From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #142 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 142 Today's Subjects: ----------------- robyn on bbc 6music friday may 21 [fingerpuppets ] Moral high kiosk ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: Rush sings Rush... Bush sings Bush... Clinton sings Clinton... (Leslie) Gore sings Gore... [Miles Goosens ] Re: Moral high kiosk [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: Moral high kiosk ["Fortissimo" ] Re: Last night's gig for Resonance FM [Capuchin ] Re: Kerry Schmerry [Capuchin ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #135 [Capuchin ] "it needs more reality!" [John Barrington Jones ] Re: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] Re: Moral high kiosk [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 14:36:08 -0400 From: fingerpuppets Subject: robyn on bbc 6music friday may 21 from the museum : Friday May 21 at 6:00 pm London time, Robyn will be playing and reviewing records on the program "Round Table" on 6 Radio (BBC's digital music channel). if i remember (which i plan on doing but you never know), i'll play capture the stream with 6music's real audio stream but if someone can do a recording from a better source, that would be swell indeed. woj ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:06:10 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Moral high kiosk Matt: >>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. But that die-hard Dem base is *highly* motivated to vote against Bush. I think it's way too early to call the race in November. In some ways the relative silence from Kerry at this point is smart, as long as it's allowing the administration to repeatedly shoot itself in the foot. I think we won't hear too much from him until the running mate is selected... but when that happens, a lot will still depend on actually having a message. Way too early to guess on how that will play. I guess I'm alone in thinking that it'll be a higher-than-average turnout, rather than lower, though. In addition to the virulence of the anti-Bush sentiment among those who hold it, the spectre of the last presidential election hasn't been forgotten. Not by everyone, at least... I lived in Europe during the first Gulf War. They hated our ass then, too. But it got to die down that time in a way that it can't now. I think a lot of the seeds of today's anti-Americanism were sown back then, but it seems way worse, possibly irreversible, now. Yikes. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 14:08:52 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: Rush sings Rush... Bush sings Bush... Clinton sings Clinton... (Leslie) Gore sings Gore... At 10:54 AM 5/17/2004 -0700, Rex.Broome wrote: >Anyways... even if Miles doesn't go see Rush, Michael could still, like >*meet* him in Nashville. You know, like for drinks or whatever. I thought it was clear from our messages that it *is* going to happen. Michael sez he's looking forward to meeting me, me saying I'm looking forward to meeting him, etc. It is arranged, if not by Van Dyke Parks. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:26:43 -0700 From: "Palle Hoffstein" Subject: RE: Against America? (was the moral high ground) ...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... As long as close to half of Americans still support the current administration, most people worldwide are not going to see much difference between the people and the government. I visit the US a lot, and have a great many American friends. When you throw in my love of American music, cuisine, movies, etc, I happily tell people (the Canadians around me, mostly) that I love Americans and America. Lots of people here instantly translate that in their heads into that I also support the current US administration. I get berated all the time for telling people I love America, but damned if I'll let their simplemindedness make me bite my tongue. ...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... After 9-11 I was ready to come south and help fight for the US. Lots of us felt that way. We still would, should the US again be attacked on its own soil. But supporting our neighbour to the south from attack, and joining in on an international travestly like Iraq are very different things. No, we won't help you bomb a poor country overseas. But, yeah, if you're in real immediate danger, we'll be there at your side. I hope most Americans realise that. Palle ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 14:26:58 -0500 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: Rush sings Rush... Bush sings Bush... Clinton sings Clinton... (Leslie) Gore sings Gore... You forgot Kerry does Kerry (Livgren, ex-Kansas)... On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:54:37 -0700, "Rex.Broome" said: > > 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: > 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... Per someone's comment, last night I tried working out a desktop-drumkit (i.e., banging my hands on my desk) version of "Shapes of Things," done mostly in 7/4, with a few stray bars of 7/8 in the lead-up to the chorus ("come tomorrow...") and a solo section that sorta pays tribute to "YYZ" or whatever by alternating bars of 7/8, 5/8, and 3/8. Of course, I didn't even get as far as figuring out how the hell anyone would sing it. - ------------------------------- ...