE GREATER WRONG OF THE RIGHT' MAY 25 ON SPV RECORDS 2004 marks the return of seminal industrial artists SKINNY PUPPY with their 13th and first full-length album in eight years--THE GREATER WRONG OF THE RIGHT--out May 25 on SPV Records. The underground will awaken for the band's notorious theatrical performances when SKINNY PUPPY launch their headlining U.S. tour June 11 in Portland, OR. For THE GREATER WRONG OF THE RIGHT, SKINNY PUPPY, NIVEK OGRE (vocals) and cEVIN KEY (electronics, percussion) teamed with Ken Marshall (Tool) to produce. The result is an album that lacks any manner of forced anachronism or nostalgic flair. They've forged an album that impresses first and foremost with its energy, vigor and stringency. Although all the traditional elements of the Skinny Puppy history have been integrated into the ten new tracks, their complexity and divergence develop little by little, in typical Skinny Puppy fashion. With support from a new generation of likeminded musicians--including Tool's Danny Carey who provided the acoustic drum on "Use Less" and Wayne Static of Static-X who added his vocals to the song--the album, with all its dark brilliance, builds impressively on the band's history. With OGRE's defiant political and societal observations fused with his trademark striking lyricism, SKINNY PUPPY has never been more vital than now. Check out "dOwnsizer" ("The panic of in a moments time bomb the artful dodge, to fabricate, a polarizing opposite political intention/to keep it poor, without a choice, so full of fear, a peoples voice"), "Use Less" ("Were we forewarned, force it to break/labor of hate who are we fooling, what are we doing/Pin it on time, proof in the meat/time to consume does it concern me, under a flag free?") and "Pro-test" ("Be a politician eroding all your freedoms/down the rabbit hole cracks money markets fall through a looking glass/time becomes too fast all to benefit the rich"). The complete track listing for THE GREATER WRONG OF THE RIGHT is as follows: 1) I'mmortal 2) Pro-test 3) EmpTe 4) Neuwerld 5) Ghostman 6) dOwnsizer 7) Past Present 8) Use Less 9) Goneja 10) DaddyuWarbash Catch SKINNY PUPPY on the road in the following cities: Fri 6/11 Portland, OR Roseland Theater Sat 6/12 Seattle, WA The Showbox Tue 6/15 Chicago, IL Vic Theatre Wed 6/16 Chicago, IL Vic Theatre Thu 6/17 Detroit, MI TBA Sat 6/19 Boston, MA Avalon Sun 6/20 New York City, NY Irving Plaza Mon 6/21 New York City, NY Irving Plaza Tue 6/22 Washington, DC Nightclub 9:30 Wed 6/23 Philadelphia, PA The Electric Factory Fri 6/25 Atlanta, GA The Masquerade Sat 6/26 New Orleans, LA House of Blues Sun 6/27 Houston, TX Club V Tue 6/29 Denver, CO Ogden Theater Thu 7/1 San Francisco, CA The Grand Ballroom Fri 7/2 Los Angeles, CA Henry Fonda Theater Sat 7/3 Los Angeles, CA Henry Fonda Theater Sun 7/4 Anaheim, CA The Grove of Anaheim European Tour: Sun 7/11 Paris, France La Locomotive Tue 7/13 Amsterdam, Denmark Paradiso Thu 7/15 Arvika, Sweden Arvika Festival Sat 7/17 Loreley, Germany Zillo Festival Sun 7/18 Dour, Belgium Dour Festival Mon 7/19 London, England The Forum ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 12:52:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, FSThomas wrote: > Capuchin wrote: > >>>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. > >> > >>Are we talking Don Rumsfeld here or John Kerry? I think I may have > >>lost track... > > > > Wow, is that misdirection AND relativism in the same one-liner? > > Think less misdirection more aside. Wouldn't an aside be followed or preceded by a response? > And yes, in the grand scheme of things everything is relative. So your morality is relative? You will always consider the lesser evil as a good? If so, then what is the scale on which lesser and greater evil is weighed? How is it relative to what? > I've watched the moveOn piece and it's semantic arguing. Um, no. He said he didn't say something and that he didn't think anyone else said it, either. He then accused the journalist of inventing the term. When faced with his own quote, he changed the subject. > Did he get tripped up? It looks like it. He got called on his bullshit. How much more obvious does it have to be? What scenario would have to occur in order for you to admit that he was lying? Is anything less than a signed confession going to convince you? > I would, however, like to hear the rest of his piece after they faded > the video out. Without the remainder of the interview I would remain > skeptical. Well, it's easy enough to order a transcript. However, I'll tell you right now, he changed the subject and they let it drop; having proved their point well enough, not needing to dwell on it, and being interested in tackling other topics. > I realize that the scale of issues is vastly different, but why hasn't > anyone ever pinned Clinton to the mat and asked him pointedly about his > under oath testimony? Are you doing this to say that it's OK for Rumsfeld to lie because Clinton did? Lots of folks did their best to pin Clinton's lies to his chest. They have had some success. But the claims don't stick very well when they are clearly attempts at partisan slander rather than coming from any respect for truth. > (Or, more interestingly, the deaths of Ron Brown or Vince Foster?) The > easy answer: he's on the left. Members of the current administration > have it bad because they're not liberal democrats, the by-far favs of > the majority of mass media in the is country. Wow. Were you ALIVE in 1998? Clinton was roasted alive in the press. Impeachment proceedings were held. Feet were held to flames. Shit went down. But this has NOTHING to do with what's going on today. If you respect the truth and wish to hold liars accountable, then continue to press it with the current administration and again with the next and the next and the next until there are no more lies. And I think Jon Stewart described the mainstream press best a few weeks ago on the radio when he compared them to six-year-olds playing soccer: There's no game plan, no agenda. They run around clumped together in a little pack and every once in a while the ball pops out and they all go chasing after it to huddle around kicking at each other for a while. > > If it cannot be done by election, it must be done by revolution. > > I had a snipe typed out, but got rid of it. I