From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #141 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, May 17 2004 Volume 13 : Number 141 Today's Subjects: ----------------- protect your thoughts with gnatfoil (tm)! ["Natalie Jane" ] Kerry Schmerry ["Matt Sewell" ] Moral relativism ["Matt Sewell" ] Re: Last night's gig for Resonance FM [Jon Lewis ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #135 [Michael R Godwin ] Re: Moral relativism [steve ] RE: Kerry Schmerry ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #135 [FSThomas ] RE: Kerry Schmerry ["Matt Sewell" ] RE: Kerry Schmerry ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: the moral high ground [The Great Quail ] RE: Kerry Schmerry ["Bachman, Michael" ] RE: the moral high ground [Dr John Halewood ] Rush sings Rush... Bush sings Bush... Clinton sings Clinton... (Leslie) Gore sings Gore... ["Rex.Broome" Subject: protect your thoughts with gnatfoil (tm)! >Having some experience being temporarily insane for two months after >brain surgery 4 years ago. I can verify that I was convinced that people >were reading my thoughts, though constructing tinfoil protection didn't >occur to me. Hmm.... all this talk of tinfoil protection makes me think there could be a lucrative business opportunity for me, selling protective foil headgear to schizophrenics. Of course, that would pit me against the makers of Zyprexa, Thorazine, and other anti-psychotics, and they'd probably take me out in a huge lawsuit, and then the out-of-court settlement would prevent me from paying off my student loans. I think I'd better leave well enough alone. n. _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar  get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:03:40 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: Against America? (was the moral high ground) Actually it's noticeable over here too - I've been quite shocked at the vehemence of anti-American feeling recently, as I'd expect people to hate Bush and his government of fascist whackos rather than the poor bastards they're governing (I guess, to paraphrase Robyn, we're all poor bastards now). Even the Boy Cornelius, our drummer, who's Canadian but sounds a little Nyoikish (due to his living there for a while) gets a lower standard of service from people who hear his accent. It's all rather shocking as 9-11 really did generate a wave of compassion for the US. That, quite clearly, has been squandered by that bloke in the Whitehouse who looks like a 3-year-old who's just passed his first concious stool... Cheers Matt >From: Carrie Galbraith > being an American abroad, living >abroad, not the tourist bovine, is getting more and more difficult, >and at a rather rapid pace! I've been abroad for 3 years now and >while I find most Europeans distinguish between government and >individual, I am beginning to feel some blanket anti-American >attitude, even here in Italy. The anti-American graffiti is on the >increase, of course, and calling Bush a "torturer" is the latest but >I went to a dinner party the other night and felt a decided >stiffness from a few individuals at the table after being asked my >nationality. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 07:01:36 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jonathan Fetter" Subject: Re: the moral high ground I guess Limbaugh would be an Ayn Rand fan too. Tho I think Neil grew out of that phase a long time ago... Jon > Rush Sings Rush... > I see a great need. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:18:32 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Kerry Schmerry Though my interest in US politics is rather peripheral, I do think that the Democrats have made a big mistake with Kerry. He lacks charisma (can you remember the last President who lacked charisma? Nixon? Bush I maybe?) but also he seems to be a compromise, someone who, though he might criticise *some* of the policies of the Bush government, won't rock the boat too much. I think that Bush will win the election, and win by a large margin. This is a depressing prospect, though not so to our "Labour" government, who are rooting for the neo-cons... oh Christ... Cheers Matt >From: FSThomas >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 >-f. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay in touch better and keep protected online with MSNs NEW all-in-one Premium Services. Find out more here. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:33:08 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Moral relativism I can understand choosing the lesser of two evils - in some way it's easy: would you lose a limb or your life? I would choose limb. Would I shoot someone with explosives strapped to them before they reached their target? Yes, I would. Would I shoot the person arranging the explosions *before* they had carried anything out? I don't think so. In fact I'm sure I wouldn't. I wouldn't want people shot for something they might do in the future in my own country, so therefore wouldn't want it happening anywhere else. Taking recent American strategy in Najaf (for example), this seems to be: suspect someone of being an insurgent? Blow up their street with a helicopter gunship. To me, that's stomach-churning cruelty. In the same way, seeing footage of gun-waving insurgents threatening civilian hostages in the name of god (let alone gruesomely murdering them) gives me the same burning, nauseaous feeling of anger. As I pointed out the other day, and is pointed out on the front of today's Independent, we know how many coalition forces and civilians have been killed, but no-one seems to be keeping official count of the Iraqi civilians killed. How's that for moral relativity? Cheers Matt Ferris, then Jeme > > 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? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 16:28:28 -0400 From: Jon Lewis Subject: Re: Last night's gig for Resonance FM On Sunday, May 16, 2004, at 05:33 AM, Charlotte Tupman wrote: > > Robyn with acoustic: > > Trams Of Old London > 1974 > 52 Stations > > Yay! 52 stations again! The Halloween show was the first time I've ever heard him do it live; now it looks as if he's taking a shine to it. One of my fave RH ditties. I really like how he renders the opening guitar figures in solo-acoustic mode. Jon Lewis (still vacillating between the slickster-cool Groovy Decay version and the dorkily winsome Kershaw Sessions version) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 14:09:38 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #135 > 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 have been trying to avoid getting involved in this discussion, but here goes anyway: 1) I am utterly baffled that anyone can believe Saddam Hussein has anything significant in common with Usama bin Laden. Bin Laden is an extreme Sunni of the Wahhabi sect, who wants to introduce worldwide sharia law, while Saddam was a military dictator who emphasised that Iraqi nationality was more important than religious affiliation. Indeed, he had little choice in the matter, with three substantial religious communities to rule. Saddam has quite a lot in common with Ataturk, who banned the veil in Turkey, and Nasser, who modernised Egypt* - whereas bin Laden wants to put the clock back to the 14th century. My guess is that bin Laden backed Iran in the long war between Iran and Saddam's Iraq, because although the Iranian government is Shia, it has introduced the sharia. 2) One of the worst outcomes of the military intervention has been that the ensuing anarchy has permitted all kinds of religious extremists to enter Iraq and stir up trouble - including Saudi al Qaida operatives, Iranian Shia extremists, and who knows who else. It was predicted by many analysts that military intervention would increase the scope for terrorism, not reduce it. I may be wrong about this, but I believe that the State Department and the CIA in the US and MI6 in the UK all warned that this was likely to happen, but their advice was ignored by Bush and Blair. Indeed, Richard Clarke and others assert that Bush's hostility to Iraq has blinded him to the threat from the Islamic fundamentalists. 3) Whilst I can see that the discussion on the Geneva Convention is worthwhile, my main concern is that _universal_ human rights appear to have been disregarded by the occupying forces. Although the principal story in the UK press has been that photos purporting to show abuse of Iraqi prisoners by soldiers of the Queens Lancashire Regiment were faked, the Red Cross report on the behaviour of UK troops makes some very disturbing points. Between 70% and 90% of prisoners of the UK forces were apparently discovered to be civilians with no connection to Saddam; one Iraqi prisoner was allegedly beaten to death by members of the QLR; and an eight year old girl was shot dead for no reason. Hooding prisoners for long periods is one thing; beating them to death is quite another. 4) The UK government's stated objective was to remove the weapons of mass destruction, which turned out (a) only to be battlefield gas shells (as used in WW1) and (b) not to exist any more. The US government's objective was to unseat Saddam. These objectives have been achieved, and I cannot understand why the troops are still there. 5) Unless of course the real reason was to establish control over Iraq's oilfields. Plenty of people have told me that oil is the real reason, but is there any proof? - - Mike Godwin PS News item on failure to record civilian deaths here: * Not to mention Franco and that San Cristobal guy... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 08:49:30 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: Moral relativism On May 17, 2004, at 6:33 AM, Matt Sewell wrote: > As I pointed out the other day, and is pointed out on the front of > today's Independent, we know how many coalition forces and civilians > have > been killed, but no-one seems to be keeping official count of the Iraqi > civilians killed. I don't think there's an official coalition civilian death count, but over 50 civilian contractors have been killed. CNN just showed an estimate of 15,000 plus Iraqi civilians killed. There have been 20,000 plus American soldiers evacuated for medical treatment. A good many of them would have died in previous conflicts. Lots are missing body parts. - - Steve __________ What's annoying is that America is not content to be the world's |ber-bully. It also wants to be loved. It's like Bogart and Peter Lorre in The Maltese Falcon. "When you're slapped," the U.S. sneers, "you'll take it and like it." - Steve Burgess, Canadian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 09:56:16 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Kerry Schmerry Matt said: >I think that Bush will win the election, and win by a large margin. This >is a depressing prospect, though not so to our "Labour" government, who >are rooting for the neo-cons... oh Christ...