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: Mon, 17 May 2004 15:34:24 -0500 From: Subject: Re: Moral high kiosk [demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text] On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:06 , Rex.Broome sent: >I lived in Europe during the first Gulf War. They hated our ass then, too. But >it got to die down that time in a way that it can't now. I think a lot of the >seeds of today's anti-Americanism were sown back then, but it seems way worse, >possibly irreversible, now. Yikes. I'm almost to the point where I think "so the fuck what?". Once Americans are scorned enough we will stop showing interest in things foreign. Federal and private funding for all things foreign will stop or dwindle to a trickle and the rest of the world will once again be waiting in line to lick the bottoms of our feet in order to win our favor while at the same time wondering how they can be more like us. History repeats itself. People forget so quickly. Putin, for instance, visited Grozny a week or so ago. The first thing he said while flying over city in a helicopter was something like "wow, i didn't realize how fucked up the place looked". fucking brilliant. when he leaves office i'll bet he moves on to the UN. what's the death toll in chechnya, as of today? In two months alone, from october to november 1999, the Russians lost 460 troops. In the 1994-1996 war (21 months) 3,826 were reported killed. The number is probably three or four times higher. They have reported for the period Aug 2 1999 through Aug 5 2000, that 2,508 Russian soldiers were killed in combat in Chechnya during that single year. Though Russia has officially reported 4280 dead since the last Russian invasion started in 1999 the actual number is believed to be at least three times higher. The number of civilian deaths is astronomical. The stories by all sorts of independant sources of the atrocities including beatings, detentions and the summary execution of huge numbers of civilians makes Iraq look like an Italian wedding. Why do these facts always seem to slip past without raising even a wisp of interest or amazement? gSs - ---- Msg sent via WebMail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 22:52:30 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Moral high kiosk - -- gshell@americangroupisp.com is rumored to have mumbled on Montag, 17. Mai 2004 15:34 Uhr -0500 regarding Re: Moral high kiosk: [ Atrocities in Chechnya ] > Why do these facts always seem to slip past without raising even a wisp > of interest or amazement? They do, at least over here ... however, the US are held to higher standards because they proclaim them for themselves. - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156, 50823 Kvln, Germany http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 15:49:38 -0500 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: Moral high kiosk On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:34:24 -0500, gshell@americangroupisp.com said: > I'm almost to the point where I think "so the fuck what?". Once Americans > are > scorned enough we will stop showing interest in things foreign. Like all that debt we owe? Take a look at everything surrounding you that's made or designed in a foreign country - one reason we're an empire in decline is that even when we can still come up with ideas, we're unable to act on or develop them. About half the Japanese economy is based on ideas developed by Americans... (And by saying that, I'm certainly not xenophobically accusing them of "stealing" the ideas. For a long time, they just had a better grasp on actually functioning markets than we did. You can sit in a room & come up with the most brilliant idea ever - but if you can't make it & sell it - or even just give it away - it's no good.) We are, far too many of us, willfully stupid, fat, and lazy - and tend to be roused to action only in aggression and violence. I wish we didn't act like a bunch of drunken frat boys who think their sister's just been insulted - but that about sums it up sometimes. Just look what happens when we try to address what ought to be regarded, by any standard, as moral outrages: "yeah, but Johnny across the street stole *two* cookies and broke the jar! It's not fair, Mommy - I only took one!" So I don't think it very likely that we'd even be *able* to ignore the rest of the world - we want what they've got, but we don't particularly want to pay for it (and I don't necessarily mean economically). We can alternately buy and bully for only so long: when the money runs out, the bullying might work for a while - but only once they all realize there're more of them than us. Unless we all go to the moon, we have to live & work with the rest of the world: doing so on a basis of ongoing arrogance and aggression is just stupid. Not that Bush & Rumsfeld & Cheney give a fuck: *they*'ll do okay no matter who's in charge, or what happens to the rest of the country. If the US were a sinking ship, they'd be off to the Caymans like so many rats. grumpily, - ------------------------------- ...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: Mon, 17 May 2004 15:51:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Last night's gig for Resonance FM On Sun, 16 May 2004, Jon Lewis wrote: > On Sunday, May 16, 2004, at 05:33 AM, Charlotte Tupman wrote: > Yay! 52 stations again! > (still vacillating between the slickster-cool Groovy Decay version and > the dorkily winsome Kershaw Sessions version) As unpopular as it is, I've been listening to Groovy Decoy the last few days and I must say, 52 Stations is just one of the best songs the guy ever did. The lyrics are fantastic (though that "hid/hit" thing still kind of bothers me). "Most days You'll find her in a heat haze Looking through the sweet maze That she calls her mind" Woo-oo-oo, indeed. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:08:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Kerry Schmerry On Mon, 17 May 2004, Matt Sewell wrote: > Though my interest in US politics is rather peripheral, I do think that > the Democrats have made a big mistake with Kerry. I think everybody knows that and nobody wants to admit it. The Kerry campaign seems to be hoping to win on the "He's not Bush" vote. Well, that's inspiring stuff, I must tell you. The system is doing a very good job of encouraging voter apathy. It never ceases to amaze me how systems always naturally do the self-perpetuating, self-preserving thing. It takes conscious effort to break down a system (though that effort doesn't have to be directed at breaking it down... sometimes it's an effort to "improve" things that kills a system). > 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. Well, Nixon and Bush I were both deep insiders with long histories of manipulating the back-end. The Democrats have been choosing acharismatic candidates since the Republicans took control of the Senate in 1994. They're really afraid of seeming too un-Republican, I think. > I think that Bush will win the election, and win by a large margin. Yeah, unless there's some serious upset, that's my prediction as well. And the upset would probably have to be a major change within the Democratic Party. Kerry will either have to radically change or drop out of the