From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #210 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, July 17 2004 Volume 13 : Number 210 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: orange juice [James Dignan ] Re: Can't somebody DO something? [Capuchin ] Re: Coincidence? [Capuchin ] Re: Coincidence? ["Eb" ] Re: Coincidence? [Capuchin ] Re: Coincidence? [John Barrington Jones ] Re: Coincidence? ["Eb" ] Re: druidic coincidences ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Coincidence? ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: spooked! ["Michael Wells" ] Look Around You ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Coincidence? [Capuchin ] Bumbershoot [Mike Swedene ] Car Owner Alert (fwd) [John Barrington Jones ] RE: Can't somebody DO something? [Barbara Soutar ] Re: Red? Blue? Purple? [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Red? Blue? Purple? [Capuchin ] Re: Red? Blue? Purple? ["Fortissimo" ] Re: spooked! [fingerpuppets ] two more reaps [James Dignan ] Re: Bush VS an actual reporter [Aaron Lowe ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:44:16 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: orange juice >I don't know if one really reminds me of the other. I do, however, quite >like both bands. > >"Good Morning Britain" is a great track off an under-appreciated album - >"Stray." Roddy Frame did one album with Ryuchi Sakamoto, under the name >"Aztec Camera" called "Dreamtime." For a Sakamoto collaboration it's very >poppy. But it's also very good. It's one of the few discs in my collection >dominated by sappy love songs that manages to get quite a bit of play. When >people talk about Aztec Camera I find I need to plug that disc. > >I like all three Orange Juice discs. The third (self-titled) is often >considered to be much weaker than the other two, a sentiment I do not share >myself. For someone wanting to check them out I think any of their three >albums would do. Hi Palle, I had one of their albums for a couple of years - it was recommended to me and I bought it hoping it would grow on me, but it never did. Can't remember the title (I do remember the cover though, which had leaping dolphins on it). As to Aztec Camera, I love the way they managed to weave in almost flamenco-styled guitar to poppy songs - something no-one else has managed to do as far as I know. I think that the early albums like High Land Hard Rain are my favourite, although, as I said, I really like "Good morning Britain" off Stray. I didn't know about the Frame/Sakamoto work - I'll have to keep an eye out for that one. 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 16:46:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Jason Brown wrote: > > > 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!" > > At the very least yes! I'll trade idealism for pragmatism in a > heartbeat. Well, I, for one, am trying for something other than "the very least". I guess you think any aspirations other than the rock bottom are "idealistic". > Give me shitty any day. You can HAVE shitty. > > 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? > > Actually in that case i'd vote for Rumsfeld over Bush. But that's just > me. Anybody But Bush to the extreme. It's hard to imagine a viable > candidate I wouldn't find preferable to Bush. Well, aren't you the perfect IngSoc party member! Just so long as the alternative is Emannuel Goldstein, you'll gladly support Big Brother! > Should there only be two viable choices? No, definitely not. But > that's the choice before use A or B there is no C. That's just not true, Jason. While C may not actually be able to WIN THIS ELECTION, voting C says something that voting A or B simply cannot, not matter what your intentions. > > 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. > > But maybe less bad could come of it? Less bad is not good. I'm not going to vote for bad and I don't think anyone should. You can't ever get to good by choosing bad. > Maybe this nation will cease being a pariah in the world? In what sense? Maybe the perception will change, but will the reality? > Maybe we wont end up invading Syria? Has Kerry made a pledge not to invade anymore countries during his administration? > Maybe Islamic terror can be reduced instead of further inflamed? But will US military and economic terror be increased in order to reduce "Islamic terror"? Six and one half-dozen. > > 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. > > But is electing Bush the best way to do that? Maybe. It's done a pretty good job of getting people interested in politics that would be otherwise complacent. Now, if we can just get them thinking about their choices instead of knee-jerk reacting... One step at a time. > For instance, here in Washington the State House and Senate have been > closely divided between Democrats and Republicans with usually one party > only holding a 1 or 2 seat advantage. If say the Libertarians (who have > official party status in the state) or the Greens (who do not have > official party status) elected 3 or 4 members to each house they could > hold the balance of power and begin to change the political climate and > the way the public views third parties. That would be more likely to > inspire a change than just voting ones conscience for president in > November will. A 3 or 4 percent progressive voting block in the Presidential election could have the exact same effect, Jason. But voting for Kerry just says that they've done everything you want in order to get your vote. > No, you are free to vote how ever you damn well please. But I will > happily participate of one those assholes can do less harm to the > country than the other. That's a difficult thing to demonstrate. I think Kerry can do harm that Bush couldn't do because of his perception of being less evil and the desire of many people to see him "succeed" simply because he's not George W. Bush. > > What you're doing is telling people that they MUST perpetuate this > > system or else things will get worse. That's fear-mongering. > > I didn't tell any one to do anything. I've just been defending my > position and my reasons for voting the way I will. But