> The approval rate for Bush is down to 42%. It's slipping dramatically month by month. Close to 60% of the those polled believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. Kerry doesn't seem to have an identity, and despite all the bad news in Iraq the last 2 months, he still leads Bush by only a couple of % points. This points to a very tight race unless bin Laden is found or Kerry has his campaign invigorated. Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:09:05 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Kerry Schmerry On Mon, May 17, 2004, Bachman, Michael wrote: > The approval rate for Bush is down to 42%. It's slipping dramatically > month by month. Close to 60% of the those polled believe the country is > heading in the wrong direction. Kerry doesn't seem to have an identity, > and despite all the bad news in Iraq the last 2 months, he still leads Bush > by only a couple of % points. This points to a very tight race unless > bin Laden is found or Kerry has his campaign invigorated. Don't worry, I'm sure Bush will pull out bin Laden shortly before the election. No doubt he's had him for a while, waiting to produce him at the right time. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:19:59 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #135 Michael R Godwin wrote: > > 5) Unless of course the real reason was to establish control over Iraq's > oilfields. Plenty of people have told me that oil is the real reason, but > is there any proof? There hasn't been, to my knowledge, any hard evidence proving the War for Oil argument. According to an article on Salon (links at the bottom), U.N. Security Resolution 1483 gives control of monies from Iraqi oil sales to the occupying power. Also, later, in May, 2003 Bush issued Executive Order 13303, forbidding legal challenges to the "development fund or any actions by the United States affecting Iraq's oil industry." The catch? The Coalition Provisional Authority will continue control of the funds "until such time as an internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq is properly constituted." Until either the June 30th government is in place (a member of whom was killed today in a car bombing), or the revamped, permanent government, (which the June 30th group is supposed to design and install via elections), I cannot see turning control of those assets over. Why? "Over to whom?" is why. Once a stable government is installed, control of the revenues will be returned. The last thing the US wants on its hands is a long-term occupation; there's no colonial aspirations here, either. - -f. Salon links: Tiny: http://tinyurl.com/2govk Real: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/17/oil/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 15:29:28 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: RE: Kerry Schmerry I wish I could take comfort in your words, Michael, but I don't think these polls are ever an accurate pointer to what will happen in the elections. Sure, people may be pissed off with Bush now, and, let's face it, a 42% approval rating is pretty good for a leader as brazenly self-interested in Bush who's backed by a cabinet a little to the right of... er... well, anyone ever. When it comes to elections, it's the die-hard voters that'll decide. I've yet to hear of any Democrat-voting friends of mine who are particularly blown away by the prospect of voting for Kerry, whereas the die-hard Bush voters are just that. I predict the majority of the electorate won't even bother to vote, the left-wing vote will be split by rightwing sleeper agent R. Nader and Bush will get his family's second term... please America, prove me wrong..,. Cheers Matt Michael B wrote: > The approval rate for Bush is down to 42%. It's slipping dramatically >month by month. Close to 60% of the those polled believe the country is >heading in the wrong direction. Kerry doesn't seem to have an identity, >and despite all the bad news in Iraq the last 2 months, he still leads Bush >by only a couple of % points. This points to a very tight race unless >bin Laden is found or Kerry has his campaign invigorated. > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay in touch better and keep protected online with MSNs NEW all-in-one Premium Services. Find out more here. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:38:27 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: RE: Kerry Schmerry Michael.Bachman.wrote: > > This points to a very tight race unless > bin Laden is found or Kerry has his campaign invigorated. Whoever wins is going to have to deal with that poisoned chalice of a deficit. Maybe both sides want to lose -- NADER IN '04! Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:52:09 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: the moral high ground First of all, I am NOT getting into this political quagmire. I swore of Feg political discussions, and I am sticking too it. But this post is about something a bit different -- sort of a meta-political post. Barbara writes about FS Thomas: > I would almost feel sorry for you being the lone voice of dissent First of all, while Mr. Thomas is certainly quite to the right of me, and probably most other Fegs, he is not the "lone voice of dissent." I know that there are several Fegs out there, me included, who would weigh in against some of the comments posted here. I know this, because I have discussed it with many of them, and those who even remain on the List feel that it is far too biased against reasonable political discussion. It's easier just to hit the "delete" button than expose yourself to endless frustration, irritating