From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #116 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 116 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Jackson to lose the Beatles catalog [Capuchin ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Jeff ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Matt Sewell" ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Capuchin ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Capuchin ] Re: Seeking a dream in the old election.... yeah! [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: KEXP Alert [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: TOOL tool alert [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Randalljr" ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Tom Clark ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Jason Brown ] Re: Mini-Review [Tom Clark ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Capuchin ] Re: privilege [Jeff ] Re: privilege ["Jason R. Thornton" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 08:52:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Jackson to lose the Beatles catalog On Fri, 6 May 2005, 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? Not unless they're members of the hedge fund. I somehow doubt that Fortress Investment Group gives two shits about the family heritage of a couple of limey longhairs. Of course, by the time the "investment" pays off, the US dollar will have tanked due to massive debt recall from China and the royalty system will have torn itself apart due to technology and greed, so real return probably won't happen ever. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 10:58:34 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... On 5/6/05, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > At 01:08 PM 5/5/2005 -0500, Jeff wrote: > >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. Person X has net wealth of $400 million. Let's say that puts him in the Fortune 400 (I have no idea). He dies. His wealth is distributed evenly amongst his heirs, of whom there are (let's say) two. They thereby acquire net wealth of $200 million each...which, let us say, doesn't put them in the F400 but does put them in the F4000. (I'm ignoring the estate tax - but actually, its presence makes my prediction more likely anyway.) Repeat this scenario - and you'll see that it makes it likelier that inherited wealth puts one in a wealthy, but not tip-top, bracket than that it puts them in the tip-top bracket. This means that if 40% of the F400 is there already by inheritance, it's likelier that +40% of the F4000 is there already by inheritance. > 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. "Privilege" is not representative! By definition, one with privilege has something relatively rare. I think what you're talking about is "opportunity," not "privilege." In fact, your later post (with the stats on bachelors degrees) makes that clear. The two, however, are not equivalent. Look, it's true that compared to a highly class-bound system, Americans have greater opportunity. But that doesn't mean that opportunity is evenly, or fairly, distributed. But let's look at your numbers: 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. This is still an upper-income -skewing distribution. According to a Census Bureau report I just googled (), the 2002 median household income was $42,400, down a percentage point from 2001's figures ($42,900). Let's add about 10 percentage points to the lowest range (24%), to bring it to the median (approximately): that's still 1/3 people below the median, and 2/3 above, with bachelors degrees. But as I said, privilege and opportunity aren't the same thing. First, you can observe the breakdown by race, etc. More importantly, if you're talking about privilege, you're talking about two things: you're talking about the upper end, not the middle (I take "privilege" to mean a particular benefit, not just an average one), and you're talking things that aren't particularly earned. Let's just focus this a bit: do you believe a person who inherits a million dollars is better qualified, on that basis, to be powerful and influential in comparison with someone who doesn't inherit a million bucks? And do you believe that, all other factors being equal, people without a million bucks have the same power and influence as people with a million bucks? Unless you *do* believe those things, all other factors being equal, then you pretty much have to concede that a significant amount of privilege and influence is inherited, not earned. (Note: Jeme wrote "almost entirely" not me. I'm allowing him some rhetorical slack...but in essence I'm agreeing: that most powerful members of our society had considerable advantages from their family background, either in terms of wealth or prestige.) - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 09:03:54 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... At 08:39 AM 5/6/2005 -0700, Capuchin wrote: >A bachelor's degree at a state school is hardly privilege. Equating a University of California school, especially LA, Berkeley or San Diego, with most other state schools in the country, and with most other private schools for that matter, would be a serious mistake. > Advanced degrees are required for positions of power and the conference > of privilege. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Which is why a guy who only received a bachelor's degree, Tommy Lee Jones, was originally thrown up as "evidence that opportunity and fame come almost entirely from privilege." Amazing how often the definitions of your nebulous terms shift as the evidence supporting your position turns sour. > A culture which denies the existence of class wouldn't care to record > such things, I suppose. When in doubt, bash America. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 17:22:04 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... Your point, caller? ;0) Matt >From: "Jason R. Thornton" > >When in doubt, bash America. >--Jason ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 09:26:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... On Thu, 5 May 2005, Jeff wrote: > On 5/5/05, Jason Brown wrote: >> 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? Call me gullible, but I actually bought it. I mean, I thought it was sarcasm at first, but when I couldn't find any substance to that knee-jerk reaction, I abandoned it and swallowed the hook. > 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. That's got some merit to it. I also think that privilege is largely hidden in this country, as you stated was the case for musicians. Someone else stated that presidents were largely NOT from privileged background, but I don't know that to be the case without more scrutiny than the populist bios that appear in most places. I have to go now. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 09:34:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... On Fri, 6 May 2005, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > At 08:39 AM 5/6/2005 -0700, Capuchin wrote: >> A bachelor's degree at a state school is hardly privilege. > > Equating a University of California school, especially LA, Berkeley or > San Diego, with most other state schools in the country, and with most > other private schools for that matter, would be a serious mistake. So we shouldn't be surprised that even at the level of Bachelor's degrees, they're heavily weighted in the upper income brackets. >> Advanced degrees are required for positions of power and the >> conference of privilege. > > Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Which is why a guy who only received a bachelor's > degree, Tommy Lee Jones, was originally thrown up as "evidence that > opportunity and fame come almost entirely from privilege." OK, this is kind of odd because I started to write something like, "Advanced degrees and certificates from prestigious universities...", but it was ambiguous and seemed to imply that advanced degrees had to come from prestigious universities. Not sure why I editted the way I did. However, I wouldn't call an actor a "position of power". Sure, he has wealth and that allows him to confer SOME privilege, but that's not the whole picture. Positions of power are traditionally professional: architects, attorneys, academics, physicians, bankers, etc. >> A culture which denies the existence of class wouldn't care to record >> such things, I suppose. > > When in doubt, bash America. Is it bashing America to say that American culture denies the existence of class? Aren't you denying the existence of class? Is stating that somehow "bashing" you? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 10:39:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Seeking a dream in the old election.... yeah! I took the "What Party Should You Vote For?" (or whatever it was) online quiz and I was told I should vote UKIP. (Order of preference: UKIP, Conservative, Lib Dem, Labour--Green was in there somewhere, I forget which, probably just befoer Labour.) I'm American. And I'm not a Republican. Yet I understand the UKIP to be considered a far-right party in Britain. So we really ARE that much more conservative, as a nation, than Britain, eh? On Fri, 6 May 2005, Matt Sewell wrote: > 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, 6 May 2005 10:41:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Jackson to lose the Beatles catalog If $47 million was too much for Paul in the '80s, I doubt he'll want to pay $250 million or whatever it's worth now...I suppose he and Yoko could go in together on it, but somehow I don't think that'll happen.. On Fri, 6 May 2005, 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? > > Sumi ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 10:43:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: privilege I lost track of where this started. Did it really come from Al Gore and Tommy Lee Jones being roommates? What's everyone's point now, anyway. Arguing about whether or not there is such a thing as privilege is interesting and all, but....let's say there is. Then what? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 10:51:06 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... At 10:58 AM 5/6/2005 -0500, Jeff wrote: >Person X has net wealth of $400 million. Let's say that puts him in >the Fortune 400 (I have no idea). He dies. His wealth is distributed >evenly amongst his heirs, of whom there are (let's say) two. They >thereby acquire net wealth of $200 million each...which, let us say, >doesn't put them in the F400 but does put them in the F4000. (I'm >ignoring the estate tax - but actually, its presence makes my >prediction more likely anyway.) > >Repeat this scenario - and you'll see that it makes it likelier that >inherited wealth puts one in a wealthy, but not tip-top, bracket than >that it puts them in the tip-top bracket. This means that if 40% of >the F400 is there already by inheritance, it's likelier that +40% of >the F4000 is there already by inheritance. And of course, following this hypothesis, as wealth is distributed over time among more and more heirs, this would mean "opportunity" coming almost entirely from "privilege," at least in terms of wealth, would diminish more and more over time. Which, is what historically we have seen. > > 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. > >"Privilege" is not representative! By definition, one with privilege >has something relatively rare. Not really. But, if "privilege" is so rare, then given how much "opportunity" is available, the original statement makes no sense, or is an extreme exaggeration at the very least. >I think what you're talking about is "opportunity," not "privilege." >In fact, your later post (with the stats on bachelors degrees) makes >that clear. The two, however, are not equivalent. I'm not saying they are, but because they are ill-defined concepts, what is an opportunity and what is a privilege depends on the context. To some, privilege is almost entirely defined as wealth. Others define higher education as a "privilege." Maybe others just see only post-baccalaureate education as a "privilege." To others, college is an "opportunity." I'm not confused here, I'm arguing against assertions made with some extremely vague terms. Some people will tell you about "white privilege," and Caucasians are hardly a rarity in this country. And while I would not argue for this assumption, by definition, "privilege" need not necessarily