From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #138 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, June 3 2005 Volume 14 : Number 138 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: The Hurleygraph/campaign good despite the rock stars ["Matt Sewell" <] Pres Bush shat on from great height [great white shark ] Re: friendly dog story redux [FSThomas ] reap [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: friendly dog story redux [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: The Hurleygraph/campaign good despite the rock stars [Benjamin Lukoff] Chicago reaps ["Michael Wells" ] Re: friendly dog story redux [FSThomas ] Re: Robyn sighting [Tom Clark ] Re: friendly dog story redux [Jeff ] Re: friendly dog story redux [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: friendly dog story redux [Jeff ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Jeff ] Re: friendly dog story redux [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: The Hurleygraph/campaign good despite the rock stars > > As for "Poverty won't be ended until humans stop being humans and cease > > being assholes to each other" - isn't it great to be in such a > > comfortable position that you can be so glib? > >Yes, it is! But do you really dispute the statement? Of course I fucking do - are you an asshole to other people? Especially the poor? I'm not - though I accept that living in the developed world engenders hypocrisy that seems at times unsurmountable. But to shrug and say it's human nature to fuck each other over is just utterly pathetic. I don't believe I'm much of an optimist at all, but I do believe in the basic goodness of humanity, seeing it as I do in the many tiny actions of people around me. If you don't see it too then I can only say I pity you. CheersM >From: Benjamin Lukoff >To: Matt Sewell >CC: fegmaniax@smoe.org >Subject: Re: The Hurleygraph/campaign good despite the rock stars >Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 12:47:11 -0700 (PDT) > >On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Matt Sewell wrote: > > > The Telegraph is the most right-wing newspaper we have - obsessed with > > promoting free market economics and Liz Hurley. Used to have a good > > reputation but this is long since no longer the case. > >Bet you hate the Economist, too. > > > As for "Poverty won't be ended until humans stop being humans and cease > > being assholes to each other" - isn't it great to be in such a > > comfortable position that you can be so glib? > >Yes, it is! But do you really dispute the statement? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 17:09:23 +0930 From: great white shark Subject: Pres Bush shat on from great height whilst we gripe about shitty right wing media ( and we have lots of our own right wing media here folks, your'e not alone ) for a change heres some leftish wing stuff- from a US-oztralian perspective, which I guess you folks don't get very often heres a link to a radio program from oz featuring the editor of harpers, lewis lapham - recorded at the sydney writers festival, lots of talk about the parlous state of US literature, how the vile president shrub stole the 2004 election, the right wing dominance of the administration by born again christians and a lot more. go here, http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lnl/ and chose the may 31st broadcast theres also bruce shapiro comment ( from salon .com) and other stuff on this site as well as some interesting live music broadcasts from oz on dig and radio national , all free you need windows media player or real player or podcast or mp3 software . enjoy commander l ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 09:36:58 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: friendly dog story redux Remember when I posted this last year? "Toronto - [Stanson] ... with five guns and more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition set himself up beside a Beaches water plant yesterday planning to commit mass homicide. But a dog's affection apparently persuaded him not to go through with his plan." Well, it seems it was a ruse. Stanson just wanted to go to jail so he could jump the queue on heart surgery: cheers, Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 12:17:27 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: friendly dog story redux Stewart C. Russell wrote: > Remember when I posted this last year? > > "Toronto - [Stanson] ... with five guns and more than 6,000 rounds of > ammunition set himself up beside a Beaches water plant yesterday > planning to commit mass homicide. But a dog's affection apparently > persuaded him not to go through with his plan." > > Well, it seems it was a ruse. Stanson just wanted to go to jail so he > could jump the queue on heart surgery: > Ok, kids. Show of hands again for who's pro-socialized medicine? An extreme case, to be sure, but indicative of the problems inherent in the system. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:15:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: reap George Mikan "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:44:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, great white shark wrote: > of talk about the parlous state of US literature, how the vile > president shrub stole the 2004 election, the right wing dominance of Bush stole the 2000 *and* the 2004 election? I thought he just stole the first one. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:45:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: friendly dog story redux On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, FSThomas wrote: > Ok, kids. Show of hands again for who's pro-socialized medicine? > > An extreme case, to be sure, but indicative of the problems inherent in > the system. I know people who have committed crimes in order to go to jail and get medical treatment in the USA. And do you know, there are waiting lists here, too... it's just that there aren't as many people on them because few can afford to get the treatment they need or won't get on the list because their insurance won't commit to paying. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:46:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: friendly dog story redux On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, FSThomas wrote: > Stewart C. Russell wrote: > > > Well, it seems it was a ruse. Stanson just wanted to go to jail so he > > could jump the queue on heart surgery: > > > > Ok, kids. Show of hands again for who's pro-socialized medicine? > An extreme case, to be sure, but indicative of the problems inherent in > the system. Now, why exactly did going to jail allow him to jump the queue? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: The Hurleygraph/campaign good despite the rock stars On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Matt Sewell wrote: > > > As for "Poverty won't be ended until humans stop being humans and > cease > > > being assholes to each other" - isn't it great to be in such a > > > comfortable position that you can be so glib? > > > >Yes, it is! But do you really dispute the statement? > > Of course I fucking do - are you an asshole to other people? Especially I try not to be. I'm talking about humanity in general, though. > the poor? I'm not - though I accept that living in the developed world > engenders hypocrisy that seems at times unsurmountable. But to shrug and > say it's human nature to fuck each other over is just utterly pathetic. I If you say so. I say it's an integral part of human nature. It's not the ONLY part of human nature, but... > don't believe I'm much of an optimist at all, but I do believe in the > basic goodness of humanity, seeing it as I do in the many tiny actions > of people around me. If you don't see it too then I can only say I pity > you. CheersM Don't waste your pity on me! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 13:55:36 -0500 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: Chicago reaps Three recent ones all bunched together. Don't know about the national news, but all were noted here: Former White Sox player and the first MLB All-Star from Venezuela, Chico Carrasquel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chico_Carrasquel Morton's Steakhouse namesake and general wacky-idea mill Arnie Morton (one of the creators of Chicagofest, which became Taste of Chicago): http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/local/11770112.htm Jazz musician, playwright, and activist Oscar Brown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Brown%2C_Jr. MW ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:54:18 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: friendly dog story redux Capuchin wrote: > I know people who have committed crimes in order to go to jail and get > medical treatment in the USA. Therefore shoving not only the costs of their medical treatments onto the taxpayer at large, but their room, board, and security as well. Lovely folks. > And do you know, there are waiting lists here, too... it's just that > there aren't as many people on them because few can afford to get the > treatment they need or won't get on the list because their insurance > won't commit to paying. Then I would submit, "get better insurance." When Johnny Public makes poor decisions in his life, leading him to his current situation*, why should the burden to pay for *anything* automatically be shifted squarely onto the shoulders of the public at large? JP should take responsibility for his actions. If he's between a rock and hard place then I would say that such a situation is (one in a long list of) the reason there are charitable organizations. Turn to the Church, a charitable foundation, anything. Just don't go knock over a liquor store to get patched up. - -f. * Not getting an adequate enough education to get an adequate enough job that provides adequate enough insurance. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 13:30:01 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Robyn sighting On May 31, 2005, at 11:45 PM, Marc Holden wrote: > I don't remember this one being mentioned, but the most recent > Minus 5 EP "At the Organ" has a video of the song The Town that > Lost Its Groove Supply. I finally got around to watching it (I'd > listened to the EP months ago), and was surprised to see Robyn > introduce the video. It's only a few seconds, but worth sticking in > the computer if you have the CD handy, Marc > I downloaded the ep from eMusic, so no video for me. :( - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:31:01 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: friendly dog story redux On 6/2/05, FSThomas wrote: > > And do you know, there are waiting lists here, too... it's just that > > there aren't as many people on them because few can afford to get the > > treatment they need or won't get on the list because their insurance > > won't commit to paying. > > Then I would submit, "get better insurance." Like that's a simple matter... Maybe in your friction-free world, fidning the ideal job with the ideal insurance is easy, even if you have to uproot your family to do it. > When Johnny Public makes poor decisions in his life, leading him to his > current situation*, why should the burden to pay for *anything* > automatically be shifted squarely onto the shoulders of the public at > large? JP should take responsibility for his actions. If he's between > a rock and hard place then I would say that such a situation is (one in > a long list of) the reason there are charitable organizations. Turn to > the Church, a charitable foundation, anything. Just don't go knock over > a liquor store to get patched up. > > -f. > > * Not getting an adequate enough education to get an adequate enough job > that provides adequate enough insurance. I teach college at an urban university - that is, it's not terribly exclusive, and I see a lot of first-time (for their family) college students who come in from poor schools. When you talk with many of them, it's clear they're quite intelligent. But because their educations are so poor, it's equally clear that they will struggle to succeed in college, if they make it at all. You act as if it's always a matter of free choice to get an adequate education; it isn't. First of all, you may recall that most of people's education happens when they are minors: i.e., it's not in their control. You may blame parents' poor decisions for the childrens' poor education if you wish - - but you certainly can't blame the children, since legally they have no choice. I also get some of the stupider leavings from the wealthier classes in my classrooms. They've learned enough of the game to get by - barely, which is why they're at UWM and not even at Madison - but they'll still have an easier go of it than the poorer, smarter, harder-working student. I could have condensed the entire above reply to a common two-word barnyard imperative, because the attitude that people can blithely sail above their situations and the rest of us should just sit like a warm fart and tut-tut at them irritates me mightily. As for shifting the burden to the public: so, drop any and all assistance, and you can be sure that a bunch of those folks will decide that robbing liquor stores is a smarter career move than working at McDonald's - and thus the burden shifts to the public regardless. We, and they, *ARE* the fucking public: there's no escaping the "burden" of the fact that people are alive. We can bear that burden productively and intelligently, or we can be dumb-asses and pretend it's all "them" out their who have the problems. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 17:03:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: friendly dog story redux On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: > I teach college at an urban university - that is, it's not terribly > exclusive, and I see a lot of first-time (for their family) college > students who come in from poor schools. When you talk with many of > them, it's clear they're quite intelligent. But because their > educations are so poor, it's equally clear that they will struggle to > succeed in college, if they make it at all. You act as if it's always > a matter of free choice to get an adequate education; it isn't. First > of all, you may recall that most of people's education happens when > they are minors: i.e., it's not in their control. You may blame > parents' poor decisions for the childrens' poor education if you wish > - but you certainly can't blame the children, since legally they have > no choice. I agree with you here, mostly. My question is why more isn't being done to improve these kids' education when they're young, rather than trying to deal with the situation once they're in college? > I could have condensed the entire above reply to a common two-word > barnyard imperative, because the attitude that people can blithely > sail above their situations and the rest of us should just sit like a > warm fart and tut-tut at them irritates me mightily. Good thing you didn't, though... > As for shifting the burden to the public: so, drop any and all > assistance, and you can be sure that a bunch of those folks will > decide that robbing liquor stores is a smarter career move than > working at McDonald's - and thus the burden shifts to the public > regardless. Now, since risking death, injury, and imprisonment doesn't sound so hot to me, why IS it that that is regarded as a smarter career move than Mickey D's? Sure, that job sucks. But so does being in jail. My aunt works in a hotel and makes $20,000 a year or so (not sure what that works out to hourly, but it isn't a lot). This is Seattle. She manages to live