From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #121 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, May 11 2005 Volume 14 : Number 121 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Great Road Trips (Re: Attn. Sleater Kinney fans) [Tom Clark ] Re: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Great Road Trips (Re: Attn. Sleater Kinney fans) [Benjamin Lukoff ] Nomi! [Tom Clark ] Re: Attn. Sleater Kinney fans [Capuchin ] Re: Nomi! [capuchin@bitmine.net] Re: election stuff [Capuchin ] Re: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V14 #120 [James Dignan ] Take the long way home [James Dignan ] Re: election stuff [Capuchin ] Re: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: election stuff [Jeff ] RE: elixirs & rememdies dvd [Scott Hunter McCleary <1480khz@verizon.net>] Meet The Fuckers ["Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus" ] Re: Meet The Fuckers [Eb ] Re: election stuff ["Matt Sewell" ] Re: Meet The Fuckers [Jeff Dwarf ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:37:41 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Great Road Trips (Re: Attn. Sleater Kinney fans) On May 10, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Matt Sewell wrote: > Aaah... 101 and I-5 are roads, eh? American roads I'd love to traverse, > preferably on a bicycle. It's just for the moment I'm the wrong side of > the Atlantic (or Pacific for that matter). > > Still, one day... > You're not going to enjoy yourself too much on I-5 or many parts of 101 (or as they say in California "The 5" and "The 101"). I think it's actually illegal to ride a bike on a major interstate highway in the U.S. Route 1 is the way to go down the west coast (although it does piggyback 101 in some areas). On the east coast, Route 6 starts at the tip of Cape Cod and runs through Rhode Island, Connecticut, NY, Pennsylvania, and on out west. Really nice biking in some parts. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:49:30 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Attn. Sleater Kinney fans Matt wrote: >>Aaah... 101 and I-5 are roads, eh? American roads I'd love to traverse, >>preferably on a bicycle. It's just for the moment I'm the wrong side of >>the Atlantic (or Pacific for that matter). >>Still, one day... Tom Clark: >You're not going to enjoy yourself too much on I-5 or many parts of 101 >(or as they say in California "The 5" and "The 101"). I think it's >actually illegal to ride a bike on a major interstate highway in the >U.S. Route 1 is the way to go down the west coast (although it does >piggyback 101 in some areas). On the east coast, Route 6 starts at the >tip of Cape Cod and runs through Rhode Island, Connecticut, NY, >Pennsylvania, and on out west. Really nice biking in some parts. A great Canadian road to bicycle is the road that goes from Lake Louise to Jasper, Alberta in the Canadian Rockies. The bicycle lane is almost the width of a car lane. You get to pass glaciers, elk, big horn sheep, etc. Lots of fellow bikers as well to converse with. Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:54:11 -0500 From: Dolph Chaney Subject: this heaven gives me migraine Mr. Bachman sez: >T-minus 80 hours until seeing the Gang of Four! 32 hours for me -- boo-yah! And the show's NOT SOLD OUT. I don't understand Chicago. >Did anyone get >the remastered ENTERTAINMENT! with the bonus cuts yet? Oh, that's out today? I still rely on the 1995 Infinite Zero reissues of the first 3 albums. I don't feel like I need a sonic upgrade, and I'm not certain that the bonus tracks compel me. The '95 edition had the "Yellow" EP which is essential; the new one adds 2 alternate takes (I don't care) and 2 live songs unrecorded elsewhere including "Sweet Jane" (wuh???). So I'm leaning toward not getting it; if someone does, please holla back. Dolph ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 11:23:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: election stuff On Tue, 10 May 2005, Christopher Gross wrote: > I'm glad they gave us five options instead of just agree/disagree, but > there were still some questions that I found too restrictive. For > example, "The UK should have an annual limit on immigration." Is that ANY > limit? I don't see a problem with the UK's current level of immigration > (which is quite low by American standards), but I suspect that, say, ten > million immigrants a year might be a bit of a strain. I think any country > should probably have *some* limit, but that doesn't mean I believe in > *low* limits. (In the end I picked "agree," on the theory that "strongly > agree" would be what the UKIP wants.) Similarly with the one about a 50% You mean you based your answers on what result you thought they'd produce? > tax on incomes over 100K; if you think there should be a 50% tax level but > not until people make over 200K, should you pick "agree" or "disagree"? I'd pick "disagree" in that case. > A lot of the questions just don't have an American equivalent, especially > the ones about the EU, so I'd take those Americans supposedly to the right > of the UKIP with a grain of salt. (BTW, where are the British National > Party and the Communists?) Hey, I didn't come out to the *right* of the UKIP, just in line with 'em :) And yeah, isn't it the BNP who are the real right-wing nutters, not the UKIP? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 11:28:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Great Road Trips (Re: Attn. Sleater Kinney fans) On Tue, 10 May 2005, Tom Clark wrote: > You're not going to enjoy yourself too much on I-5 or many parts of 101 > (or as they say in California "The 5" and "The 101"). I think it's > actually illegal to ride a bike on a major interstate highway in the > U.S. Route 1 is the way to go down the west coast (although it does Probably illegal to bike on I-5. I wonder about 101, though. And I only am familiar with 101 in Oregon and Washington, where it's quite enjoyable. > piggyback 101 in some areas). On the east coast, Route 6 starts at the > tip of Cape Cod and runs through Rhode Island, Connecticut, NY, > Pennsylvania, and on out west. Really nice biking in some parts. > > -tc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 11:37:53 -0700 From: Jason Brown Subject: Re: Great Road Trips (Re: Attn. Sleater Kinney fans) > > You're not going to enjoy yourself too much on I-5 or many parts of 101 > > (or as they say in California "The 5" and "The 101"). I think it's > > actually illegal to ride a bike on a major interstate highway in the > > U.S. Route 1 is the way to go down the west coast (although it does > > Probably illegal to bike on I-5. I wonder about 101, though. > And I only am familiar with 101 in Oregon and Washington, where it's quite > enjoyable. on the Oregon and washington coasts 101 is more comparable to Route 1 inc california. Right on the coast. All curvy and pretty. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:13:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: election stuff On Tue, 10 May 2005, Jeff wrote: > > agree" would be what the UKIP wants.) Similarly with the one about a 50% > > tax on incomes over 100K; if you think there should be a 50% tax level but > > not until people make over 200K, should you pick "agree" or "disagree"? > > 'Course, 100K pounds is about equal to 200K dollars... But yeah, I'd > say "agree" rather than "strongly agree" would be the right answer: > you're not punching the air going "yes!" but you're certainly tending > that direction even if the details need to be worked out. For that question, I don't think any of the options really fit me. I'm strongly attached to the idea of progressive taxation (ie, rates progressively getting higher the more you make), but not-quite-as-strongly opposed to the rates reaching as high as 50% before you get into millionaire territory. So either I choose agree and approve high rates that I don't really support, choose disagree and look like some WSJ op-ed page flat-taxer, or choose neutral even though I do have an opinion on the topic. Really, this should be an essay question.... On Tue, 10 May 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > You mean you based your answers on what result you thought they'd produce? Just in that case, I swear! Aside from getting out of the EU and reducing immigration, are the UKIP's other positions very right wing? Do they even HAVE other positions? - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:32:44 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Nomi! This is going to be good: http://thenomisong.com/ - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:53:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Attn. Sleater Kinney fans On Tue, 10 May 2005, Matt Sewell wrote: > Mind you, one day I'd *love* to make my way slowly up from SF to > Seattle... would I pass through Olympia? Yep... and within a half-mile of my house! J. -- significantly south of Seattle and even further north of SF. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:02:53 -0700 (PDT) From: capuchin@bitmine.net Subject: Re: Nomi! On Tue, 10 May 2005, Tom Clark wrote: > This is going to be good: > http://thenomisong.com/ Fuck yes! J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:14:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: election stuff On Tue, 10 May 2005, Christopher Gross wrote: > Similarly with the one about a 50% tax on incomes over 100K; if you > think there should be a 50% tax level but not until people make over > 200K, should you pick "agree" or "disagree"? The problem with that question (and others like it) is that it doesn't indicate what kind of a change that would be. Since I'm neither rich nor british, I just don't know. Also, I had a big problem deciding how to answer it because I don't think that should be exactly the tax rate at exactly that level. Do they mean it should be AT LEAST that much for some people somewhere around that line and above or does it mean it should be NO MORE than that much for folks above that line. I mean, barring a true negative income tax plan (and even that a compromise with the folks that insist on barbaric notions of real property and stuff), I think a tax rate of 50% on folks making UK100k (my keyboard don't do it and I'm not looking up the unicode or whatever this'll be on the way out) is the bare minimum... Really, y'all should be paving the way for a better tomorrow with a progressive taxation plan that implements a practical maximum wage and UK100k is probably about as high as is reasonable for such a thing. Several of the questions had similar interpretation problems and that shows, I think, how public debate is framed to prevent free-ranging thought. You ask the question the right way, and only the answers you want to hear make sense. > A lot of the questions just don't have an American equivalent, > especially the ones about the EU, so I'd take those Americans supposedly > to the right of the UKIP with a grain of salt. I plead neutrality on those because I didn't feel informed enough to make a real comment. Perhaps that's why my UKIP score wasn't further into the red. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:39:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: election stuff On Tue, 10 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: > I mean, barring a true negative income tax plan (and even that a Don't we essentially have a negative income tax plan with the EIC here in the US? > compromise with the folks that insist on barbaric notions of real property > and stuff), I think a tax rate of 50% on folks making UK100k (my keyboard > don't do it and I'm not looking up the unicode or whatever this'll be on > the way out) is the bare minimum... Really, y'all should be paving the way > for a better tomorrow with a progressive taxation plan that implements a > practical maximum wage and UK100k is probably about as high as is > reasonable for such a thing. Maximum wage? Cap everyone's potential earnings? I don't see how that's fair, especially as that will push employers even further toward reducing actual salary in favor of "equity-based compensation." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:43:38 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V14 #120 Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 16:12:47 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Seeking a dream in the old election.... yeah! > http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/ I'm equal parts LibDem and Green. What do I win? my LibDem is just ahead of green. Surprised to see UKIP third ahead of Labour. I took it again with the Welsh test (using the same answers), and came out Lib Dem slightly ahead of Plaid Cymru! 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: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:48:54 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: Take the long way home >Mind you, one day I'd *love* to make my way slowly up from SF to >Seattle... would I pass through Olympia? depending on which route you take, you could pass through just about anywhere. 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: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:58:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: election stuff On Tue, 10 May 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Tue, 10 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: >> I mean, barring a true negative income tax plan (and even that a > > Don't we essentially have a negative income tax plan with the EIC here > in the US? Not even close. The EIC only pays you back a percentage of what you made and doesn't impact what you pay; i.e., you can qualify for an EIC and still have a tax due. My idea (not original, of course... in fact, it's pretty close wo what Nixon proposed back in the fifties) is to have an income tax set to, say, .5(income - "double-poverty") where double-poverty is twice the poverty level. This system, as you can clearly see, never quite taxes ANYBODY as high as fifty percent and has negative values for anybody below double-poverty to the point where NOBODY is below poverty. Consider also that such a system would completely eliminate the need for many forms of public assistance and be as easy to calculate as a flat tax. The savings in public expenditure is enormous. And since poverty levels are determined based on regional evaluations of actual cost of living, there's no need for deductions of any sort. The biggest drawback, I think, is finding jobs for all those administrators put out of work. Perhaps they can be retrained as poets. > Maximum wage? Cap everyone's potential earnings? I don't see how that's > fair, What the fuck does "fair" mean in this context? What's fair about a world where financiers can put people out on the street and retire from the profits while a street muralist can improve the lives of millions and go to jail for it? Does it have something to do with reaping the fruits of your labor? Then what is fair about two farmers on opposite sides of a hill who sew identical crops in the same season, tend them equally, and yet one is hit by a fungal plague or a herd of deer while the other is not? One starves, the other eats well, yet both worked the same. The world just isn't fair and can't be made so by any definition I know. "Fair" is an ill-conceived concept and should be tossed out of the lexicon along with "earn" and "deserve". > especially as that will push employers even further toward reducing > actual salary in favor of "equity-based compensation." Holy crap... you mean making people partners in the organizations for which they labor? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 18:30:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: election stuff On Tue, 10 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: > The biggest drawback, I think, is finding jobs for all those > administrators put out of work. Perhaps they can be retrained as poets. That, and if you don't allow deductions, the real estate folks will be up in arms too. Accountants and real estate folks: formidable opposition. > > Maximum wage? Cap everyone's potential earnings? I don't see how that's > > fair, > > What the fuck does "fair" mean in this context? I don't see why the government has the right to put an upper limit on my income. > What's fair about a world where financiers can put people out on the > street and retire from the profits while a street muralist can improve the > lives of millions and go to jail for it? What would be fair--financiers in jail and muralist millionaires? > Does it have something to do with reaping the fruits of your labor? Then Certainly--not being able to do so is a major failing of socialism. > what is fair about two farmers on opposite sides of a hill who sew > identical crops in the same season, tend them equally, and yet one is hit > by a fungal plague or a herd of deer while the other is not? One starves, > the other eats well, yet both worked the same. The world just isn't fair > and can't be made so by any definition I know. And so we shouldn't try to be fair, either? > "Fair" is an ill-conceived concept and should be tossed out of the lexicon > along with "earn" and "deserve". Who is going to want to work for a monthly coupon for the state? > > especially as that will push employers even further toward reducing > > actual salary in favor of "equity-based compensation." > > Holy crap... you mean making people partners in the organizations for > which they labor? I'm all for stock-based compensation, myself, but I doubt the average Safeway checker would want a salary cut (partially) made up for by a stock grant. And remember all those people with stock in their employers Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossing? People don't know enough to get out while the going's good and to never have too many eggs in one basket. You'd hear people screaming bloody murder if all companies started slashing salaries and handing out stock. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 22:26:02 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: election stuff On 5/10/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Tue, 10 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: > > > The biggest drawback, I think, is finding jobs for all those > > administrators put out of work. Perhaps they can be retrained as poets. > > That, and if you don't allow deductions, the real estate folks will be up > in arms too. Accountants and real estate folks: formidable opposition. The point of deductions is to compensate for different people's situations, viz., necessary expenditures for which they shouldn't be taxed. People who have large medical expenses, for example, can deduct them to an extent if those expenses are greater than 2% of their adjusted gross income. The reasoning is that if they were simply taxed on that AGI, they'd be left with less because of their (unavoidable) medical expenses. There are other reasons, I'm sure...but it's not just because of a lobby of realtors and accountants. > > > > Maximum wage? Cap everyone's potential earnings? I don't see how that's > > > fair, > > > > What the fuck does "fair" mean in this context? > > I don't see why the government has the right to put an upper limit on my > income. The whole *concept* of income is permeated through and through with government. In fact, government is the guarantor of your income. I mean, include the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, regulations regarding employment, etc. etc. etc. It's a gross oversimplification to claim (as many do - not necessarily you) that "it's my money - the government can't take it." History suggests that employers are *not* going to willingly give you money if they can get away with it; that they do is largely a result of the legal and governmental structure making it disadvantageous for them to do so. So yeah, as a matter of fact, I think it does follow that, as the guarantor of social order, a government might, given a fair and democratic process to determine it, set a maximum income level (or rather, a level above which the marginal tax rate is high enough to effectively become that). There's nothing inherently more repressive in a government having such a regulation than it saying that you can't drive your car faster than a certain speed. The fact is, I think it's testimony to an incredibly effective set of ethical blinders that we could possibly think it's not morally outrageous that one person brings in millions of dollars while others are starving. If you saw a grossly fat man swipe a little kid's candy bar at a grocery store, you'd think he's a repugnant jerk...even if he said, well, I own the store, and I make the rules here, and they allow me to swipe candy from little kids. I'm not saying I'm in favor of a maximum income cap, or its equivalent: I seem to recall reading that when Britain had extremely high marginal tax rates in the '60s ("should five percent appear too small...") one result was a massive outflow of wealth from the country - - since the wealthiest are also the most mobile (at least, potentially). And that, apparently, had large-scale negative social effects. So a maximum income cap probably would work only if everyone had one, or in a society that highly valued *social* values over economic ones, thus encouraging compliance socially. Not all that likely...then again, who'd'a thunk that a nation founded on a thrifty, Puritanical ethos that was suspicious of luxuries would turn into a nation of credit junkies? > > > What's fair about a world where financiers can put people out on the > > street and retire from the profits while a street muralist can improve the > > lives of millions and go to jail for it? > > What would be fair--financiers in jail and muralist millionaires? No - but how about an incentive structure that allowed wealth accumulation but only *after* everyone was fed and housed? We've been down this road before - and I know some people will argue that the extremely wealthy also generate wealth for others, and that we can't know (essentially) how much it might take to motivate them, and therefore we shouldn't limit such incentives, since it might be that those people are no longer willing to create that wealth, and we'd all suffer. Sounds kinda trickle-down-y to me. But I still think it's ethically suspect: it could be that there's a shortage of elementary school teachers that could be easily solved if we removed barriers that prohibited certain people who *want* to spend all day with young children from doing so. I mean, I'm pretty sure a lot of pedophiles would jump at the chance to become elementary school teachers, daycare workers, etc. (Attn: M. Jackson - the priesthood is calling you!) And there's a social need to be filled. And we shouldn't limit their rights to teach, caretake, etc. (assuming they could *also* do that). Does anyone buy that? No? Then why do we buy the notion that, so long as they're creating and distributing wealth, people should be allowed to accumulate wealth to the extent that it fragments society and causes glaring social harm? > > > Does it have something to do with reaping the fruits of your labor? Then > > Certainly--not being able to do so is a major failing of socialism. That's what all the books say. I'd say not being able to reap the fruits of