don't know what to say > other than, if you don't like it, vote. If you vote for a third-party > or fringe candidate, then get used to either another four years or the > catastrophe that would be a sKerry presidency. So you think that if we vote for, say, a liar and a thief and a would-be despot (I'm honestly not trying to implicate any individual here), that we should stand by and let them rule in their way for so long as their appointed term allows? This is surely putting the cart before the horse in the worst way! Government exists as an agent of the public and when it ceases to serve the public good, regardless of whether or not the majority recognize it, it must be removed from power. Also, the system itself can be corrupt in such a way that the democratic forms do not function and the vote does not accurately reflect the desire of the people. This is especially true in situations where candidates are barred access to the public due to inability to compete commercially or a failure to already belong to the ruling party(s). One could also conceive of a system in which the very election process has been corrupt or perverted in a way that the results do not accurately reflect the ballots cast by the voters or where certain classes of citizens cannot attend the polls. Again, this is not intended to implicate any particular aspect of any existing system, but to describe situations in which removal of a governing structure that does not serve the public must be achieved outside the system enforced by the failing government itself. > > A government that cannot govern itself to maintain minimum standards > > of public service must be removed > > from power. > > Through the damned process. Again, what if the process does not serve the public? What if it has flaws that can be exploited so as to prevent the public from effecting real change? > Anyone (*anyone*) who lives in this country and bitches about the state > of politics or their ruling officials--be they local, state, or > national--who can and doesn't vote has very little place to disparage > their condition. That may be the case (or it may not be), but that certainly doesn't counter the idea that a government that does not serve the public (even if it serves the system under which it was adopted!) MUST be dissolved and possibly replaced. It's absolutely shocking to see an American claiming that one should not fight against a government that does not serve its people outside the system of government if necessary. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 15:06:58 -0500 From: Subject: Re: the moral high ground [demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text] On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:43 , Capuchin sent: > A government that cannot govern itself to maintain minimum standards of public > service must be removed from power. is this in democracies or should this apply everywhere. if there is no democracy, is a revolution or coup the only way to remove a failed government that is not willing to be removed? if the governed cannot complete a successful revolution or coup themselves, what then? gSs - ---- Msg sent via WebMail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 13:13:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, FSThomas wrote: > One may not whole-heartedly (or partially, or at all) agree with the > Bush administration's stance on issues (I don't), but at least you know > _where_ he stands. Kerry is null and void when it comes to getting a > stance on any issue. He waffles more often than a short order cook at > IHOP. Here's a FANTASTIC example of how conservatism is self-perpetuating and is so narrow as to not even understand that a person can be anything but conservative. OF COURSE, the more conservative you are, the more consistent you will be in your expressed views. The more conservative you are, the more well-defined your views are because they are NOT based on your own individual creative thought or a process of successive hypotheses and search for validation or refutation. The more conservative you are, the less you are searching for the new and better. It's pretty much the DEFINITION of conservative to be stuck in one mode of thought. You're saying here, essentially, that the more conservative candidate is the better choice because he is simply more conservative! Look at that less conservative guy! He's so much less conservative! And it's only further proof that the Democratic Party is also a conservative organization (though, clearly slightly less conservative than the Republican party which is slightly less conservative than the Italian Fascists) that they counter this complaint with cries that their candidate is TOTALLY CONSISTENT ACROSS TIME and as conservative as possible in his or her changing of mind and adopting of new ideas and guiding principles. > Sure, he's served on a pile of committees, but what is that worth in the > end? Again, no love for Kerry, here, but do you know how our Legislature operates? Sponsoring or proposing legislation is as much a PR move as anything else. Sure, SOMEBODY has to write and propose each new bill, so there's there, but better leave such things, publicly, to those that need cred. And sponsorship only effectively EXISTS to get things heard in committee, where, as everyone knows, is where all the real shit gets done. Committees do all the footwork (when it's actually done and of whatever quality) to shape a bill up for presentation to the assembly. Committees propose and make sometimes drastic or important subtle changes to proposed legislation before it reaches the floor, sometimes completely altering the impact intended by the author or the original sponsors. Serving on a committee in Congress isn't like being on the Float Committee at Homecoming in high school. You don't just put your name on a list and show up if you like. It's where the work gets done and it's where everybody who wants to get things done wants to be. This isn't a comment on Kerry's record and I'm not trying to imply that he effectively or ineffectively used his power on committee, but to measure one's involvement in Congress by bill author- and sponsorship and dismiss committee membership is just plain wrong-headed. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #136 ********************************