self-righteousness, and even ad hominem attacks. So, even though I disagree with a lot of what FS is saying, I applaud his courage in saying it. This List can be very unkind to people who disagree with the "voice of assent." And to echo the feelings of a few other posters -- I was recently abroad in Ireland. And yes, the anti-Americanism was rather pronounced. When I was there in 1995, people generally loved us. Now it's quite different. Still, over many conversations with people in pubs, I felt that most people did see a difference between the American people and the current Administration. It was occasionally difficult for me to identify myself as an American -- but I still love this country, and I felt it was more important than ever to stick to that identification, as it gave me the opportunity to explain that my country was currently more divided than it's been since the Nixon administration. It's a massively complex issue, and only by looking at one piece at a time - -- even one person at a time -- can a real picture emerge. The problem is, reality is messy and contradictory, so it's easier to just issue blanket statements, left and right. I only hope that we can change this country for the better in five months. Although Kennedy had his own share of wickedness, he did once say, "I look forward to an America that is not afraid of grace and beauty." It's a long way off, but as far as I am concerned, our first step is getting this neocon poison out of the body politic. - --Quail, who laments his previous faith in the Bush Administration despite his knowing they were evil bastards; even though that faith was very tiny indeed.... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:54:14 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Kerry Schmerry Matt wrote: >I wish I could take comfort in your words, Michael, but I don't think >these polls are ever an accurate pointer to what will happen in the >elections. Sure, people may be pissed off with Bush now, and, let's face >it, a 42% approval rating is pretty good for a leader as brazenly >self-interested in Bush who's backed by a cabinet a little to the right >of... er... well, anyone ever. >When it comes to elections, it's the die-hard voters that'll decide. I've >yet to hear of any Democrat-voting friends of mine who are particularly >blown away by the prospect of voting for Kerry, whereas the die-hard Bush >voters are just that. I predict the majority of the electorate won't even >bother to vote, the left-wing vote will be split by rightwing sleeper >agent R. Nader and Bush will get his family's second term... please America, prove me wrong..,. I think the die-hard Democrats are more anti-Bush then pro-Kerry. At lease that what it seems to be from my prospective. Count me in as being more anti-Bush ATPIT than to being pro-Kerry. The swing voters will be the key. Will they vote for Kerry out of disgust for Bush? US voters usually are around 48-52% turnout for Presidential elections lately. It might dip down to mid 40% turnout this November. If it does, you will be right and Bush will be in. Michael B. Michael B wrote: > The approval rate for Bush is down to 42%. It's slipping dramatically >month by month. Close to 60% of the those polled believe the country is >heading in the wrong direction. Kerry doesn't seem to have an identity, >and despite all the bad news in Iraq the last 2 months, he still leads Bush >by only a couple of % points. This points to a very tight race unless >bin Laden is found or Kerry has his campaign invigorated. > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay in touch better and keep protected online with MSNs NEW all-in-one Premium Services. Find out more here. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:17:34 -0500 From: Subject: Re: the moral high ground [demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text] On Fri, 14 May 2004 13:27 , 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. >Everywhere, of course. But the determination of what those standards of >public service ARE must be left to the governed. What would you suggest in places like Palestine and Korea for instance? >> 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? > >Um, any change in government structure is a revolution, so I don't >understand your question. That is not correct. A structure is something made up of a number of pieces. Pieces of structures are often changed, replaced or removed, but that doesn't make them revolutions or revolutionary if the overall form stays the same. >Is a revolution only accomplished by revolution? Yes. Duh. Personal insults, if that is what that was, are shallow and silly and certainly don't help in resolving disagreements. >But that doesn't have to be an armed revolution..... >But that doesn't have to be a military coup. Are you saying this because you think me or people like me don't know this? Why don't you give examples of where this has worked well. List places or periods where a repressive government has been overthrown or had it's structure changed dramatically by non-violent means to be followed by a significant improvement in the overall well being of the governed. South Africa and India are examples that could be used, but don't. >> if the governed cannot complete a successful revolution or coup >> themselves, what then? > >Well, then, hopefully those that sympathize with their plight will take >appropriate action to assist. If that is an invasion or even external support for a revolution or coup, is it always wrong? South Africa