be something "rare." A privilege is an advantage conferred to a person or specific group. In truth, a privileged group could be rather large, a majority or even a vast majority. Take for instance a scenario where a race of green people who make up 95% of a hypothetical nation on some alien world (to get back to Star Trek) and are pretty much equal amongst one another, yet completely oppress a race of blue people who make up 5%. The greens are privileged, the blues are not. And privilege is not rare. Depending on what you categorize as "privilege," Jeme's statement could be seen as absolutely true or completely false. If "privilege" is defined in a certain way, let's say everyone that is not extremely poor, say the top 99% of the population, then sure I might come close to agreeing to it a lot more (the word "fame" throws a wrench in it, however). >that's still >1/3 people below the median, and 2/3 above, with bachelors degrees. I never claimed income did not play some role. What I claimed that was that it plays much less of a role now than it did historically, and that as a factor, wealth-privilege is not powerful enough to make the statement that "opportunity and fame come almost entirely from privilege" meaningful. And the numbers I gave were for people who received bachelor degrees. The OPPORTUNITY to earn a bachelor's degree here is more impressive: 31% of new freshmen are from families with a total income of $32,800 or less. >More importantly, if >you're talking about privilege, you're talking about two things: >you're talking about the upper end, not the middle (I take "privilege" >to mean a particular benefit, not just an average one), and you're >talking things that aren't particularly earned. I disagree with BOTH these assumptions. "Particular" is not necessarily the antithesis of "average." There is absolutely no reason why a "privilege" cannot be earned. >Let's just focus this a bit: do you believe a person who inherits a >million dollars is better qualified, on that basis, to be powerful and >influential in comparison with someone who doesn't inherit a million >bucks? No. > And do you believe that, all other factors being equal, people >without a million bucks have the same power and influence as people >with a million bucks? No. > Unless you *do* believe those things, all other >factors being equal, then you pretty much have to concede that a >significant amount of privilege and influence is inherited, not >earned. This does not follow. All that follows is that privilege and influence CAN BE inherited. And I would NEVER argue that they cannot. All other factors being equal, there is still an opportunity for who those without a million bucks to gain a million bucks. What you're assuming here is that "equal" means "stagnant and unalterable." >most >powerful members of our society had considerable advantages from their >family background, either in terms of wealth or prestige. Replace "most" with "some," and you might see some agreement from over here. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:01:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: KEXP Alert Personal Army of Plastic Jesus and the Mary Chain wrote: > my recollection is that it began as "laugh 'n' cry", and > became "effin' cry" between the second and third > seasons. they talked about this on one of the DVD > commentaries, but i can't remember what they said. Seth MacFarlane says on the commentaries myriad times (usually during the opening credits) that it was _ALWAYS_ "laugh and cry" -- the earlier episodes (season one and most of season two, I think) _sound_ like "effin' cry" because of poor enunciation on his part. "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 10:56:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: TOOL tool alert "Eugene Hopstetter Jr." wrote: > I greatly admire Rush, and I do not admire TOOL. That's > because TOOL, are Posers and Pussies. A heavy metalfied > NIN, if you will. They wouldn't know a clever chord > progression or tempo shfit if it whomped them on the > back of their head with a BC Rich Warlock. The only real difference between Rush and Tool is that the singer from Tool wasn't castrated as a young child. And Tool has the more appropriate name. "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:20:56 -0700 From: "Randalljr" Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... From: "Jeff" > 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. I remember remarking to a friend, regarding Aaaaanold's bid to have the constitution changed to allow him to run for President, that it would be quite typical of America to have an immigrant president before we have an Indian. Vince ps-Just got back from crabbing, and had forgotton how disturbing it is to have the crab clawing at the lid of the boiler when cooking them. Next time, I won't allow my girlfriend to actually "name" them on the way home. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 12:27:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... Randalljr wrote: > I remember remarking to a friend, regarding Aaaaanold's > bid to have the constitution changed to allow him to run > for President, that it would be quite typical of America > to have an immigrant president before we have an Indian. And, of course, the first Indian president's last name will be something Rodriguez or Hernandez.... "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:14:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... On Fri, 6 May 2005, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > Randalljr wrote: > > I remember remarking to a friend, regarding Aaaaanold's > > bid to have the constitution changed to allow him to run > > for President, that it would be quite typical of America > > to have an immigrant president before we have an Indian. > > And, of course, the first Indian president's last name will > be something Rodriguez or Hernandez.... What percentage of Americans are foreign-born, and what percentage are Indians? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:26:54 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... On May 6, 2005, at 11:20 AM, Randalljr wrote: > I remember remarking to a friend, regarding Aaaaanold's bid to have > the constitution changed to allow him to run for President, that it > would be quite typical of America to have an immigrant president > before we have an Indian. > To be fair, Arnold has not publicly endorsed the group that is pushing for this. Of course we don't know what's happening behind the scenes... > > ps-Just got back from crabbing, and had forgotton how disturbing it is > to have the crab clawing at the lid of the boiler when cooking them. > Next time, I won't allow my girlfriend to actually "name" them on the > way home. > That's fucked up. ;) - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:33:46 -0700 From: Jason Brown Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Jeff Dwarf wrote: > > Randalljr wrote: > > > I remember remarking to a friend, regarding Aaaaanold's > > > bid to have the constitution changed to allow him to run > > > for President, that it would be quite typical of America > > > to have an immigrant president before we have an Indian. > > > > And, of course, the first Indian president's last name will > > be something Rodriguez or Hernandez.... > > What percentage of Americans are foreign-born, and what percentage are > Indians? According to the 2000 Census 11.1% of Americans are foreign born and 0.9% are Native American or Alaska Native. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_sse=on ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:49:31 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Mini-Review On May 5, 2005, at 3:51 PM, Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus wrote: > paul westerberg, *Folker*: this blows about fifty hundred different > kinds > of nougat. > > I could've told you that, and I didn't even know the album existed. Oh, and I would have used "creamy filling" instead. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 16:56:06 -0400 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... >From: Tom Clark >Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... >Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:26:54 -0700 >On May 6, 2005, at 11:20 AM, Randalljr wrote: >>ps-Just got back from crabbing, and had forgotton how disturbing it is to >>have the crab clawing at the lid of the boiler when cooking them. Next >>time, I won't allow my girlfriend to actually "name" them on the way home. >That's fucked up. ;) My friend Mark says his Greek grandmother once put an octopus in a pot of boiling water with a lid on it, the octopus burst out using all 8 legs at once to hoist itself out of the pot. She beat it sensless over the head and threw it back in...he hasn't eaten octopus in 20+ years. Max ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 14:04:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... On Fri, 6 May 2005, Jason Brown wrote: > Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > Jeff Dwarf wrote: > > > Randalljr wrote: > > > > I remember remarking to a friend, regarding Aaaaanold's > > > > bid to have the constitution changed to allow him to run > > > > for President, that it would be quite typical of America > > > > to have an immigrant president before we have an Indian. > > > > > > And, of course, the first Indian president's last name will > > > be something Rodriguez or Hernandez.... > > > > What percentage of Americans are foreign-born, and what percentage are > > Indians? > > According to the 2000 Census 11.1% of Americans are foreign born and > 0.9% are Native American or Alaska Native. Hence, if we allowed foreign-born people to become President, wouldn't it make sense that one of them would be elected first? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 15:11:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... On Fri, 6 May 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Hence, if we allowed foreign-born people to become President, wouldn't > it make sense that one of them would be elected first? Sure, it makes sense, but that doesn't mean it isn't fucked up. It makes sense that if ten thousand people moved into your house and started pissing on the floor, you'd have to step in other people's piss. That don't make it a good or right thing. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 17:31:01 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: privilege On 5/6/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > I lost track of where this started. Did it really come from Al Gore and > Tommy Lee Jones being roommates? What's everyone's point now, anyway. > Arguing about whether or not there is such a thing as privilege is > interesting and all, but....let's say there is. Then what? Well, if there isn't a whole lot of privilege (i.e., unearned power and status, the sort of thing that we as a nation in hte US supposedly were formed to oppose, among other factors), then there's no particular need to worry about such things, and therefore no need to alter policy - except insofar as that policy is intended to correct privilege since, if there ain't much such, such policy would be counterproductive. The most direct policy currently in play is the estate tax (incorrectly called the "death tax" by winger propagandists: the dead person isn't taxed, the living person receiving a benefit is), since one of its aims is to reduce the power of inherited status. But if there is lotsa privilege, then the imperatives of democracy compel attempts to reduce it. And since we here at Fegmaniax control all major elements of world power, our decisions here have worldwide and just plain ass-thumping importance. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 15:48:26 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: privilege At 05:31 PM 5/6/2005 -0500, Jeff wrote: >And since we here at Fegmaniax control all major elements of world >power, our decisions here have worldwide and just plain ass-thumping >importance. And speaking of subjects of ass-thumping importance, the assertion that Tommy Lee Jones DID NOT watch Star Trek is bullshit: >College buddies at Harvard, Jones recalled an evening with Gore: "We shot >pool and watched Star Trek, when maybe we should have been studying for exams." http://www.npr.org/news/national/election2000/demconvention/democrat.wed.eve.html HA HA! I fucking win. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #116 ********************************