comfortably. She has insurance and a retirement. I'm not sure she has beyond an eighth-grade education. It's not IMPOSSIBLE. > We, and they, *ARE* the fucking public: there's no escaping the > "burden" of the fact that people are alive. We can bear that burden > productively and intelligently, or we can be dumb-asses and pretend > it's all "them" out their who have the problems. > > > -- > > ...Jeff > > The Architectural Dance Society > http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 22:02:16 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: friendly dog story redux On 6/2/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: > > > I teach college at an urban university - that is, it's not terribly > > exclusive, and I see a lot of first-time (for their family) college > > students who come in from poor schools. When you talk with many of > > them, it's clear they're quite intelligent. But because their > > educations are so poor, it's equally clear that they will struggle to > > succeed in college, if they make it at all. You act as if it's always > > a matter of free choice to get an adequate education; it isn't. First > > of all, you may recall that most of people's education happens when > > they are minors: i.e., it's not in their control. You may blame > > parents' poor decisions for the childrens' poor education if you wish > > - but you certainly can't blame the children, since legally they have > > no choice. > > I agree with you here, mostly. My question is why more isn't being done to > improve these kids' education when they're young, rather than trying to > deal with the situation once they're in college? Hey, check it out - I'm agreeing with one of the conservative guys! (I think you actually called yourself "moderate" - at any rate...) But really: the problem is that too many people think doing anything to help those kids inadvertently helps their parents - and of course, their parents are irresponsible layabouts who shouldn't be helped, so to hell with the kids if only to damn the parents. We hate (other people's) kids, really. It's pretty obvious given our priorities, what with schools falling apart for lack of funding throughout the nation, and teachers being called "terrorists" by government officials. As to the rest of your response: true, it's not impossible. But it's damned difficult. It's also possible for the children of the wealthy to fuck up miserably and end up in jail or dead. But...it's difficult. As to "risking death, injury" etc.: are you unfamiliar with entrepreneurial risk? Gotta spend money, or whatever other capital you got, to make it. Sure, McDonald's is a sure, if dull, boring, and unfulfilling thing...the smarter & more ambitious among the poor realize it's a dead-end, and figure it's worth the risk to try something else. Some of them, in fact, succeed, don't get caught, and end up "respectable" and wealthy. Imagine that. Now they don't have to rob liquor stores: they can rob pension funds instead. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 22:43:16 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On 6/2/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, great white shark wrote: > > > of talk about the parlous state of US literature, how the vile > > president shrub stole the 2004 election, the right wing dominance of > > Bush stole the 2000 *and* the 2004 election? I thought he just stole the > first one. The evidence is not as, uh, conclusivary for 2004 - but still, quite suggestive. Here are links to several articles outlining some serious inconsistencies and other problems with the 2004 election - particularly in (yes) Ohio: Let's put it this way: even if you doubt that Bush & the Republicans stole the election, they (and not a few Dems) are unwilling to take clear and unambiguous action to ensure the integrity of elections - such as ensuring that *all* elections are verifiable via a paper trail. That fact, in itself, says volumes about the laxity of their dedication to electoral democracy. Oh, and earlier: On 5/31/05, FSThomas wrote: > It may not well very happen, but I doubt that the loss of the War would > fall on Mr. Geldof's shoulders. The problem is--and I doubt few in this > forum would agree with me--with a societal reliance on governmental > assistance. If one wants to solve the problem of poverty one needs to > start with a removal of government assistance and move rather to a > reinforcement on the ability of the individual. On a State and regional > level to reinforce personal responsibility. Until there is that, we're > all (the Royal all), doomed. (to which I replied) > What do you mean by "on a State and regional level to reinforce > personal responsibility"? That was a legitimate question, not a rhetorical one. I really am not sure how it can be logically possible for the state to reinforce personal responsibility and not thereby be involving itself in (what you define as) the properly personal. Isn't that "societal reliance on governmental assistance" - to which you're opposed? Just because it's a stick rather than a carrot doesn't mean it's not "reinforcing"... Oh - and as to holding Clinton responsible for whatever: yes, certainly...but it's less urgent, since he's not in charge. He did make some