From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #207 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, July 16 2004 Volume 13 : Number 207 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Can't somebody DO something? [James Dignan ] Re: orange juice [James Dignan ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #206 [James Dignan ] Re: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) [Cap] more robyn on sharingthegroove [fingerpuppets ] Re: Can't somebody DO something? [Capuchin ] Re: Coincidence? [Capuchin ] FW: Coincidence? ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: FW: Coincidence? [Ken Weingold ] Re: Word! Sort of... ["Rex Broome" ] RE: FW: Coincidence? ["Matt Sewell" ] Re: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) ["F] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:56:51 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? >I think it's pretty clear that Bush can not win a fair election in this >country at this point. am I the only one here who instantly thought "Florida 2000" and then thought better of mentioning it? oops. 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, 16 Jul 2004 21:00:08 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: orange juice >Now I remember who Orange Juice remind me of: Aztec Camera! One slight difference - Aztec Camera were at times quite good (and their song with Mick Jones, "Good morning Britain", is one of the best protest songs around). Orange Juice, however, I could never stand. 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, 16 Jul 2004 21:07:17 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #206 Rex wrote: >Anyone got some links to some interesting porn or anything? then, a couple of hours later, Steve said: >Perhaps this refers to the nuclear bunker buster that's in the works. >The one that deep penetrates before going off. QED. 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, 16 Jul 2004 04:59:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Fortissimo wrote: > I can see, in principle, most of your arguments... Cool. > but these are where, for me, you disconnect from reality. Let's take a look, then. > Are you asserting that there's a "majority" of voters or potential > voters who would have voted for Nader except that they feared doing so > would help elect Bush? Not exactly, no. First, I'd like to just make it clear that I didn't write anything at all about Nader. You brought that up and it seems like a straw man. What I meant was that the majority of the people, if given exposure to a wider spectrum of political views, would find Bush and Kerry nestled very closely together along that spectrum and closer to each other than the majority. > Even on the left, Nader's behavior [...] I'm just skipping that stuff. I don't think it relates to the current political arena. > Jim Hightower suggests (in his book _Thieves in High Places_) that polls > repeatedly demonstrate the appeal of progressive positions to many > Americans. Aye. That's the sort of thing I'm using as a basis for my above assertions. > But the majorities are, typically, slim I believe this is due to under-exposure to progressive ideas and biased education, both formal and social. > - and he doesn't cite polls on wedge issues such as abortion, etc. When I look at the nature of the "wedge issues", I see that, fundamentally, they all tend to be personal choices made by individuals in their private lives. These are very interesting in ethical debate, but really have no place in legislation in a supposedly free country. I know people have all kinds of interesting opinions about the impact of these personal decisions on others (real or imagined impact, real or imagined others), but the simple fact that we all must accept is that these things are going to happen whether they're legal or illegal; gay people will continue to partner, unwanted pregnancies will be terminated, etc. We can make this or that personal choice legal or illegal, but that won't change the minds of the people about whether or not the thing is right or wrong and, therefore, won't end the conflict of ideas present in society. The only rational way to support or combat them is with community support and education. Ultimately, any policy decisions based on a dogmatic adherence to one side or the other in this sort of debate is going to become moot. (I'm writing a bit facetiously here. I think there is an obvious tendency toward liberalism in educated people and as education and communication increase, the view allowing more personal freedom is going to win out.) > I really don't think the left has a majority in this country. Certainly, > it has a stronger base than the media and most politicians give it > credit for. But a majority? I don't think so. And the reason they don't have the majority is because the media and politicians are so hard right that many people really can't even entertain leftist thoughts. Either they don't know how or they dismiss the thoughts because they're not practical "in the real world" (i.e., the world run by the existing politicians and described by the existing media). > "The differences are so subtle as to be inconsequential"?!? Do you > really think Kerry would be as outright arrogant as Bush, as toadying to > the far right on social issues, as disrespectful of anyone else's > opinions but those of the ruling class, as bellicose and clueless in his > actions? Now, see, these are not inconsequential differences (except one, which is not a difference) between Kerry and Bush, but they are ones where Bush's stance is, strategically, more beneficial to the left! I don't think Kerry will be any less