your labor is a major failing of capitalism. I mean, we were just talking about inherited wealth - what labor led to their fruits? Who works harder - one of those folks, or a waiter? Is there really a correspondence in the US between how hard one works and how much fruit one reaps? > Who is going to want to work for a monthly coupon for the state? We call them "dollars" in this country: they're certificates issued by the state that (a) claim a certain amount of real value is held in reserve and (b) allow you to trade them for goods, services, etc. - -- ...Jeff, flirting with Chico Marx at perverted Engels The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 22:51:40 -0400 From: Scott Hunter McCleary <1480khz@verizon.net> Subject: RE: elixirs & rememdies dvd The DVD arrived at the end of a week when I desperately needed SOMETHING like it. There are some great moments in it. Grant does a mean impression of Robyn. Two thoughts on it as a whole: First, I REALLY miss the Satellite of Love clip they have on the Scotopia web site. I guess because it was there I was really expecting it to be in the finished work. Second, isn't the Maxwell's show from early in that same tour? I thought the repartee between Grant and Robyn was just so much better on the Maxwell's recording. I kinda wish they'd shot that show for the DVD. - -- Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is that little voice at the end of the day that says: "I'll try again tomorrow." - Anne Hunninghake Scott Hunter McCleary P.O. Box 6163 Arlington, VA 22206 www.prodigaldog.com www.1480khz.com www.flickr.com/photos/prodigaldog/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 22:01:19 -0700 From: "Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus" Subject: Meet The Fuckers i've always liked the pass reports which are to be found on the AM dial. i once pulled off the road and made a "field recording" of several minutes' worth from the motor-car's speakers. i'd planned to use it in a mixtape, but never got around to it. <> you can get to sleater-kinney from olympia by taking I-5 in either direction? please edify. no, i'm afraid you're wrong. *The Hot Rock* is/was disappointing, while *One Beat* did/does strongly stand out. here's the order for you to listen to them in, matt: *One Beat* *Dig Me Out* *All Hands On The Bad One* *Call The Doctor* *The Hot Rock* s/t ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 02:09:06 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Nomi! capuchin@bitmine.net wrote: > On Tue, 10 May 2005, Tom Clark wrote: > >> This is going to be good: >> http://thenomisong.com/ > > > Fuck yes! Do I detect sincerity, here?!? I might get the soundtrack, sure. But the film? Dunno about that. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 23:24:06 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Meet The Fuckers Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus wrote: > disappointing, > and I don't think any of them strongly stands out either.> > > no, i'm afraid you're wrong. *The Hot Rock* is/was disappointing Hrm. I've heard Hot Rock downgraded before...but I just don't see it. It was my own first S-K disc, so that's the one which hooked me. And maybe it was a good first album for me, because I think it's a bit more Throwing Muse-y than the others. So I was halfway to liking it already. But I'm not going to argue too strongly, because I'm still shellshocked about Elliott leaving to take that fellowship. ;) Incidentally, a belated discovery for me: the Delays. Anyone else like this album? Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:30:37 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: election stuff To be honest, there's not much between 'em. Both pretty racist organisations, both pretty scary. The only difference is class as far as I see it - UKIP preferred right-wing nutters of the middle classes. You may have heard of Robert Kilroy Silk - he was in UKIP until the party would not make him leader. I like to think that RKS is Britain's most-hated celeb... Cheers Matt >From: Benjamin Lukoff >And yeah, isn't it the BNP who are the real right-wing nutters, not the >UKIP? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 07:43:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Meet The Fuckers Eb wrote: > Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus wrote: > > no, i'm afraid you're wrong. *The Hot Rock* is/was > disappointing > > Hrm. I've heard Hot Rock downgraded before...but I just > don't see it. It was my own first S-K disc, so that's > the one which hooked me. And maybe it was a good first > album for me, because I think it's a bit more > Throwing Muse-y than the others. So I was halfway to > liking it already. Maybe I'd like that one better than One Beat then. I didn't exactly dislike One Beat, but...well, does Corin (or is it Carrie) always sing like, well, _that_? I liked the songs, I liked the playing, but the vocals just made me want to claw my eardrums out. > But I'm not going to argue too strongly, because I'm > still shellshocked about Elliott leaving to take that > fellowship. ;) But it's only across town, Sarah Chalke isn't leaving the show. Just a guess, but it's probably a device to give them more location flexibility to provide more cover for when Braff or Faison to do work on the new Fletch movie or whatever. I mean, the haven't even stunt cast Lecy Goranson as Elliot's sister yet! It will almost certainly work better than whatever contrivance they are going to have on That '70s Show for having Forman parent hanging around Eric's friends with Topher Grace leaving that festering ship. > Incidentally, a belated discovery for me: the Delays. Everyone gets to make their own joke here, right? > Anyone else like this album? "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #121 ********************************