execrable decisions in office - by which I mean "as President" not "in the physical confines of the Oral Office." *Those* decisions are nobody's business but his and Hillary's (assuming consent, of course). - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 21:07:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: friendly dog story redux On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: > On 6/2/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > > I agree with you here, mostly. My question is why more isn't being done to > > improve these kids' education when they're young, rather than trying to > > deal with the situation once they're in college? > > Hey, check it out - I'm agreeing with one of the conservative guys! > (I think you actually called yourself "moderate" - at any rate...) But Yeah--at least in the U.S., I'm still a moderate. Who votes Democrat, occasionally Libertarian, and even less often Republican. > really: the problem is that too many people think doing anything to > help those kids inadvertently helps their parents - and of course, > their parents are irresponsible layabouts who shouldn't be helped, so > to hell with the kids if only to damn the parents. Is that really what people are thinking? For God's sake, I don't care whether it helps their parents or not. > got, to make it. Sure, McDonald's is a sure, if dull, boring, and > unfulfilling thing...the smarter & more ambitious among the poor realize > it's a dead-end, and figure it's worth the risk to try something else. > Some of them, in fact, succeed, don't get caught, and end up > "respectable" and wealthy. Imagine that. Now they don't have to rob > liquor stores: they can rob pension funds instead. Excellent point :) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 21:09:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: > Let's put it this way: even if you doubt that Bush & the Republicans > stole the election, they (and not a few Dems) are unwilling to take > clear and unambiguous action to ensure the integrity of elections - > such as ensuring that *all* elections are verifiable via a paper > trail. That fact, in itself, says volumes about the laxity of their > dedication to electoral democracy. You don't need to convince us residents of Western Washington about both major parties not caring enough to ensure trustworthy elections! > Oh - and as to holding Clinton responsible for whatever: yes, > certainly...but it's less urgent, since he's not in charge. He did > make some execrable decisions in office - by which I mean "as > President" not "in the physical confines of the Oral Office." *Those* > decisions are nobody's business but his and Hillary's (assuming > consent, of course). It should be pointed out that Clinton *did* lie under oath about his affair with Lewinsky, which is technically a crime. Of all the things Bush and his cronies have done, I don't know if any of them are technically criminal... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 23:47:26 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On 6/2/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > It should be pointed out that Clinton *did* lie under oath about his > affair with Lewinsky, which is technically a crime. Of all the things Bush > and his cronies have done, I don't know if any of them are technically > criminal... An excellent example of why "technically a crime" isn't a very good measure of much of anything. What the hell was a question about his sex life doing in an investigation into questionable real estate practices anyway? I mean, "technically" George Washington was a criminal - I'm pretty sure he broke a few colonial laws along the way there... - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 22:05:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: > On 6/2/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > It should be pointed out that Clinton *did* lie under oath about his > > affair with Lewinsky, which is technically a crime. Of all the things Bush > > and his cronies have done, I don't know if any of them are technically > > criminal... > > An excellent example of why "technically a crime" isn't a very good > measure of much of anything. Regardless, lying under oath isn't a brilliant idea. > What the hell was a question about his sex life doing in an > investigation into questionable real estate practices anyway? That's a good question! > I mean, "technically" George Washington was a criminal - I'm pretty > sure he broke a few colonial laws along the way there... Many would say he was a criminal for having owned slaves, but they are also probably in favor of reparations... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 09:21:05 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Would it be sad if there were no cones? MP3 link: http://tinyurl.com/18r GTO's - Wouldn't It Be Sad If There Were No Cones? - Pamela Des Barres and her 60's uber-groupies supergroup The GTOs wax accapella on their love-hate relationship with cones. via wfmu.org. Hrm. An odd song performed acapella, and discussing cones. Can it be? Is it possible? YES! Actual almost Robyn Hitchcock content! ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #138 ********************************