is a fine example. I thought something should have been done there a long time ago. They have taken a turn for the better but only after years and years suffering from repression and exploitation. How long should we have waited to help the majority in South Africa if apartheid had not ended when it did? Does anyone know the approximate or even estimated death toll from apartheid? When is enough, enough? Quiet and soft with a touch of ginger? Yeah it's always worked like that before, why shouldn't it work now? The Palestinians must be waiting for the quiet, soft parts. >I'm presuming, here, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're trying to >suggest that the invasion of Iraq was somehow an appropriate action to >assist in an Iraqi revolution. No, I am asking you what you think should be done to end the rule of tyrannical governments. Like for instance in Palestine, Korea, Syria, most of Africa. Quiet revolutions, coups and overthrows that actually make a difference are always welcomed over any violent alternatives. But, how many people needlessly died as a result of Saddam, his sons and their methods? Was it 50,000, 100,000, 1,000,000? Probably between 1.5 and 2 million total, and that is just up until now. Far, far more than the 10,000 that may have been killed so far in Iraq. When is enough, enough. Does this mean I support the invasion? No, but it also does not mean I am in complete opposition. Something needed to be done more than a decade ago and it wasn't. Saddam needed to be removed from power and few would argue that. But I don't think he was going to retire to Malta anytime soon. And even if he had, one of his sons would have replaced him. >If the governing body you would like to escape is brutal and violent, then >you cannot revolt by being violent and brutal. This only assures that >your rulers after the conflict will be violent and brutal and you have >gained nothing. The American colonists were brutal and violent to the British. Do you think that the attitude of the US government today is a direct result of this violent revolution? If the jews had been able to defeat the nazis on their own, would Israel be even more brutal now? gSs - ---- Msg sent via WebMail ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 05:02:42 +0100 From: Dr John Halewood Subject: RE: the moral high ground gshell@americangroupisp.com outgrabed: > What would you suggest in places like Palestine and Korea for > instance? It'd be nice to suggest anything for Palestine. Unfortunately it doesn't exist. Yet. cheers john ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:54:37 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Rush sings Rush... Bush sings Bush... Clinton sings Clinton... (Leslie) Gore sings Gore... James: >>Can anyone here offer me any opinions on The Bees? If I'm to remember correctly (and that's not been my strong suit lately), there are two Bess(es) from approximately the same period, and the one I know is responsible for the truly bizarre psych single "Voices Green and Purple" (which appears on the Nuggets I box) and not much else. Meanwhile I'm still sorting out the differences between the two Kaleidoscopes... > The album kicks off with a new take on Blue Cheer's cover of Eddie > Cochran's "Summertime Blues." The track list is rounded out by the > Yardbirds' "Heart Full of Soul" and "Shapes of Things," the Who's "The > Seeker," Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth" and "Mr. Soul," > Love's "Seven and Seven Is" and Robert Johnson's "Crossroads," > famously covered by Cream. Okay, now, this is really weird for a couple of reasons: 1) It's really a strange thing in that it's neither a tribute to a single artitst nor a traditional "covers album" where each track is a cover of a different artist's tune. So it's like "Rush Pays Tribute to a Small Number of Artists, Sometimes More Than Once, and Sometimes Indirectly By Covering Songs That the Same Artists Also Covered". 2) In addition to being predictable choices *for* these artists, these aren't really Rush-like songs at all. Are they going to add time signature changes and unison bass-guitar runs and switch out the blues progressions for psuedo-classical scales, or what? There's something happening here, but what it is ain't exactly clear... Why not cover a covers album? That would be exquisitely lame! Anyways... even if Miles doesn't go see Rush, Michael could still, like *meet* him in Nashville. You know, like for drinks or whatever. Meanwhile I've been reminded that I have a wedding to attend the day of the Parsons tribute, so that looks to be out for me. Damn. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 20:30:33 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: the moral high ground - -- gshell@americangroupisp.com is rumored to have mumbled on Montag, 17. Mai 2004 11:17 Uhr -0500 regarding Re: the moral high ground: > Why don't you give examples of where this has worked well. List places or > periods where a repressive government has been overthrown or had it's > structure changed dramatically by non-violent means to be followed by a > significant improvement in the overall well being of the governed. How about East Germany in 1989? Not everything has improved, but I guess you won't find many people who'd rather have the old system back. Note that I'm from West Germany, so I wouldn't kow. - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156, 50823 Kvln, Germany http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #141 ********************************