race for them to win. It's a simple fact that the Bush voters really believe he can do no wrong. Nothing will sway them. Fighting "against Bush" is a losing battle. The only thing that the "anyone but Bush" folks can do with Kerry still in the race is make some amazing push for new voters. Bush represents about 20-25% of the population, tops. Those people will ALL vote. A handful of so-called "swing voters" (people who will vote, and vote either R or D, regardless of who's running outside that construct) will also vote for Bush, so long as Kerry's the Democratic opponent. Anyway, you can't fight Bush on philosophical grounds. Debate is useless, discussion is useless (for that small percentage of core supporters). It's just a numbers game. The really sad thing is the "Anyone but Bush" movement, generally. This "Anyone" will have extremely broad license and so long as there is a threat from a Bush or Bush-like entity, the Anyone can do whatever evil he likes. > This is a depressing prospect, though not so to our "Labour" government, > who are rooting for the neo-cons... oh Christ... Aye. Again, there's not even a paper-thin gap between the Democrats and the Republicans in the U.S.A.. They represent two sides of a very narrow swatch of the political spectrum. It's a pretty arbitrary choice from outside and the smart money bets on existing power to maintain its own power. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:18:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #135 On Mon, 17 May 2004, FSThomas wrote: > 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. Well, that's a small bit of evidence. The UN is allowing the occupying force to control the money. So the folks that start the war get the money. > 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." That's also a piece of circumstantial evidence. Nobody can challenge Bush's control of the system. > 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." OK, so long as we can keep the government there from solidifying, we keep the money. > 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. Sounds to me like you've made a pretty strong "War for Oil" case and you simply agree with the outcome. > Why? "Over to whom?" is why. Once a stable government is installed, > control of the revenues will be returned. Sure, but will that "stable government" be a puppet regime? And will it be required to honor agreements made by the interim government or occupying force with regard to long-term maintenance and supply contracts? > The last thing the US wants on its hands is a long-term occupation; > there's no colonial aspirations here, either. And on what do you base that? The U.S. standard of living is based almost entirely on foreign client states. It behooves the USA to develop as many closely dependent nations as possible and develop systems that prevent nations from controlling their own economies and governments. I'll paraphrase my reading of this whole email: There is no evidence that the US is doing this for oil or money. The US gets control of the oil and money and that makes sense. The US is going to design and install a new Iraqi government. There are no long-term occupation or colonial interests. Those two couplets are flatly contradictory. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:33:30 -0700 (PDT) From: John Barrington Jones Subject: "it needs more reality!" warning: dan bern content. presidential content as well. http://www.jamescampion.com/chekbernstein.html =jbj= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:52:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Mon, 17 May 2004 gshell@americangroupisp.com wrote: > What would you suggest in places like Palestine and Korea for instance? Well, since neither exists as a politically bounded region, I don't know what to suggest. If you refer to the people struggling for freedom and self-rule who self-identify as Palestinians and Koreans, I suggest highly organized passive resistence. Do not participate in the oppression and do whatever is possible to underscore the brutality and domination of the ruling regime. > >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. The pieces are components within the structure. The structure itself is unchanged by the remodelling of components. > >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. Well, it wasn't. I was just trying to make sense of what you wrote and it seemed like a tautology. > >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? I wrote it because I wanted to make it clear that violence is not a necessary component of massive social and governmental change. I don't know what "people like you" are, but I do know that some people don't know that you can have non-violent revolution. > 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. But don't? What's THAT all about? "Give me an example of a high quality, internally geared bicycle hub. Shimano Nexus and Sturmy-Archer are examples that could be used, but don't." Why can't I use the two BEST examples? India is by FAR the best example of this and it was done against the greatest empire in the world by some of the poorest people. > >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? Violent overthrow is always wrong. It only ensures that the new leaders are violent. > South Africa is a fine example. South Africa is much better off not having been invaded. The people there understand the power and potential brutality of government much better now than if they had had to rationalize the brutality for their own revolution. > They have taken a turn for the better but only after years and years > suffering from repression and exploitation. Nothing worthwhile is ever learned easily or quickly. You can't make it hurt less, or else the lesson isn't learned. And the only way to make it go faster is to increase the brutality. In essence, that is how it was done in India. They increased the brutality by subjecting themselves to beatings and massacres. The increased brutality (instigated by the Indians themselves through massive, non-violent disobedience) destroyed the moral basis for the Raj and destroyed it both from within and without. > How long should we have waited to help the majority in South Africa if > apartheid had not ended when it did? We could have done more to support the majority by recognizing their