From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #122 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, May 12 2005 Volume 14 : Number 122 Today's Subjects: ----------------- memories [Jill Brand ] RE: election stuff [Dr John Halewood ] Re: Nomi! [Tom Clark ] Reap: Carnivale [The Great Quail ] Re: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Meet The Fuckers [Eb ] Re: Meet The Fuckers [Jeff Dwarf ] Signs of the apocalypse, pt. 234 [Eb ] We're never gonna survive [John Barrington Jones ] Re: Meet The Fuckers [Jeff ] Re: Meet The Fuckers [Eb ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V14 #121 [James Dignan ] Re: election stuff ["Matt Sewell" ] gmail query [Jeff ] Re: gmail query [Jason Brown ] Bob ["Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:07:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Brand Subject: memories Whoa, I just checked out www.thenomisong.com and I was transported back to 1983-84 right quick. Jill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:12:18 +0100 From: Dr John Halewood Subject: RE: election stuff Benjamin Lukoff [blukoff@alvord.com] apparantly scribbled: > And yeah, isn't it the BNP who are the real right-wing > nutters, not the UKIP? They're as bad as each other. The difference was quite well summed up as 'UKIP: the BNP in expensive suits'. UKIP generally try and hide the jackbooted skinhead thugs a bit better than the BNP do. Having seen what it's like to be on the receiving end of their threats and abuse I'm quite happy to see them repatriated back to whatever hole they crawled out of. cheers john ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:30:05 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Nomi! On May 10, 2005, at 11:09 PM, FSThomas wrote: > 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. > wtf? The magic that was Klaus lied at least halfway in the visual aspect! - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:36:04 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Reap: Carnivale http://www.darkhorizons.com/index.php ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:10:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: election stuff On Tue, 10 May 2005, Jeff wrote: > 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. No, of course not. But opposition would be immense to a tax code without deductions. > > 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* That is quite true. I'm no anarchist! :) > 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. I don't know about that last. The government says you can't drive 100 mph down Main Street because if you did you would be likely to directly injure others. (And so they should.) I *don't* think the government should be able to say I can't smoke pot, because doing so, if it injures anyone, only injures me. Similarly, I *don't* think the government should be able to tell proprietors of bars they can't let their patrons smoke, because each and every person in a smoking establishment goes in knowing that they'll be exposed. One could make the argument that people *are* injured by the current capitalist system, but if anything it would be indirect harm, not direct harm--and it's also debatable whether that would be a better example of social order than the current system. > 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. It is unfortunate that someone can make millions while others starve, and I'm all for taxing the rich (and everyone else) so that starvation doesn't happen. I'm just wary of a tendency toward equality of *results* rather than equality under the law. > 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? Some would argue that an unfettered economy *is* a social value :) Really, though, who decides whose social values rule? > > > 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? Much better put. Let's not bring vandals into this discussion. Certainly there should be no starvation or homelessness. I still don't think that necessarily calls for income caps. > *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? Is it that wealth generation that CAUSES the social harm, or is it something else? > > > 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 wonder why? > 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 Their forebears'. > those folks, or a waiter? Is there really a correspondence in the US One of those folks might *be* a waiter...OK, maybe not a waiter, but there are plenty of people (like me) who have inherited some wealth from their parents but still work every day. I will admit I don't work as hard as a waiter, but I certainly work harder than some other non-heirs out there. > between how hard one works and how much fruit one reaps? Not a perfect one, no. > > 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. Yes, but I'm talking about a monthly coupon that would allow you a measure of rice, a measure of butter, some meat, vegetables, etc. A housing allowance. I don't want my life to be *that* controlled. To be honest, I don't trust the government that far. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:10:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: election stuff I wonder if I were actually a Briton whether I wouldn't be voting Conservative, then. On Wed, 11 May 2005, Matt Sewell wrote: > 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 12:37:24 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Meet The Fuckers > 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. I just don't get people who don't like Corin's voice (and you're hardly the first). It seems to me like rejecting her voice is a fundamental rejection of rock 'n' roll principles. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:12:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Meet The Fuckers Eb wrote: > I just don't get people who don't like Corin's voice (and > you're hardly the first). It seems to me like rejecting > her voice is a fundamental > rejection of rock 'n' roll principles. Yodelling is a fundamental rock'n'roll principle? "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:26:39 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Signs of the apocalypse, pt. 234 NEW YORK (AP) -- Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page, jamming in the midst of the suit-and-tie executives of Warner Music Group Corp., helped ring the opening bell on the New York Stock Exchange Wednesday as the music publisher celebrated its initial public stock offering. [clip] Page played ''Whole Lotta Love'' for the traders and guests assembled at the stock exchange np: Matmos ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:27:10 -0700 (PDT) From: John Barrington Jones Subject: We're never gonna survive Unless we get a little bit k-r-r-rrrazy... http://www.itv.com/news/entertainment_298394.html So, Kansan was Seal all along, eh? "And I would've gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!" =jbj= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 15:34:46 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Meet The Fuckers On 5/11/05, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > Eb wrote: > > I just don't get people who don't like Corin's voice (and > > you're hardly the first). It seems to me like rejecting > > her voice is a fundamental > > rejection of rock 'n' roll principles. > > Yodelling is a fundamental rock'n'roll principle? I'm not sure who said it, but there's a woman recorded on a Robert Fripp album who states, "Rock'n'roll is about fucking." Fundamental principles indeed. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:48:54 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Meet The Fuckers > I'm not sure who said it, but there's a woman recorded on a Robert > Fripp album who states, "Rock'n'roll is about fucking." > Always assumed it was Sara Lee. I also recall some bit about how one should "feel rock 'n' roll in your pelvis." Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 16:50:05 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V14 #121 >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... Ah, yes, the good old Veritas party. Did they get more than 10 votes in any electorate, I wonder? 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, 12 May 2005 10:27:41 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: election stuff Actually there's not much between the Tories and any of the other organisations for right-wing nutters. One only needs to look at the likes of Tebbit or Thatcher or these days, John Redwood or Anne Widdicombe...CheersMatt >From: Benjamin Lukoff > >I wonder if I were actually a Briton whether I wouldn't be voting >Conservative, then. > >On Wed, 11 May 2005, Matt Sewell wrote: > > > 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 10:19:46 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: gmail query Any other gmail users notice that it's been very s-l-o-w the past three, four days? It's just crawling over here - the rest of the internets seems to work fine for me, though... - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 08:26:06 -0700 From: Jason Brown Subject: Re: gmail query On 5/12/05, Jeff wrote: > Any other gmail users notice that it's been very s-l-o-w the past > three, four days? It's just crawling over here - the rest of the > internets seems to work fine for me, though... It's been working just fine for me the last few days. I have had slow periods in the past but usually clearing out my Internet Explorer cache files speeds it up. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 09:09:15 -0700 From: "Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus" Subject: Bob anybody catch robert plant on *Charlie Rose* last night? i'd never, to my recollection, seen him interviewed before -- certainly not at length like this. he was surprisingly eloquent (don't know why it'd be a surprise -- i guess i just don't expect eloquence from rock stars), and ever-so pensive ...not to mention rather leftist. had heard both good and lukewarm things about the new rekkid. but i'm now rather excited to get my ears on it. that is all. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #122 ********************************