From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V15 #130 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, June 8 2006 Volume 15 : Number 130 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: fegmaniax-digest V15 #128 ["Dane Horsfeld" ] Re: My name is "Eb," and I'm pummeling hell out of this rotting horse corpse [2fs ] resurrection of old thread (warning: no political content) [2fs ] Re: My name is "Eb": turn my fuck-crank [FSThomas ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 12:57:20 -0400 From: "Dane Horsfeld" Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V15 #128 > From: FSThomas > Really? I'm actually quite fond of the idea that if you're in the > country illegally then you should be bereft of Constitutional protections. Yeah, man! Kill kill kill! Fair trial, what's that? Or are you gonna have a trial to find out whether a guy deserves a fair trial? That's fucking with my head. > "To ourselves and our Posterity." Not "To ourselves and anyone else > who's found themselves within our borders." Dude, where the fuck did you go to school?? Were your teachers like, the Constitution is g reat because it says Americans get shit nobody else does? Woohoo, Christmas morning for us! Cause I always learned the point was the Constitution said what everybody else should have been doing all along. We got it right... not right for America, but right for everyone. I mean, that's kind of bullshit, because we aren't all that special, but that was still the idea. Otherwise, are you going to be like, "it's okay they killed people for being the wrong religion in the middle ages, because America didn't exist yet, so there wasn't anybody around who deserved freedom of religion.'??? It's just like that prisoner of war thing. Holy shit, dude. I always thought it was wrong when they tortured our guys because it was, you know fuckin WRONG! Oops, no, it's special if Americans do it. Too bad the Veitnamese weren't Americans, then they'd have the right to tortue as much as they want!! I bet they wish we'd won and taken them over now, because then they could torture someone, we'd torture them right back, it's all good. Every time I think about how I voted for Bush, I want to punch myselfi n the nuts. Dane ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 14:17:21 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: My name is "Eb," and I'm pummeling hell out of this rotting horse corpse On 6/8/06, FSThomas wrote: > > Capuchin wrote: > > > Get over it. Laws are not divine; they are the work of men and man was > > made, as they say, but of clay. What is right and what is wrong does > > not come from the law. > > We've got laws against pedophilia, too. If you fervently believed in > relations with pre-teens and were so convinced it was right, in your > eyes you're not breaking the law, either. So: you're saying that in all times, in all places, no matter what, the law should be obeyed - because no one (other than courts and legislatures, presumably) is qualified to judge the ethicality of the law? This leads to some contradictions...as in fact, courts (i.e., institutions of law) have held that individuals are *not* exempt from legal punishment when their excuse for their crime is that they were ordered to do it (i.e., following another law). Furthermore: In order for you to maintain consistently this position, either you must never have done any of the following, or have voluntarily turned yourself in to accept legal punishment for same: - - underage drinking - - underage use of cigarettes, chewing tobacco, etc. - - use of any illegal chemicals - - rolling through stop signs - - turning without signalling - - speeding - - unmarried sex in states which still have laws against same - - non- missionary-position sex in states which still have laws against same - - non-payment of taxes on any cash income, no matter how small - - non-payment of sales tax (if your state has state sales tax, and if its tax laws so require) on non-taxed, out-of-state purchases on items that are taxable in-state, such as online purchases There are probably more - but these are the most commonly broken laws I can come up with at the moment. The first requirement in maintaining a moral hardline is to apply it to oneself, or acknowledge one's shortcomings thereto. Otherwise - well, hypocrisy is easy. Merely pointing at the law, as if it was handed down to Moses, is certainly easy. But it's also pretty much impossible, as inevitably, laws (and moral strictures) will come into conflict with one another. I'd say being a responsible citizen means understanding that sometimes one has to make a decision - hopefully not just on personal convenience but on some sort of ethical code. And sometimes that ethical code will conflict with, and cause disobedience of, certain laws. I mean, this whole damned country (apologies to our non-US readers) was founded on lawbreaking! Or if it were the latter quarter of the 18th century, would you be one of those folks saying, well, we must obey the law? I'd feel more comfortable just disagreeing with your position if it didn't seem to rest so heavily on "the law is the law" - if instead you were making substantive arguments on why undocumented aliens should be deported, or jailed, or forced to watch Carrot-Top routines, or whatever punishment you have in mind. (Oh - and I don't think you've addressed the question someone put about Bush's "signing statements": his belief that as President he can unilaterally decide whether laws are constitutional or not. That's a curious position for a non-dictator to take, woudln't you say?) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 14:20:37 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: In honor of today... On 6/8/06, Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: > > > There was a sort of turntablist/sound-ops guy briefly in my band; he'd > bought an L7 picture-disc because he liked how the spindle poked through > the > girl's crotch when you put it on the player. Yes, there are all kinds of reasons people make music purchases. And note: this is the kind of purchasing decision that digital filesharing makes impossible. Now you understand the RIAA's position. Vinyl beats digital media for ersatz format-abuse fun any day. A lock > groove? Hilarious. A final track that 40 minutes long, consiting of a 3 > minute song, 37 minutes of silence and then a belch? Annoying. It seems like there ought to be some way to futz with the programming of a CD to make it essentially simulate a lockgroove. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 14:24:19 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V15 #128 On 6/8/06, Dane Horsfeld wrote: > > It's just like that prisoner of war thing. Holy shit, dude. I always > thought it was wrong when they tortured our guys because i was, > you know fuckin WRONG! Oops, no, it's special if Americans do > it. Too bad the Veitnamese weren't Americans, then they'd have the > right to tortue as much as they want!! I bet they wish we'd won and > taken them over now, because then they could torture someone, > we'd torture them right back, it's all good. There's a Supreme Court seat waiting for you, guy. Every time I think about how I voted for Bush, I want to punch > myselfi n the nuts. Ah, don't feel so bad. Just say you lived in Ohio and voted for Kerry. Same dif. (Note: it is a longstanding tradition of mine that if I notice an amusing typo, I must make a joke about it. So: I lay claim to the band name "Myselfi 'n the Nuts." They're from Iceland.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 14:56:21 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: resurrection of old thread (warning: no political content) Another possible contender for the "long-lived band" crown (although not with only original members) - Crazy Horse? (I'm thinking of the Talbot/Molina/Sampedro combo...) Haven't they been together - more or less - for about 30 years now? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 12:56:53 -0700 From: "Stacked Crooked" Subject: Re: My name is "Eb": turn my fuck-crank <> well, clearly you haven't read the volcker commission's findings. but what you say here does have a kernal of truth: russia and france were opposed to the invasion not out of humanitarian concerns, but because they had large stakes in the iraqi oil sector, and didn't want to see the u.s. pushing them out of the way. i was, honest to god, just trying to say that your statement concerning the "rule of law" was fairly hypocritical, without it turning into this whole big discussion. and i only chose this particular example because i happened to know your position regarding it. i would be interested to know, in fact, your position regarding gee-dub's lawless ways generally. (see , for example.) so i'll re-state: on one hand, you're insistent that people must work within the law, however fucked up the law may be (or may be perceived to be); on the other, you're insistent that the law doesn't apply, and are happy to produce all sorts of rationalisations for the apparent contradiction -- even if they're not true, and even though it doesn't change the fact of the contradiction. my own opinion? we don't need the UN charter, or the geneva conventions, or the nuremberg principles, to determine whether history's greatest military power ought to invade and occupy a defenseless nation and mercilessly slaughter scores of thousands of its citizens, while permanently damning its ecosystem, and re-writing its economic system, and razing whole cities to the ground. we know perfectly well that the strong ought not to terrorise the weak. but so long as the powerful deem it in their interests to ignore any semblance of humanity in their relations with others, then... ...international law is largely a sham. you forgot, by the way, yugoslavia, panama, nicaragua, libya, cambodia and laos, cuba, haiti, et al. some of these "actions" surely fall short of the category of "aggression" and rather should be classified as "state terrorism". for what it's worth. and "police action" is an interesting euphemism, given the current discussion, isn't it? maybe "LAPD action" would be more apt. but "mafia action" or "schoolyard bully action" probably fit better. yes, you had already