toadying to the far right on social issues. I just think it'll be less obvious. Kerry would be less arrogant when he regretfully informs the American people that we must invade a foreign nation... and fewer people will be outraged. Kerry would be apparently more respectful of others' opinions... and so rationalizations for going against thoe opinions will be offered and accepted by many people. No reason to believe Kerry will be any less bellicose and it really depends on what mean by clueless. He will probably have better personal understanding of the long-term consequences of his actions and policies, but that doesn't mean those policies will be any more wisely counselled, only that the spin will be carefully constructed. > Or perhaps we have a very different idea of what "inconsequential" is. We might. For example, I don't expect you'll agree with me and my view on the wedge issues. > "When you guys catch up, we'll be in a better place": I think what you > mean is, *if* you guys catch up. Hope springs eternal, man. I'm an optimist, after all. > But in the meantime...given what I've said above, I don't think four > more years of Bush would put us in a better place (except if you're, oh, > Beelzebub or somebody). If Kerry lost and a sizable number of voters turned out for more progressive candidates, the message would be that Bush is in office because the opposition was not progressive enough. If Kerry wins on an "Anyone But Bush" campaign, the message will be that you can get an arbitrarily far right candidate in office just so long as your major competitor is further right (and preferably an imbecile). > I think that the place to demand "not evil" candidates is not the > presidential slate, at least not right away. I think that the place to demand "not evil" candidates is across the board all the time. > If only for practical reasons: how effective would President Nader be in > getting anything done, given the lack of support structure he has? Nader aside, how effective would a President Kerry be at demilitarizing the world, decommissioning prisons, and redistributing wealth, given the lack of discourse those issues receive among politicians and the media? > (Note: as long as I've been suckered into addressing this issue ;) - no, > I don't "blame Nader" for Bush's election.[....] Uh, you didn't get suckered into a Nader discussion. You brought that up yourself. > Trying to increase democracy and reform elections by running for > President is like trying to learn to drive by entering yourself in the > Indy 500. I think Nader got lots of press by running for President and that was the real goal, however, the press failed to focus on policies and platforms (as usual) and so the effect was kind of null. You don't get the nation talking about universal healthcare by mentioning it at the county council meeting. > All this assumes that the Bush team actually *allows* the November > elections: that they won't rule out canceling them in the event of a > terrorist attack (which *they* keep bringing up) is rather disturbing. Yeah, but I think if Bush does anything that overtly and uncontroversially undermines democracy (unlike the Florida debacle or the voting machines, which undermine democracy with some plausible deniability), he'll have a civil war faster than he can say "Articles of Confederation" (which, admittedly, could be weeks). J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:08:23 -0400 From: fingerpuppets Subject: more robyn on sharingthegroove thanks again to rh60! http://www.sharingthegroove.org/msgboard/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81475 Robyn Hitchcock (solo) 1987-07-18 McCabes, Santa Monica (Audience - SHN) Robyn Hitchcock July 18, 1987 McCabe's Santa Monica, California US Source: Analog Cassette Master (microphones unknown) -> DAT (32kHz)-> PC (vi Lynx One digital I/O) -> SHN Fade in/outs, resampling, and normalization to 0 dB via Sound Forge. Track splits via cdwave. DAT obtained in trade in June, 1996, converted to SHN July, 2004. Early Set (Running time: 62:13, SHN size: 371MB) 1. Intro/banter 2. A Globe of Frogs 3. Autumn is Your Last Chance 4. I Got the Hots 5. banter... 6. Raymond Chandler Evening 7. banter... 8. Trash 9. banter.. 10. Insect Mother 11. Agony of Pleasure 12. banter... 13. Man Who Invented Himself 14. banter... 15. Ted, Woody, and Junior 16. The Angel Upstairs 17. banter... 18. I Got a Message For You 19. Sleeping with Your Devil Mask 20. banter... 21. Sandra's Having Her Brain Out Late Set: (Running Time: 71:53, SHN size: 458MB) 1. Intro/banter 2. A Globe of Frogs 3. I Often Dream of Trains 4. banter... 5. I Got the Hots 6. banter... 7. Raymond Chandler Evening 8. banter... 9. Trash 10. banter... 11. Insect Mother 12. banter... 13. Agony of Pleasure 14. banter... 15. Man Who Invented Himself 16. Flavour of Night 17. Fifty Two Stations 18. banter... 19. I Got a Message For You 20. Sleeping with Your Devil Mask 21. President 22. Donna Summer 23. False Knight on the Road [Traditional, arr. Tim Hart] 24. banter... 25. Went to See the Gypsy [Bob Dylan] Note: This is a very fine show, with Robyn in fine form, as he banters with the audience. Some noise as microphones are repositioned early on, but overall the sound is very good. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 05:41:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Jason Brown wrote: > Capuchin wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Jason Brown wrote: > > > I know a hell of a lot of people that agree with most of Kerry's > > > positions, especially at work in the burbs. > > > > I'm not doubting the existence of moderate Republicans, Jason. > > I'm talking about moderate Republicans. I'm talking about moderate > Democrats. Yes, you are. They're one and the same. > Hell, I'm one! Or both! > I was an Edwards delegate at my county convention. My Congratulations. > > We've gone from mere negative campaign ads to wholesale negative > > campaigns. "Vote for me, the other guy is so much worse!" > > I agree that that generally isn't a good thing, but is there not a point > where the other guy is so much worse that such a strategy will work. Work to do what, though? It'll work to keep the worse guy out of office, but is that what you want to leave to your children? "Here you go son, it could have sucked more!" It won't work to make the world a better place than it is now, only better than it might have been if we'd been more negligent. > I know you don't think the differences between Kerry and Bush are > sufficient but you must agree that at times that such logic can make > sense. I don't agree. Certainly not. That's what this is all about. You're just saying that you'll vote for anybody given a sufficiently horrifying alternative. What happens when Bush decides he's a Democrat and runs against Rumsfeld? > > > That said, is it not better to vote for a candidate you oppose on > > > most issues rather than a candidate you oppose on all issues? > > > > The point is whether or not it's GOOD to vote for somebody you oppose > > on most issues. > > Nice dodging of my question, Jeme. I'm not dodging the question. For me, "better" totally loses its meaning on that far end of the spectrum. It's like asking of teal or aqua-marine is "redder". Does it matter? Maybe in some highly specialized and contrived cases, but not when you're trying to match the drapes. > I agree its not good to vote for someone you oppose on most issues, but > that isn't what i was asking. Well, I've answered the question as well as I can. And I'm not going to vote for Kerry because it's not good to do that. > > > Especially, when those are the only two candidates that have any > > > chance at being elected? > > > > They're the only two that have a chance because people like you are > > out fear-mongering. > > No, that is bullshit. I think it's accurate and I stand by it. I'll try to explain. > Under our current constitution, even if every voter only voted their > conscience and voted for the candidate they truly like best no third > party candidate would garner enough support to win the electoral college > in 2004 If you'd read my first post in this thread carefully, you'd've found that I've already discounted this November's election. No good can come of it. Expedience is, more often than not, the enemy of progress. We need to work harder to develop a nation in which a third party candidate CAN get a majority of electoral votes because the two major parties are seriously holding us back. > and in the outside chance that some one like Nader won Vermont or > something and Bush or Kerry didn't have enough electoral votes to win > outright. Then Congress would select either Kerry or Bush. I don't > necessarily wish things were that way but that is the political reality. Does that mean we have to all participate in putting one of those assholes in office? What you're doing is telling people that they MUST perpetuate this system or else things will get worse. That's fear-mongering. And since you appear to enthusiastically endorse John Edwards, the fear-mongering is self-serving. You're narrowing the field because it makes your view more appealling in comparison. > > When are we going to demand candidates that are just plain not evil? > > How is Kerry evil? Seriously, how? Seriously? Kerry supports the death penalty. Kerry supports war. Kerry takes a "separate but equal" stance on civil rights for same-sex couples. Kerry fails to denounce the "War on Terror" for what it is -- a perpetual state of fear and confusion to diminish people's expectations of government in the social arena while lining the pockets of defense contractors. I could go on. > > I'm going to do it right now. When you guys catch up, we'll be in a > > better place. > > This is a perfect example of why people think you are big asshole: smug, > holier-than-thou, uncompromising, and elitist. I think we should all be uncompromising in our expectation of liberty, peace, and mutual aid. If that's "holier-than-thou", so be it. I don't see what there is to be gained by compromising those values. Essentially, you're telling us all that we must give up some of those things so that we don't lose more than we willingly give up. Our ideal is in front of us and you're asking that we all take a step backward because if we don't, we might get pushed back two steps. You're not providing us with any means for moving forward, Jason. Show me where it ends. Describe to me the path from your position to a better system. What you describe can be infinitely perpetuated without ever doing anything but giving up ground. Where is it to be gained and how if we always concede to the lesser evil? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 05:45:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Coincidence? On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Rex Broome wrote: > Hey, my car just blew up. That fuckin' blows. Make lemonade, man. Consider this an opportunity to be rid of the burden and costs (personal, social, financial, environmental, and humanitarian). I can probably hook you up with local car-free groups and lots of literature and instructions. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:16:23 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: FW: Coincidence? Rex wrote: >Hey, my car just blew up. That fuckin' blows. Especially given that this was already, and I >mean it, no holds barred "The Worst Week of My Adult Life Ever". Did the engine actually blow up? Or did your timing belt brake? Because when that happens the valves can end up getting smashed by the pistons. Some of these newer multi-valve (3-4 valves per cylinder) engines have that problem. So the timing belt needs to be replaced every 60,000 or so miles depending of the engine. Some can go 100,000 without replacing timing belt. Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:36:29 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: FW: Coincidence? On Fri, Jul 16, 2004, Bachman, Michael wrote: > Did the engine actually blow up? Or did your timing belt brake? Because > when that happens the valves can end up getting smashed by the pistons. > Some of these newer multi-valve (3-4 valves per cylinder) engines have > that problem. So the timing belt needs to be replaced every 60,000 or > so miles depending of the engine. Some can go 100,000 without replacing > timing belt. Not all engines' valves will be affected by a broken timing belt/chain. It's all in the design. Interference vs. non-interference. And my car had a timing chain, which typically last about 100k miles. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:16:48 -0800 From: "Rex Broome" Subject: Re: Word! Sort of... > http://slate.msn.com//id/2103887/ > > "Um, hello...." Interesting. Lots to agree with here. Except that, my tastes being what they are, I like Wilco better than all but one of the artists (Stephin Merrit, Elliott Smith, Sam Beam, Chan Marshall, and Stuart Murdoch) cited as being superior or having overcome what ails Wilco. (The one I like better than Wilco is also the one who sticks out in that list as having a significantly lower profile than the rest: Beam.) No mention of the new wave of indie rock successes we were just discussing, who are probably less credible as artists than most of the above folks but seem to have struck the pose this guy's discussing even better. Again, it feels like nineteen ninety four... ghastly Velvets ostrich guitars all over the floor... What would be the last "epochal, culturally significant" record which could also be thought of as "rock" anyway? It'd have to be Nevermind, right? You could try to argue for one of those Radiohead albums, but Joe Average can't hum or name the tunes on those records, nor has Weird Al parodied them. (Did Radiohead make the cover of Time Magazine or did I just dream that?) - -Rex - -- _______________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:52:33 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: RE: FW: Coincidence? Or was it fire elementals? My mate Karl (and if you knew him, this story would come as no surpriise) wanted to try and summon fire elementals so drove out to Wittenham Clumps (ancient bronze age forts) to work his er, magick. Nothing happened, so eventually he walked back to the car park to find his car a burnt-out wreck... So yeah, I reckon timing belt or fire elemental. Cheers Matt, who's off to see Ant Barbeau and the Lucky Bishops this evening in Weymouth. Anyone know that he's doing some gigs with Barry Melton? >From: "Bachman, Michael" > >Rex wrote: > > >Hey, my car just blew up. That fuckin' blows. Especially given that this was already, and I >mean it, no holds barred "The Worst Week of My Adult Life Ever". > > Did the engine actually blow up? Or did your timing belt brake? Because >when that happens the valves can end up getting smashed by the pistons. >Some of these newer multi-valve (3-4 valves per cylinder) engines have >that problem. So the timing belt needs to be replaced every 60,000 or >so miles depending of the engine. Some can go 100,000 without replacing >timing belt. > >Michael B. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:07:32 -0500 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 04:59:41 -0700 (PDT), "Capuchin" said: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Fortissimo wrote: > > Jim Hightower suggests (in his book _Thieves in High Places_) that polls > > repeatedly demonstrate the appeal of progressive positions to many > > Americans. > > Aye. That's the sort of thing I'm using as a basis for my above > assertions. > > > But the majorities are, typically, slim > > I believe this is due to under-exposure to progressive ideas and biased > education, both formal and social. > > > - and he doesn't cite polls on wedge issues such as abortion, etc. > > When I look at the nature of the "wedge issues", I see that, > fundamentally, they all tend to be personal choices made by individuals > in > their private lives. These are very interesting in ethical debate, but > really have no place in legislation in a supposedly free country. > > I know people have all kinds of interesting opinions about the impact of > these personal decisions on others (real or imagined impact, real or > imagined others), but the simple fact that we all must accept is that > these things are going to happen whether they're legal or illegal; gay > people will continue to partner, unwanted pregnancies will be terminated, > etc. We can make this or that personal choice legal or illegal, but that > won't change the minds of the people about whether or not the thing is > right or wrong and, therefore, won't end the conflict of ideas present in > society. The only rational way to support or combat them is with > community support and education. All of this is true, except...see, the election is only five months away. And more education, community, and media coverage are unlikely all to come into play by then. And whether you like it or