isn't the real reason because you actively support the ideas expressed by Kerry? Do you really think Kerry is the lesser evil or do you think a Kerry/Edwards ticket is GOOD? > > > 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 don't completely agree with you characterization of the war on terror > but I don't think any of those stances are evil. Wrong but not evil. Wow! "Wrong but not evil." So how is Bush evil instead of being merely "wrong"? Don't answer that. It's just ridiculous semantics. We just agree that he's wrong wrong wrong. Just remember, evil is the new bad. > And for the most part, one couldn't be elected president without those > stances. Wow. That's just plain not true. When a quality is REQUIRED for being elected, it's not even mentioned. The fact that these ideas are openly described in the press shows that they are up for debate. Some of the stances that one MUST have to be elected are support for state support of capitalism, belief in not only God but the divinity of Christ, and radical nationalism... in addition to being a white male. We know this is true because it is NOT discussed in the media. (OK, they do bother to tell us which sect of Christianity is supported by the candidate, but I don't think that contradicts my point.) > If the left side of the American political spectrum really was > completely anti-death penalty, completely anti-war, and completely > pro-gay rights we'd be be talking about Bush and Kucinich. If political reporting was honest and money and corporate support weren't the primary driving factors in a campaign, we'd probably be looking at a McCain/Kucinich choice or something similar at this point... depending on how long ago we got our act together. > So to answer your way back original question "will we ever have a > president that isn't evil?" given your definition of evil the answer is > a big no, so long as the US is a democracy. So you really believe that the ideals of the American people are accurately reflected in our current candidate offerings and will not change? No wonder you're a lesser-evil advocate! You're a reactionary and don't believe progress is even possible in any direction by down! > > > > 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. > > Good for you. Can you tell me when it's a good thing to compromise liberty, peace, and mutual aid? What is more important that overrides those values? > > If that's "holier-than-thou", so be it. > > Great, just don't be all why-does-everyone-think-I'm-an-ass in the > future. I'm only concerned with understanding the reaction of the folks who think I'm an ass and agree with my values. Those who disagree are going to hold their opinion no matter how I express mine. > Jeme, I'm not trying to convince you to vote for Kerry. I expect it's > more likely that I'll run off to Boston to marry Rick Santorum before > that happens. But please stop trying insinuate that because I think you > are wrong that I want to scare you or others into voting the way i am > going to. You're making a case for the fear-based vote, Jason. There's no two ways about it. If you're not doing that to influence others, why bother expressing it at all? > I don't think voting for Kerry is in any way a step backward. It maybe > standing in place, but that is better than moving backward. So you think Kerry will either take us forward or go nowhere? Then you're NOT voting for the lesser evil. Why do you pretend that's what it is? If you think Kerry is GOOD, then what's with all the anti-Bush bullshit? Why can't you just talk about what you think is good? > > 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. > > See my grassroots argument above. Grassroots just means that it comes from the people instead of from the existing power. All general elections can be effected by grassroots movements. Mine is to create a block of progressive voters that will not be induced into voting for bad people out of fear. If it is a block of one, that's how it will have to be until more people join me. > I don't think we should always concede to a lesser evil and have never > said so. I do think there are cases when the lesser evil is preferable. Is this one of them? If so, how do YOU think Kerry is evil? If not, why are you spewing the lesser-evil dogma at all? Because it serves your cause? > Just because i think people should do what ever they can stop the Bush > from being re-elected doesn't mean i think that strategy is always > necessary. Is that moral relativism? Fuck Yeah! And is that GOOD? I think the problem with moral relativism is its uselessness in self-criticism. That is to say, moral relativism fails because it cannot be used against itself. > BTW I think several of my response above may appear contradictory. Oh > well. You have no interest in resolving those contradictions? So you've adopted both the Hatred of the Enemy and Doublethink! You're a credit to The Party. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:47:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Coincidence? On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Eb wrote: > >> And if those don't grab you, I'm sure Jeme could hook you up with a > >> local branch of the Flat Earth Society. > > > > What's the implication here, Eb? > > > > So what's your problem, exactly? > > Ah, swell. The disingenuous "Why do people think I'm so horrible?" > question, yet again. Not at all. This isn't about ME, but about the idea. Why do you think car-free living is akin to the Flat Earth Society? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:59:18 -0700 From: "Eb" Subject: Re: Coincidence? > Why do you think car-free living is akin to the Flat Earth Society? On an individual-by-individual basis, it's fine. Feel free. But to pretend it's feasible as a universal standard is just another facet of your lunatic "everyone on Earth has a choice: be like me or be WRONG" blowhardism. It must be tremendously exhausting, hating the world so much on a daily basis. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:32:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Coincidence? On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Eb wrote: > > Why do you think car-free living is akin to the Flat Earth Society? > > On an individual-by-individual basis, it's fine. Feel free. But to > pretend it's feasible as a universal standard is just another facet of > your lunatic "everyone on Earth has a choice: be like me or be WRONG" > blowhardism. And how is that akin to the Flat Earth Society? There are certainly people that cannot live car-free. (I only know of one on this list for certain.) I have, so far, been given no reason to believe Rex isn't one of them. If you can justify your automobile use as a greater good than the damage it causes or as a necessary evil to live anything like a normal life, I'd be very interested in reading it. > It must be tremendously exhausting, hating the world so much on a daily > basis. If I hated the world, I wouldn't bother trying to make it better. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:26:34 -0700 (PDT) From: John Barrington Jones Subject: Re: Coincidence? On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Eb wrote: > It must be tremendously exhausting, hating the world so much on a daily > basis. "What's with the sneering crap? Don't do that to the people. They wanna like you. That's what killed Dennis Day - contempt for the audience." - Phil Hartman as Frank Sinatra ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:27:53 -0700 From: "Eb" Subject: Re: Coincidence? Jeme: > If you can justify your automobile use as a greater good than the damage > it causes or as a necessary evil to live anything like a normal life, I'd > be very interested in reading it. Oh yes, what an exercise in futility *that* effort would be. Anyway, you're even more self-righteous, thuggish, intolerant and repellent when talking about "the automobile problem" than when talking about politics, and I figure posting further on the subject would only encourage you to darken the list with more posts. > > It must be tremendously exhausting, hating the world so much on a daily > > basis. > > If I hated the world, I wouldn't bother trying to make it better. A bullshit rationalization, of course. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:28:14 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: druidic coincidences Eb wrote: > > Can someone check to see if this is the first time the word "scimitar" > has been posted to the list? Thanks much. c'mon, surely someone has mentioned a Reliant Scimitar here, once ... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:39:35 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Coincidence? Capuchin wrote: > > If you can justify your automobile use as a greater good than the damage > it causes or as a necessary evil to live anything like a normal life, I'd > be very interested in reading it. Well, we need a 4WD truck to prospect for wind farms. Those 50m monitoring towers don't just walk there. Stewart (who just got his Canadian driver's licence) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:43:42 -0500 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: Re: spooked! woj: > one other thing, there is a clip of "if you know time" from the album > at . Hmm, interesting. While just a short sample, I rather fancy the SB's version a bit more...I suppose that I was expecting a more driving, percussive accoustic version ala the prototype "Unprotected Love" that he played on the 2002 tour, a version which I still prefer to the SB's recorded one. Funny how things work out. Any details of a setlist? Michael "that darn Robyn is just confounding sometimes" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:56:59 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Look Around You Feg-in-Law Paul Hart hooked me up with quite the best comedy I've seen in a long time: Look Around You, It's a perfect pastiche of 1970s-80s UK educational television, but skewed enough to make it really funny. Shame it's only available on UK-region DVD, tho' I've heard there are torrents going around. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:23:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Coincidence? On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > Capuchin wrote: > > > > If you can justify your automobile use as a greater good than the > > damage it causes or as a necessary evil to live anything like a normal > > life, I'd be very interested in reading it. > > Well, we need a 4WD truck to prospect for wind farms. Those 50m > monitoring towers don't just walk there. You'll find that I did specifically mention using existing energy resources to produce new energy resources when I was talking about reasons not to use cars for mundane things. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:20:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Swedene Subject: Bumbershoot Kind of a neat lineup... or at least a few interesting bands: http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/04/07/16/ae_bumbershoot001.cfm Robyn on the 4th. Pixies on the 6th! mike ===== - ------------------------------------------------- "there is water at the bottom of the ocean" - talking heads _________________________________________________________ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign! http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:48:09 -0700 (PDT) From: John Barrington Jones Subject: Car Owner Alert (fwd) Ha ha -- look what just showed up in my mailbox. =jbj= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:01:30 +0300 From: Sheryl Hager To: spears@pdx.edu Cc: help@pdx.edu, perrin@pdx.edu, kohls@pdx.edu, ktyler@pdx.edu, psu23447@pdx.edu, brianp@pdx.edu, chsmith@pdx.edu, jenae@pdx.edu, jburke@pdx.edu, bracco@pdx.edu Subject: Car Owner Alert Car troubles always seem to happen at the worst possible time. Protect yourself and your family with a quality Extended Warranty for your Car, Truck, or SUV, so that large expenses can't hit you all at once. Save hundreds and even thousands of dollars in unexpected auto repairs! Get a F[r]ee Quote Today: http://yourautowarranty.com/?partid=rm2342 Sheryl Hager iAuto National Company not interested ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:11:59 -0400 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: RE: Can't