From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #115 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, May 6 2005 Volume 14 : Number 115 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: reap [The Great Quail ] Re TOOL tool alert ["Eugene Hopstetter Jr." ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Capuchin ] Mini-Review ["Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus" ] Re: Doctoroo [Capuchin ] British Idol [James Dignan ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Jason Brown ] Re: answerphones [James Dignan ] Re: answerphones [Jeff ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Jeff ] Seeking a dream in the old election.... yeah! ["Matt Sewell" ] Re: Jackson to lose the Beatles catalog [Sumiko Keay ] Re: Jackson to lose the Beatles catalog [Jeff ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 14:04:51 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: reap > REAP: Pierre Moerlen of Gong ***Moment of silence*** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 13:28:59 -0500 From: "Eugene Hopstetter Jr." Subject: Re TOOL tool alert > From: Jeff > > Dude! You're forgetting the heroes of Starch Prog: Twenty Mules, > Colorfast, > and of course, the Stiffened Capes. And Toy Core: My Little Evil Pony, > Snakes Ladders and Rotating Knives, and Exploding Yo-Yo. And > Nonsense Metal: > Blumph, Splrrrt, Grtzwdrtpr, and the Immortal Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!(3). Exploding Yo-Yo? Feh. I liked them before they sold out. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 13:45:53 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... matt wrote: > ... but it's finally hometime and it's actually sunny out... and you're doing all you can to *not* think about the election ... Cost me a flippin' fortune to mail in my vote. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 16:01:12 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: FW: [Tallulah] Gang of Four GoF concert review - -----Original Message----- From: Gareth Bowles [mailto:garethbo@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 11:37 PM To: The Go-Betweens Mailing List Subject: Re: [Tallulah] Gang of Four Well, Brandon was right - the Gang of Four last night played what was hands down one of the best shows I've ever seen. I never got to see them in the old days, but if they were this good I really missed something ! I hadn't realized that the reformed lineup included bassist Dave Allen, who was on the first two (and best IMO) GoF albums, Entertainment and Solid Gold. The set consisted almost entirely of songs from those two discs, and if possible they sounded even better live than on record. Allen's elastic bass and Hugo Burnham's thunderous drumming provided the rhythmic rush, while Andy Gill's guitar shredded all before it and vocalist Jon King declaimed coolly over the top. King also provided percussive accompaniment on one song by rhythmically smashing up a microwave oven with a baseball bat, which led Gill to announce "Jon's a slave to his microwave" ! King actually reminded me quite a bit of our own Robert Forster - how's that for gratuitous Go-B's content ? The two men are both tall, dark and slim (and remarkably well preserved), and command the stage in a similar way - King's habit of standing on a monitor and looking piercingly out at the audience particularly put me in mind of Mr Forster. King had to run around a bit more, though, due to the frantic pace of the music; in fact all four men's energy belied their ages, with the three front men using wireless guitar and microphone links to run around and swap positions multiple times per song. The audience lapped this up - - I don't think I've ever seen a Fillmore show where practically the entire audience was dancing to every song. The GoF is heading up to Portland tomorrow and then the midwest, east coast and Canada - drop everything to see them if you can ! Gareth - ---- Bachman, Michael wrote: >Subject: Re: [Tallulah] Gang of Four > >Gareth wrote: > > >>Excellent - I'm off to see them tonight, so thanks for the good news, >>Brandon ! I'll post a review to the list if anyone is interested. >> >> > >Yes, Please do! > >My ideal opening act for GoF would be Au Pairs, who sounded somewhat like >them save for the female vocalist. They also bit the dust about 1984, same >as when GoF initially broke up. For those into Gof, check out Au Pairs if >you are not familiar with them. As a side note, both of GoF and Au Pairs were >in URGH! A Music War, which was series of live 1981 performances made into a moive >of The Police, Echo, GoF, Au Pairs, Go-Go's, Dead Kennedys, Oingo Boingo, OMD, >Gary Neuman, etc. For those that can find a VHS copy of it, grab it. It's not >been released on DVD yet. > >Michael B. > > >Brandon Dudley wrote: > > > >>>Go see...I saw them at Coachella on Sunday and again at the Fillmore >>>in SF last night. I'm too young to have seen them back in the day, but >>>they made my Top Ten Concerts of All-Time last night (up there with >>>the Go-Bees in London in 1999). >>> >>> >>>Yer list admin, >>>B >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>Tallulah mailing list >>Tallulah@discontent.com >>http://www.discontent.com/mailman/listinfo/tallulah >> >> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Tallulah mailing list >Tallulah@discontent.com >http://www.discontent.com/mailman/listinfo/tallulah >_______________________________________________ >Tallulah mailing list >Tallulah@discontent.com >http://www.discontent.com/mailman/listinfo/tallulah > > > > _______________________________________________ Tallulah mailing list Tallulah@discontent.com http://www.discontent.com/mailman/listinfo/tallulah ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 17:55:59 -0400 From: "Brian Nupp" Subject: Jackson to lose the Beatles catalog So I guess