not, someone is going to be elected in November. > If Kerry lost and a sizable number of voters turned out for more > progressive candidates, the message would be that Bush is in office > because the opposition was not progressive enough. "The message" for whom? Arguably, that's "the message" of the 2000 election: every time Gore tacked left (which wasn't very left, granted), his numbers went up. But is that "the message" most people think of, or that the media purveys, etc.? Again: I think, really, you want to wish into place the kind of society that would get such a message - but right now, I don't think we're that society. > If Kerry wins on an "Anyone But Bush" campaign, the message will be that > you can get an arbitrarily far right candidate in office just so long as > your major competitor is further right (and preferably an imbecile). That might be one message - and in the long term, probably the correct one to take away. But the more immediate message would be: we're sick of Bushshit. > I think that the place to demand "not evil" candidates is across the > board > all the time. And if there are none? It won't mean the election isn't going to happen: what then? I suppose you could write in the name of whichever non-evil person you'd like - but I can't see how that's effective in any way. > > (Note: as long as I've been suckered into addressing this issue ;) - no, > > I don't "blame Nader" for Bush's election.[....] > > Uh, you didn't get suckered into a Nader discussion. You brought that up > yourself. I thought someone else did - it could just be that his name eventually and inevitably would have come up in this regard, so I pre-empted that. > I think Nader got lots of press by running for President and that was the > real goal, however, the press failed to focus on policies and platforms > (as usual) and so the effect was kind of null. And wasn't that utterly predictable? That is: we *know* the press will cover a presidential race as if there are two horses (not three, four, etc.) and will not focus on issues. > You don't get the nation talking about universal healthcare by mentioning > it at the county council meeting. The irony here is now I'm being more optimistic than you are: "people" are likelier to be truly paying attention at a county meeting than in the national political discourse. And more local elections are about people and ideas than about ideology - I think it's a lot likelier that such issues will percolate upwards than by installed from above by fiat. For example: if the minimum wage finally gets raised, the pressure of numerous local living wage campaigns will probably be one factor doing so, since the more of those there are, the more upward pressure is placed on wages generally. On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 05:41:51 -0700 (PDT), "Capuchin" said: > If you'd read my first post in this thread carefully, you'd've found that > I've already discounted this November's election. No good can come of > it. Probably so. But it'll still happen. And there can be, again, greater or lesser evil that comes of it. So - given that those are, realistically, your only alternatives, which is better? > Expedience is, more often than not, the enemy of progress. So is driving in reverse. I think we just disagree that Bush is a far more aggressive throwing-the-gears-into-reverse than Kerry is. > We need to work harder to develop a nation in which a third party > candidate CAN get a majority of electoral votes because the two major > parties are seriously holding us back. Yeah - but pulling a lever in November - or not pulling it - will affect that not a whit. I think local, and moving upward, is the way to go there. Greens and others have won local elections; the more that happens, the greater chance of winning statewide elections. The more Greens etc. in statewide office, the more they'll be perceived as viable candidates for national office, and the more their positions will be adapted/co-opted by the two main parties...or even, ideally, people in those parties will actually feel pressure to change the system that benefits them, for fear of being replaced. Because the fact is, it's Democrats and Republicans who will have to change our election system - simply because they're the ones in office who can do so, and they'll only do so if they think the public is so pissed at their rigging the system that they'll vote for Greens in such numbers as to throw them out even w/in the 2-party system. (Again, such leftward pressure - which is really just awareness that there are more progressives out there than generally credited - will apply to Democrats, maybe even Republicans, as well.) > What you're doing is telling people that they MUST perpetuate this system > or else things will get worse. That's fear-mongering. For "must," substitute "have no choice because the election's going to happen whether you want it to or not, and either Kerry or Bush is going to win," and for "fear-mongering" substitute "reality-acknowledgement." Or more like: yeah, fear is there - but if it's real, it's not being "mongered," only acknowledged. Am I fearful of a second Bush presidency? Damned right. Am I fearful that a Kerry presidency would also be harmful (though, IMO, not as much)? Damned right. Do I think that wishing we had a real alternative will make a difference in November? No. It's fucking depressing is what it is. But I'm still going to be singing "Ding-Dong, The Witch Is Dead" if Bush loses. - ------------------------------- ...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. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #207 ********************************