sovereignty and ignoring the apartheid government. We could have recognized the organizations of the people as the "real" governing body of the land. This would have significantly weakened the regime. > Does anyone know the approximate or even estimated death toll from > apartheid? When is enough, enough? Killing more people just makes enough into more. And the creation of a government that appreciates violence as a reasonable means to achieve ends is not an improvement. > 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. The only reason they're still in the game is because their enemy is MORE brutal and repressive to some. The Palestinians are in fine position to mimic the Indians and gain independence. However, there is a fundamental support of violence in Judaism (and extended to Islam and the so-called Christianity) that makes this very, very difficult and unlikely. The current belligerence of the Indian state is directly related to the schism between the Indians and Pakistani (Hindu and Muslim) that occured at the time of the revolution. It is the descendants (biological and philosophical) of the supporters of violence in the Indian revolution that are perpetuating the threat of violence today. > >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. I've mentioned that already, but I'll re-iterate. Passive resistance, non-violent disobedience from the people. Official recognition of the organized people by powerful supporters outside. Trade sanctions against agents of the oppressive power, trade support of agents of the people. (No blanket sanctions against a nation as that violence hurts everybody.) You know, the Apartheid sanctions of the 1980s would be illegal under the WTO treaty today. > Quiet revolutions, coups and overthrows that actually make a difference > are always welcomed over any violent alternatives. Glad to hear we agree. > But, how many people needlessly died as a result of Saddam, his sons and > their methods? How many people needlessly die in a bloody revolution? And how many will needlessly die at the hand of the violence-supported regime that follows? And the bloody revolution to depose it, ad infinitum? Don't fool yourself. A violent revolution against a brutal dictator does not end the cycle of violence, it is merely another step in the cycle. To break the cycle, one must be non-violent. > Was it 50,000, 100,000, 1,000,000? Probably between 1.5 and 2 million > total, and that is just up until now. ...and this was done with the support of the violent US state. > Far, far more than the 10,000 that may have been killed so far in Iraq. > When is enough, enough. Apparently not yet, because there's still more killing. Stop killing and we will be done. When two sides fight, people have a tough decision of which side to support based on all kinds of factors that are in dispute (faith, governmental philosophy, etc.), but when only one side is fighting and the other is passively resisting, people have a very easy decision of which side to support because brutality is universally deplored, publicly. If we draw the debate out into the public, those on the side of the killing will have to show their true colors and justify killing non-belligerent people. This cannot stand. > 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. Oh, a whole lot was done more than a decade ago! He was put into power with the support of the US government, he was armed and aided by the Americans, etc. etc.. Hell, this is all just a continuation of the Iran-Contra saga. Whom did we support back then? > 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. No attempt was made by the U.S.A. to support non-violent revolution in Iraq. Of course, the State Department has a long-standing policy to oppose direct democracy in foreign nations because of it's leftist tendencies. Also, there is a State Department policy that opposes any changes in foreign nations that "threaten traditional economic relationships". > 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? Yeah, I do. We've been a belligerent nation throughout our history. A nation that supported non-violent revolution by the people against an oppressive regime would not have treated the natives as they did. > If the jews had been able to defeat the nazis on their own, would Israel > be even more brutal now? If the jews had defeated the Nazis on their own, there wouldn't be an Israel. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:59:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Moral high kiosk On Mon, 17 May 2004 gshell@americangroupisp.com wrote: > I'm almost to the point where I think "so the fuck what?". Once > Americans are scorned enough we will stop showing interest in things > foreign. Federal and private funding for all things foreign will stop or > dwindle to a trickle and the rest of the world will once again be > waiting in line to lick the bottoms of our feet in order to win our > favor while at the same time wondering how they can be more like us. I think this is exactly the arrogance that was being condemned in the post to which you're replying. "Fuck them, they should love us and try to be like us. It's what they really want anyway. They're just jealous." Do you have any idea how much the U.S. has grown to depend on its client states overseas? Threat of military and economic violence is all that maintains the U.S. standard of living. We don't have the domestic production base to say "so the fuck what?" anymore. Jeffrey's comment on the foreign debt is a solid one, certainly, but there is also the issue of debts due in U.S. dollars that are the principle reason many nations are forced to produce goods for the American market. The more foreign attitudes become anti-US, the more foreign policies will stop favoring the US. Of course, the rich and powerful elite (who have a psychopathic drive for profit above all else) will continue to make decisions counter to the public opinion in favor of their own interests, but that just increases the chances of revolution in those states. And as much as I'd like to see the Capitalists ousted worldwide, I think the effect of a sudden revolt in more than one major nation could be catastrophic in this age of nuclear power plants, weapons, and toxic industry. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #142 ********************************