demonstrated as much. i can grudgingly respect those with enough honesty to say that that's how they believe the game *ought* to be played. but why, then, do you concoct all sorts of crazy stories in attempt to illustrate that u.s. foreign policies are somehow morally justified? i mean, even if you *believe* the stories -- and i have the sense that you probably do -- what difference does it make if you think we should just do whatever we feel like doing anyway? you're not making sense, man. <> i don't know what time-period iraq you're talking about. if 2003, then, obviously, the ongoing humanitarian disaster could have been ended by lifting the sanctions. if you're talking march '91 iraq, then the ongoing humanitarian disaster could have been *prevented* by the u.s. not allowing saddam free rein to crush the rebellion. (as an aside, in the late-'90s i attended a lecture by an iraqi eyewitness to the events, and he says that not only did the u.s. not lift a finger to prevent the crushing of the rebellion, but that it actually *aided* in it. that's the only time i've ever come across that charge, so, maybe he was just making it up. but he seemed believable to me.) if you're talking gassing-the-kurds period iraq, then the ongoing humanitarian disaster could have been ended/prevented if the u.s. had not been supplying saddam with weapons and political support. if you're talking iran-iraq-war period, then, similarly, a weapons embargo - -- rather than rabid support -- would've been appropriate. and it's not only iraq, of course. the u.s. is the world's pre-eminent arms dealer, and arms flows to repressive regimes have markedly increased (not that they were small to begin with) since 9/11. do we need to invade israel to greatly mitigate the ongoing humanitarian disaster in the occupied territories? no, we only need to stop providing it with military hardware. do we need to invade colombia -- the western hemisphere's most repressive regime -- to greatly mitigate the ongoing humanitarian disaster for the colombian peasantry? no, we only need to stop providing the state with military hardware. <> one could equally well say that when you had tom delay riding herd over the house voting process, that there wasn't any chance of passing precious legislation that he didn't want passed. when it comes to immigration, your answer is: if we don't follow the process, we have anarchy. when it comes to wars of agression, your answer is: might makes right. so again i say: you're not making sense, man. also, remember that china was going to veto as well. and that blair had insisted that if a resolution passed, that the "coalition of the willing" would ignore an "unreasonable veto" -- but the resolution was pulled because it was clear that it would not have even received a majority vote. and note that i wasn't referring to 90% of national *governments*, but to 90% (give or take) or the world's people. in fact, the *populations* in "new europe" were even more in opposition than were the populations of "old europe". and the populations of those countries in the region were more opposed still. the iraqis themselves were never asked. owing mostly, don't forget, to soviet and american meddling. is that how you propose to make a miserable place better: bombing it down, including with cluster bombs and radiological munitions? then throwing support behind the warlords, and the previous rulers of kabul (you know, the one that was so repressive that the taliban were actually welcomed when they took over kabul)? the united states not only *co-operates* with and harbors known terrorists, it actively *trains* them, and carries out many terror operations itself (not to mention operations that cross the line from terrorism to aggression). does that mean removal of the bush administration would be the right thing to do on humanitarian grounds? probably, yes. but do you want the martians (or whoever's powerful enough) to come down and blow the country to smithereens to get the bush administration off the rest of the world's back? he *tried* to -- but the inspectors were able to put enough pressure on him that he gave up the game in the early-'90s by destroying all of his remaining WMD. the u.s., on the other hand, was in obvious violation of UN 687, which mandated iraqi disarmament in the context of *region-wide* disarmament -- yet the united states continued to pour weapons into the region throughout the '90s. only very, very infrequently. see , for example. also scott ritter's new book -- which, even to a cynical pinko like myself, who's followed the issue very closely for a decade, was quite an eye-opener. and only then because, he said, the u.s. was using UNSCOM as a cover for spying. the u.s. denied the charge, withdrew the inspectors, and bombed. but the charge was later proven true. the no-fly zones were themselves illegal. only very marginally true, according to the volcker commission. but oil for food itself was a crock of shit, not only because saddam had already destroyed all his weapons; but also because in placing "holds" on so-called "dual-use" items, the u.s. (and the british, mustn't forget