somebody DO something? Jeme said: "There was a gay Republican on the radio a few months back who described visiting the Crawford ranch with his partner. He said the President and his wife were very friendly and good to them. It was his interpretation that the President, himself, doesn't really have a personal problem with homosexuality, but takes a certain line because of pressures from a vocal minority to which the President himself does not belong." And I'm sure the President and his lovely wife would be great hosts for any Iraqis who happened to drop by for lunch, but how does that help the tortured prisoners in Iraq or change the fact that over 10,000 innocent Iraqis have been killed by Bush's forces? The whole world now knows that Bush is just the dopey front man for the evil right-wing Neoconservatives. I've always liked the term "button-eyed sock puppet" for him. Also fond of "Napoleon Bonehead". Barbara Soutar Victoria, British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:43:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Red? Blue? Purple? steve wrote: > Another time-waster. > > Especially since it has me veering towards red-stater, which California most certainly is not, especially Alameda County. Just because you know who Lee Greenwood or Dale Earnhart were, but can't name some pretentious fucking restaurant in Manhattan (okay, Ivy might be a very lovely place. Or it might be somewhere other than Manhattan). But anything that labels me as potentially Bubba is poorly conceived. ===== "Life is just a series of dogs." -- George Carlin "I'm going to keep playing music until somebody shoots me." -- Scott McCaughey "It would not now surprise me in the least if, one night on TV, right there during The Memo, [Bill] O'Reilly declared himself to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia." -- Charles Pierce on MSNBC.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign! http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:58:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Red? Blue? Purple? On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > steve wrote: > > Another time-waster. > > > > > > Especially since it has me veering towards red-stater, which California > most certainly is not, especially Alameda County. Just because you know > who Lee Greenwood or Dale Earnhart were, but can't name some pretentious > fucking restaurant in Manhattan (okay, Ivy might be a very lovely place. > Or it might be somewhere other than Manhattan). But anything that labels > me as potentially Bubba is poorly conceived. Yeah, I found the whole thing insulting. Not only does the test insinuate that the culture determines the politics (with "high" culture like art film going to Democrats and "low" culture like NASCAR going to Republicans), but insinuates that mere KNOWLEDGE of one culture or the other indicates something about where you live and the politics of the people there. If you're very good at trivia, you're obviously of a particular political climate. Ridiculous and insulting. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:30:58 -0500 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: Red? Blue? Purple? On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:43:52 -0700 (PDT), "Jeff Dwarf" said: > steve wrote: > > Another time-waster. > > > > > > Especially since it has me veering towards red-stater, > which California most certainly is not, especially Alameda > County. Just because you know who Lee Greenwood or Dale > Earnhart were, but can't name some pretentious fucking > restaurant in Manhattan (okay, Ivy might be a very lovely > place. Or it might be somewhere other than Manhattan). But > anything that labels me as potentially Bubba is poorly conceived. Yeah, it rather penalizes you just for knowing things (or for living in the Midwest: at least two questions are geographically based...) BTW: Am I the only person who has a moment of cognitive dissonance every time the red/blue thing is mentioned...since, for me, "red" means *left* - - which of course is the opposite? I suppose if I try to associate "blue" with "blueblood"...but that's not right either. As usual, it's an inane oversimplification - albeit of a real cultural phenomenon. We still can't talk openly about social class in the US. - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: "In two thousand years, they'll still be looking for Elvis - :: this is nothing new," said the priest. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:02:08 -0400 From: fingerpuppets Subject: Re: spooked! one time at band camp, Capuchin said: >On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Tom Clark wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2004, at 12:32 PM, fingerpuppets wrote: > > > one other thing, there is a clip of "if you know time" from the album > > > at . > > > > check out the publicity photos. All three are pretty great shots. > >Gah! Why doesn't this site have real hyperlinks?!? yeah, i know. freakin' annoying. +w ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 10:56:59 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: two more reaps Auf wiedersehen to Pat Roach and I don't think anyone's yet mentioned Carlo Di Palma 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: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 20:15:30 -0500 From: Aaron Lowe Subject: Re: Bush VS an actual reporter At 07:31 PM 7/15/2004, helmut poe wrote: >BabyBush meets a reporter and is flummoxed: >http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/rte-carol-coleman-bush.mp3 I wish I had something insightful or witty to say in response to hearing this interview, but instead, I am just ... dumbfounded. I actually had to just stop the mp3 halfway through, as the discomfort of listening became unbearable. Will "The Presidency" ever recover? Will we ever be able to truly respect the leader of our country again? I am afraid that this will be W's biggest legacy -- that of having destroyed what little faith we had as a people in the President as an ideal or concept. That idea makes me indescribably sad. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #210 ********************************