he still owns it (for now): - --------------- http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/05/news/newsmakers/jackson_loan/index.htm NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Michael Jackson, the legendary pop star facing child molestation charges, could lose his stake in the lucrative Beatles music catalog as well as the rights to his own platinum-selling songs. Two loans estimated at $270 million that are tied to the Beatles catalog and other assets have been sold by Bank of America, the nation's No. 2 bank, to a private hedge fund, according to people familiar with the transaction. Jackson's financial troubles have been known for years. To secure the Bank of America loans in 2001, Jackson offered as collateral his 50 percent stake in a Sony partnership that holds copyrights to more than 200 Beatles songs. The loans were also backed by Jackson's own music library and a partial deed on his Neverland ranch in Santa Ynez, Calif. Technically Jackson has defaulted on loan payments, one of the sources said. Typically, when a debtor defaults or is about to default on a loan, terms are renegotiated. Another option is for the lender to sell the loan -- and the collateral that comes with it -- to another party. Bank of America chose to sell the loans to the hedge fund, New York-based Fortress Investment Group. Depending on negotiations with Fortress, the risk that Jackson could lose the copyrights to the Beatles songs as well as his own hit recordings is real. An accountant testifying at Jackson's child molestation trial this week told jurors that the rock star is in financial straits. Forensic accountant John Duross O'Bryan said Jackson is spending about $20 million to $30 million a year more than he earns. Jackson, Duross O'Bryan testified, has liabilities of about $415 million. The result is "an ongoing cash crisis," Duross O'Bryan testified. To fund his lavish lifestyle, Jackson has borrowed against his assets. Duross O'Bryan said that one of the loans that Bank of America sold to Fortress, valued at $200 million, is due in December 2005. Bank of America declined comment. Peter Briger, a principal at Fortress, did not return a call seeking comment. The company, according to its Web site, manages $15 billion in assets, a third of which is invested in distressed debts. Jackson's $47.5 million pays off Losing the Beatles rights could put into play one of the world's most valuable song portfolios. Jackson, 46, acquired the Beatles song catalog in 1985 for $47.5 million, outbidding ex-Beatles singer/bassist Paul McCartney. Jackson then sold a piece of his stake to Sony a decade later, creating a joint venture called Sony/ATV Music Publishing. The venture is now believed to be worth more than $400 million. Song catalogs have become hugely lucrative in the last two decades due to the compact disc boom, rising sales of Internet downloads, and movie studios and advertisers willing to pay royalties to use hit songs in film scores and commercials. Jackson, through Sony/ATV, owns all but a small selection of the Fab Four's compositions, including megahits like "Yesterday," "Let It Be," and "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." He does not, however, own the actual sound recordings; those rights are held by EMI's Capitol Records. Royalty arrangements can be quite complicated. Basically, Jackson and Sony receive a fee each time one of the Beatles songs is played on the radio or a Beatles album is sold. Industry royalty rates for single-song plays can run under 10 cents, while rights holders typically earn a small percentage on each album sold. It's hardly chump change: the small amounts add up to millions of dollars in revenues a year. Another major revenue stream for Jackson is Mijac Music, the copyright holder on all of his hits and other artists' songs. Mijac is thought to be worth roughly $75 million, according to reports. Despite Jackson's shaky finances, the long-term value of his $475 million worth of song libraries drew Fortress Investment's interest, speculated James Dunn, a vice president at InvestorForce, a Wayne, Penn.-based investment adviser to institutional investors. "That's clearly the trade they're making" in placing a bet on Jackson's debts. Hedge funds are largely unregulated investment vehicles that are designed for wealthy investors looking for big returns on riskier bets. According to InvestorForce, there are more than 4,000 such funds with more than $800 billion in assets. A small fraction of hedge funds invest in what are known as distressed securities, such as debts like Jackson's. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 17:15:04 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Jackson to lose the Beatles catalog On 5/5/05, Brian Nupp wrote: > > So I guess he still owns it (for now): > --------------- > > http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/05/news/newsmakers/jackson_loan/index.htm > > > > An accountant testifying at Jackson's child molestation trial this > week told jurors that the rock star is in financial straits. Forensic > accountant John Duross O'Bryan said Jackson is spending about $20 > million to $30 million a year more than he earns. > I have a hard time imagining spending $20 to $30 million period. I suppose I could buy part of a football team or something (I think that would get me only part of one). Jackson does not, so far as I know, own any sports franchises. I have an even harder time - almost literally unimaginable - figuring out how to spend $20 to $30 in a year, every year. As for $20 to $30 million *more* than some presumably large number (his songs & the Beatles songs still get mucho airplay, placement, sales, etc.) - it's beyond my capacity to imagine. Of course, I shouldn't be making fun of a thirteen-year-old - which, as far as I can tell, is psychologically about what Jackson is. Very sad. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 15:36:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... On Thu, 5 May 2005, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > And my experience is more with the American system, where the privileges > of wealth certainly played much, much more of a role historically than > they have in recent times. This is a myth that's not supportable. As some of you may know, I'm currently back at university trying to finish my degree. This is the largest university in the state and one of the most accessible in terms of entrance requirements and cost. As with many state schools, the course is what you make of it -- it can be as hard or as easy as you like. And still, among the graduates and seniors in my department, ALL of the traditional students (those who entered college out of high school) are upper-middle class or better (usually double-income parents, each better than US$45K annually -- recall that US$200K annually places a person in the top 1% of the population and a household income over US$90K is well in the top fifth). Among the non-trads, most of them are still from privileged backgrounds and only two or three of us are not. (I'm able to attend largely due to grants that I receive for being a first-generation high school graduate.) Now, we can both pull anecdotes out our asses 'til doomsday, I'm sure, but this isn't bullshit. One more anecdote: If I said to someone, "Well, I'm going to make a living playing in my band, but if that doesn't work, I can always fall back on my writing." That person would laugh their ass off. It's extremely naive and just doesn't happen. Yet, I'm currently dating an opera singer who paints. She says, "If I can't make it in the opera, I can always sell my paintings." And she can. Is it because she's an great artist? Well, she just might be. But honestly, we live in a city (and world) FULL of great artists -- most starving. What she has is privilege. Daddy pays the bills and family friends put the work in front of people who could pay for it. > But even if you define "privilege" as those that receive a Bachelor's > degree or higher, regardless of financial background, the idea that > success in term of opportunity and fame derive solely from privilege > still rings incredibly false. First, nobody ever stated that anything was derived "solely" from anything else. You're trying to restate things to make your position more credible. Second, privilege isn't receiving the degree, but being in a position to attain the degree. Typically, this means wealth. I don't know if you still work for a university, but is there any data you can find stating the income background of advanced-degree recipients? I think you'll find that they're almost entirely from the top fifth of the population. In the US, privilege is just not discussed. There's this great American myth of pulling one's self up by one's bootstraps, but that just doesn't happen. The three-fifths of the population with the least income (that's 60%) have NO wealth. They cannot survive for two months without their current income. Those people do not have children with advanced degrees nor are their children living on their art. Superstars are such a small percentage of the workers in any artistic endeavor that their position and background is necessarily anomolous. I think it's much more interesting to view working actors, writers, painters, singers, musicians and so on as a whole. Those that become superstars can be chopped off the demographic along with those that work "day jobs" to pay the bills. This is exactly like the comparison of U.S. presidents to senators. The President is an anomolous office, if you will. The person elected is as much a product of marketting and luck as any personal investment (as with superstars in the arts). Let's cut him off and look at the other positions of power: Justices and Senators. Overwhelmingly, these are members of the privileged classes with generations of power. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 15:51:14 -0700 From: "Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus" Subject: Mini-Review paul westerberg, *Folker*: this blows about fifty hundred different kinds of nougat. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 15:44:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Doctoroo On Thu, 5 May 2005, Matt Sewell wrote: > The new Doctor Who... is fantastic. Chris Ecclestone, though reinventing > the role to an extent, is definitely The Doctor, something I was worried > about. I agree. It's very much Doctor Who. I'm really surprised they pulled it off. > Billie Piper (and I still really can't believe this) is an excellent > companion. Why is this surprising? I don't think I've seen this woman other than in the four or five episodes of this show. > Best of the series so far has been The Unquiet Dead - set in Dickensian > Cardiff and written by The League Of Gentlemen's Mark Gatiss. And worst, that second episode at the end of the world. Blech. My neighbors have been downloading it (and the neighborhood network brings it to our television), so I think I'm getting it within a day or two of air. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:19:58 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: British Idol >Is it just me or does anyone here know of anyone who has ever even voted for >Scott??? Really, how on earth does this guy stick around??? I hope hope >hope the guy gets booted tonight. or Tony Blair, for that matter 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: Thu, 5 May 2005 16:29:04 -0700 From: Jason Brown Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... Jeme: > Superstars are such a small percentage of the workers in any artistic > endeavor that their position and background is necessarily anomolous. I > think it's much more interesting to view working actors, writers, > painters, singers, musicians and so on as a whole. Those that become > superstars can be chopped off the demographic along with those that work > "day jobs" to pay the bills. > > This is exactly like the comparison of U.S. presidents to senators. The > President is an anomolous office, if you will. The person elected is as > much a product of marketting and luck as any personal investment (as with > superstars in the arts). Let's cut him off and look at the other > positions of power: Justices and Senators. Overwhelmingly, these are > members of the privileged classes with generations of power. Holy shit! Now that Jeme has explained himself, I totally buy it. He is right. His intial jab at Tommy Lee and Al was a bad example but all of the above makes sense. Jeme is right. Black is white. Night is dark. Mommy! Or maybe I've just been working too much overtime and can't think straight. Anyway good on ya for finishing up the degree. May you reap the benefits of it by getting a job you were already capable of doing before but not are qualified to earn twice as much all because of that degree, just like myself! Hmmm wait should I feel guilty about that? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:30:15 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: answerphones >has anybody ever made a mix tape composed wholly of >selections with answering machine messages that have either been >incorporated into songs, or otherwise included on albums? let's see, we've >got "Message To Harry Manback", by TOOL. we've got "Providence", by sonic >youth. we've got "Heartbeat", by mike watt. we've got the bonus track >from the squirrels' *What Gives?*. we've got robyn's answering machine >*greeting* from *Jewels For Sophia*. we've got "Empire", by queensryche. >we've got the *Better Read Than Dead* version of "The Only Good Fascist Is >A Very Dead Fascist", by propagandhi. what else we got? well, there's a bit from Godley and Creme's "This sporting life", something by (of all people) Sir Mix-a-Lot off "Chief Boot Knocka" (IIRC - don't ask me how I know), and if you happen to own the bonkers compilation "Misfits", there's an answerphone message at the end of that, too, although I can't seem to find my copy, so I've no idea who it's by (Mindless Drug Hoover, perhaps?) 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: Thu, 5 May 2005 20:08:41 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: answerphones On 5/5/05, James Dignan wrote: > > >has anybody ever made a mix tape composed wholly of > >selections with answering machine messages that have either been > >incorporated into songs, or otherwise included on albums? > Hmmm. A few years back, Roger from the L*ud F*mily mailing list put together a CD of listmembers' covers of LF and G*me The*ry songs. Someone - and really, I have no way of knowing who, no, I certainly do not - "covered" the little bit at the end of _Plants and Birds and Rocks and Things_ (a little guitar lick, and the words "Sorry - I don't know why I did that" - about 10 seconds long) by playing the guitar lick and speaking the words into the compiler's answering machine. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 20:16:20 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... On 5/5/05, Jason Brown wrote: > > > > This is exactly like the comparison of U.S. presidents to senators. The > > President is an anomolous office, if you will. The person elected is as > > much a product of marketting and luck as any personal investment (as > with > > superstars in the arts). Let's cut him off and look at the other > > positions of power: Justices and Senators. Overwhelmingly, these are > > members of the privileged classes with generations of power. > > Holy shit! Now that Jeme has explained himself, I totally buy it. He > is right. His intial jab at Tommy Lee and Al was a bad example but > all of the above makes sense. > > Jeme is right. Black is white. Night is dark. Mommy! Or maybe I've > just been working too much overtime and can't think straight. Gotta confess, I don't get the sarcasm here. Has anyone presented evidence against the notion that privilege is often inherited? Anyway: I don't think the office of the presidency is quite as anomalous as all that. If it were, then "superstars" who were "marketed" towards the top wouldn't display - in extreme - the same patterns of privilege that characterize, less extremely, the House and Senate. To wit: it's absolutely appalling that in 225+ years, there has been exactly *one* major-party Jewish VP candidate, *one* female VP candidate, no presidents who were either of the above, nor black, Latino, etc. In fact, there's been only one Catholic president. If you think male WASPs' power is on decline, look at which people continually get nominated for the presidency. The problem - which is a lack of representation, in fact - is less extreme, but still present, among senators and representatives. True, weird things happen - such as the generally unremarked-upon (except in coded fashion among right-wing Christians) that the rather white, Christian-populated state of Wisconsin has two Jewish senators - but more often, people who run for those offices are white, male, wealthy, and Protestant. ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 12:29:28 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Seeking a dream in the old election.... yeah! Well, not much to think about really - a Labour govt with a greatly reduced minority (owing, it seems, almost entirely to the general public's revulsion at the war in Iraq and Tony Blair's poodle-like relationship with witless George Dubya) was what everyone predicted and it's what we've got. Could be better, could be much worse... I'm just sad it wasn't much more of a rout for the Tories... Cheers Matt >From: "Stewart C. Russell" >and you're doing all you can to *not* think about the election ... > >Cost me a flippin' fortune to mail in my vote. > > Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 08:06:52 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... At 01:08 PM 5/5/2005 -0500, Jeff wrote: >Jason T. changed Jeme's "almost entirely" to >"always...only" - rather a shift! "Almost" means "nearly all," not "some" or a "few," and thus would be extremely close to "always... only," with but a few exceptions. I'd argue that there is almost entirely no difference... certainly not enough to warrant a "rather." >Given that we're talking about the tippest top, it seems likely that higher >percentage of people in the (hypothetical) Fortune 4,000 would be there >solely via inheritance... Why would that seem likely at all? If wealth-privilege is such a powerful factor in the generation of fortune, it would seem more likely that a smaller percentage of any specific group would be made up of the privileged as the range increases to include the less and less wealthy, relatively. The top 400 people, or 4000 for that matter, in a nation of 270 million+ is hardly representative of the much larger group to whom opportunity is available, in any case. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 10:14:53 -0500 From: Sumiko Keay Subject: Re: Jackson to lose the Beatles catalog Is there even the slightest possibility that McCartney and John Lennon's heirs would be able to get it back? Or is it just too $$$ even for them? Sumi ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 08:21:12 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... At 03:36 PM 5/5/2005 -0700, Capuchin wrote: >>But even if you define "privilege" as those that receive a Bachelor's >>degree or higher, regardless of financial background, the idea that >>success in term of opportunity and fame derive solely from privilege >>still rings incredibly false. > >First, nobody ever stated that anything was derived "solely" from anything >else. You're trying to restate things to make your position more credible. What you did say was "almost entirely," lest we forget how incredible your assertions were in the first place. "Solely" would be an exaggeration I freely admit, but a very, very slight one at best. Honestly it was not intentional so much as shorthand. You seem to be nitpicking in order to distance yourself from the outrageousness of the original statement. >I don't know if you still work for a university, but is there any data you >can find stating the income background of advanced-degree recipients? I >think you'll find that they're almost entirely from the top fifth of the >population. I'll give you the statistics for bachelor degree recipients instead, which is plenty enough proof of "opportunity" (and since I cannot find any data on graduate students and since you mentioned "seniors in [your] department). 29% from families with a total income of $98K or more. 51% from families with a total income of $65,600 or less. 24% from families with a total income of $32,800 or less. Looks like plenty of opportunity is available to those without big piles of "privilege" to me. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 10:33:06 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Jackson to lose the Beatles catalog On 5/6/05, Sumiko Keay wrote: > Is there even the slightest possibility that McCartney and John > Lennon's heirs would be able to get it back? Or is it just too $$$ > even for them? I imagine the problem would be getting Paul and Yoko to play nice... I recall that there were many disputes last time - one reason, I think, that Jackson was able to more coherently outbid them. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 08:39:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... On Fri, 6 May 2005, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > At 03:36 PM 5/5/2005 -0700, Capuchin wrote: >> I don't know if you still work for a university, but is there any data >> you can find stating the income background of advanced-degree >> recipients? I think you'll find that they're almost entirely from the >> top fifth of the population. > > I'll give you the statistics for bachelor degree recipients instead, > which is plenty enough proof of "opportunity" (and since I cannot find > any data on graduate students and since you mentioned "seniors in [your] > department). I mentioned the seniors in my department becuase I know them. My department (mathematics) is rather small. If you don't include some undergrads, you have a tiny sample set. Furthermore, my department is particularly academic. It's quite likely that most of the seniors will go on to advanced degrees (whereas other departments have lower percentages continuing). > 29% from families with a total income of $98K or more. > 51% from families with a total income of $65,600 or less. > 24% from families with a total income of $32,800 or less. > > Looks like plenty of opportunity is available to those without big piles > of "privilege" to me. A bachelor's degree at a state school is hardly privilege. Advanced degrees are required for positions of power and the conference of privilege. (Power has the tendency to accrue wealth as one of its major side-effects, so it's common to equate wealth with privilege, but it's not the only component.) Again, information on advanced degrees would be interesting. My own searches have turned up loads of data on how much more money a person can be expected to be paid with an advanced degree, but no data whatsoever on the financial or personal background of advanced degree recipients. A culture which denies the existence of class wouldn't care to record such things, I suppose. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #115 ********************************