the british) prevented resuscitation of the iraqi oil sector to even the point where it could *meet the quotas*. nobody ever said he shouldn't have been removed. the question was, *by whom*, and *with what methods*. given its track record, the one thing we that was known with *absolute certainty* is that it should not have been via a u.s. military invasion. this is the key point, really -- though it's buried in the middle of a long post. i'd be pretty surprised if we were still there two years from now. unless the draft were reinstated. but, five or ten years from now? no chance. industrial society will be in full-on collapse by early in the next decade, if not sooner. katrina (or possibly the northeast blackout) was the kickoff event, and it's all downhill from here. pretty good news for those with the u.s. military boot currently stomping down on their necks (unless, of course, god "instructs" dubya to go postal on the world's ass and let loose with all the nukes before the fact of their existence becomes moot). wait, so you don't take international law into account, but saddam must bow to the diktats of u.s. and UN "policy" (and even when he *does* so, we're to claim that he hasn't)? and "irascibility" is grounds for "regime change" these days? in 2003? a lot of people were saying it (and had been saying it for many years), with the caveat that *very small* stocks might have survived -- but that even those would've passed their shelf-life. but, that's why UNMOVIC was sent in: to determine, with certainty, the status of his WMD programmes. elbaradei had already said that there was no evidence of any sort of nuclear programme or facilities -- and anyway, it was known that he had no missiles with which to deliver the fantasy-nukes. blix wanted a few more months to determine the final status of saddam's programmes -- and wasn't given those few more months. do we really need to ask why not? do we really need to ask why, after colin powell was laughed out of the building, bush and blair *never once* (correct me if i'm wrong) attempted to give even the slightest shred of evidence to back their matter-of-fact claims that saddam had not "disarmed" -- even while the inspectors were saying more less the opposite? < (Hussein stopped admitting the inspectors and never *really* accommodated them in the first place).> not true, as mentioned above. in other words, philosopher-emperor-king george w., having been "instructed" by god to "strike at saddam" could not trust the stoopid proles with the realities of the situation because, well, that might throw a wrench into his/god's plans. well, don't you think you'd *better* know before signing off on slaughtering several tens of thousands of people, and before consenting to pay your taxes again? would you want *others* to absolutely certain if the shoe were on the other foot? while we were supporting him, yes. and what is it that sets iran apart? and venezuela? i stand corrected. but, clearly, the UN charter was not in contradicition with the u.s. constitution with regards to this matter. you mean, kind of like bush and blair withheld judgement on iraq's WMD status until after the inspections were complete? anyhow: . the last i heard, out of something like 200 cells, four are comprised of non-iraqis. so that's highly doubtful. i mean, if you have raw numbers, and citations, that would certainly be helpful. whether the homegrown resistance is *today* killing far more civilians that the "coalition" is impossible to know, as there are essentially not any reporters outside of the "green zone". it's been reported by seymour hersh and dahr jamail that the u.s. is bombing willy-nilly right now. but, again, we just don't know (although, again, considering our track record, it's more likely than not that they're correct). total killed *since the invasion began* isn't even remotely a contest, as we know from the johns hopkins study. but, remember, to the extent that it *is* true, it's, obviously, a result of the invasion/occupation; and, obviously, a *major* indictment of the occupation's ability (many iraqis have said of its *willingness*) to maintain law and order. don't look now, but . <> ferris, do you even *read* this stuff before cutting-and-pasting from limbaugh's website (or wherever it is you get your talking points from)? i don't think even rumsfeld or mcclellan would make such a claim -- but would instead blame the problems on the "ba'athist dead-enders". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:14:21 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: resurrection of old thread (warning: no political content) 2fs wrote: > Another possible contender for the "long-lived band" crown > (although not > with only original members) - Crazy Horse? (I'm thinking of the > Talbot/Molina/Sampedro combo...) Haven't they been together - more > or less - > for about 30 years now? It's not my field of expertise at all, but are any of those old doo- wop groups still performing with all their original members? Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:22:27 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: resurrection of old thread (warning: no political content) Jeff wrote: >Another possible contender for the "long-lived band" crown (although not >with only original members) - Crazy Horse? (I'm thinking of the >Talbot/Molina/Sampedro combo...) Haven't they been together - more or less - >for about 30 years now? I make it about 31 years. Zuma came out in 1975, wasn't Sampedro on Zuma? Michael B. NP Wes Montgomery - Smokin' At The Half Note ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:39:37 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: My name is "Eb": turn my fuck-crank On 6/8/06, Stacked Crooked wrote: > > > > and UN policy as grounds for invasion instead of touting the old WMDs?> > > level of certainty that they *didn't* exist> > > in 2003? a lot of people were saying it (and had been saying it for many > years), with the caveat that *very small* stocks might have survived -- > but > that even those would've passed their shelf-life. but, that's why UNMOVIC > was sent in: to determine, with certainty, the status of his WMD > programmes. elbaradei had already said that there was no evidence of any > sort of nuclear programme or facilities -- and anyway, it was known that > he > had no missiles with which to deliver the fantasy-nukes. blix wanted a > few > more months to determine the final status of saddam's programmes -- and > wasn't given those few more months. do we really need to ask why not? do > we really need to ask why, after colin powell was laughed out of the > building, bush and blair *never once* (correct me if i'm wrong) attempted > to give even the slightest shred of evidence to back their matter-of-fact > claims that saddam had not "disarmed" -- even while the inspectors were > saying more less the opposite? Here's a little story, while we're talking about WMDs: I saw a bumper sticker on a car today that said US MARINES: AMERICA'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Interesting concept. The obvious point is that the sticker endorses a might-makes-right position: "WMDs" are evil in others' hands, but in America's? Only to be cheered. It's also interesting that the sticker (inadvertently) makes a mockery of the supposed WMD justification - since, if we take it literally, we had "WMDs" aplenty. But that's not a problem. The sticker, then, expresses the most common attitude of the war-promoters: fuck the law, fuck everybody - we're America and we can do whatever the fuck we want. Why? Because we're America. No idea whether this bumper sticker is endorsed by the actual Marine Corps...but it says something about the attitude of (at least this particular, presumed member of) the Marines themselves. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 17:01:04 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: My name is "Eb": turn my fuck-crank 2fs wrote: > Interesting concept. The obvious point is that the sticker endorses a > might-makes-right position: "WMDs" are evil in others' hands, but in > America's? Only to be cheered. Question: Do you think that the Middle East (or the world, for that matter) is a better place with a nuclear Iran in it? If so, how, and if not, what would you be willing to do to prevent it? - -- FS Thomas | Interactive Developer | fsthomas-at-ochremedia.com 404.758.8616 (home/office) | 404.274.1632 (mobile) | ferraatu (AIM) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:14:02 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: My name is "Eb": turn my fuck-crank On 6/8/06, FSThomas wrote: > > > Question: Do you think that the Middle East (or the world, for that > matter) is a better place with a nuclear Iran in it? I think the world is a worse place with any nukes in it. But there are nukes. That can't be changed. If so, how, and if not, what would you be willing to do to prevent it? Well, I certainly wouldn't encourage it by threatening to invade - thereby making Iran feel endangered, thereby making them feel they need to do more to be able to defend themselves. I mean, we invaded Iraq, which had no nukes - - and not North Korea, which did. What lesson would you draw if you were Iran? Point is, I don't think we *can* prevent Iran (or anyone else) from developing nukes. The information and technology and materials are out there. What we can do is act more in line with ways that will make it less likely that nations will feel compelled to develop nukes, or use them. And actually speculating out loud about the possiblity of using nukes ourselves (what, do these folks think Iran doesn't read the papers?) sure as hell isn't helping. Not to mention being utterly beyond the pale ethically. I think it's funny (not ha-ha funny though) that given the decades of right-wing calumny against the left as being amoral that it's the right that's truly eschewing any sort of morality here...while the left is, even if inconsistently and even if one disagrees with the positions taken, frequently making moral arguments. Rumsfeld and co. seem only to understand the imperative to make America the unchallenged power of the world. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V15 #130 ********************************