From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V15 #220 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, September 22 2006 Volume 15 : Number 220 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Fuck me, baby, I'm a trolley bus! ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: reap [Capuchin ] Re: reap [Capuchin ] Re: reap [Capuchin ] Re: Fuck me, baby, I'm a trolley bus! ["Gene Hopstetter Jr." ] Re: Ghastly ["Spotted Eagle Ray" ] Re: reap ["Spotted Eagle Ray" ] Re: reap [Christopher Gross ] RE: reap [Marcy Tanter ] Re: reap [Tom Clark ] reap [Eb ] RE: reap ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard ["Stacked Crooked" ] Re: reap [2fs ] Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard [FSThomas Subject: Re: Fuck me, baby, I'm a trolley bus! It wasn't in the mail this evening, I thought I wasn't going to get my copy today. At about 9 PM my downstairs neighbor, Greg, buzzed my door and told me that the mailman had mistakenly given him my mail. I'm only just listening now and I am really impressed. I am usually interested in hearing most anything Robyn records but as of late I have had mixed feelings about some of his songs. I think that this is strong material made better by him plugging back in and using a band. Max ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:44:01 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: reap - --On 22. September 2006 12:18:56 +1200 grutness@slingshot.co.nz wrote: > actually, the reports coming out suggest that this is an improvement to > the situation in Thailand. The Thaksin government was hardly a model of > democracy and was only in power due to an election which had been ruled > illegal by the Thai Constitutional Court. The only aspect I don't get is that if I'm not mistaken a new election was scheduled to take place just a few months from now. Why wouldn't they wait? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 01:46:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: reap On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, FSThomas wrote: > So instead of quelling/suppressing/negotiating an end to a rebellion in > the making it's better to just thrust the rebels into power with the > police power of the police/military? That doesn't quite make sense; > furthermore so with the bad rap fundamentalist Islam is (should be) > getting these days. This is hardly an Islamic coup. Painting it as such is not only ignorant, but what I might call "Crescent-baiting". See, turns out that a huge amount of the developed world is Mulsim. You like to point out that wherever you find a political struggle in a non-Christian nation, you find Muslims fighting. The point you're utterly ignoring is that every non-Christian nation in the developed world has a huge number of Muslim people and they are going to have an interested political wing (likely with some armed contingent) exactly like the Christian political interests in the USA (for example) have their armed contingents. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 01:47:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: reap On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, FSThomas wrote: > So instead of quelling/suppressing/negotiating an end to a rebellion in > the making it's better to just thrust the rebels into power with the > police power of the police/military? Isn't that what the USA did in Iraq? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 02:18:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: reap On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, FSThomas wrote: > True, though with the exception of Northern Ireland name a bloody > Christian/Catholic situation (within reason) in the past fifty years, > please. Branch Davidians don't count. Why do you need to make exceptions? And why limit our list to the last fifty years? I'll tell you why: For the last fifty years, there has been a growing movement of globalism that includes the exportation of white, Christian culture to the parts of the world where white Christians do not already dominate. The "global culture" is overrun by the dominant culture in the West -- white Christians. Since that culture is dominant, rather than being labelled as the aggressor, any opposition is labelled "rebellion" (or worse -- "terrorism" and the like). As the cultural dominator, this white, Christian culture is self-preserving. It cannot give credence or legitimacy to a competing religious view without also giving up its own dominant position. If a person wants to become a productive member of this global community, they must participate in white, Christian culture. They must either abandon their own culture or learn to pass: speak english, listen to pop music, watch Seinfeld, and buy Christmas presents. Otherwise, they are stigmatized socially and cannot ever achieve any level of equality. Exactly like we saw in the USA when blacks were more actively shunned in American culture, people who cannot or choose not to pass either become degraded and lose all self-worth or become self-righteous with nothing to lose and fight against the dominant culture -- often with violent results. When George Bush says, "They hate our freedom", he means, "They hate the liberties we take." When he says, "They want to destroy our way of life", he means, "They want diversity at every level of culture." > Gratuitous slam at a Religion? Muslims offer cheap shots at themselves > on a daily basis! Example: The Pope's quoted comments on Islam. > > "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will > find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the > sword the faith he preached." How many times have I heard Christians quote "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." with grins on their faces (and failing to understand all but the most facile interpretation of the meaning)? Have any of you guys seen this video game "Left Behind: Eternal Forces"? The Pope can stand up and decry Islam for being violent in nature because he is a white Christian and, therefore, has power to do that. Nobody who has power in our culture would ever stand up and say Christianity (as it is practiced by the majority of Christians) is violent in nature because they would be decrying themselves... and anybody else who says it is some kind of fringe character and dismissed. It's very easy to throw stones from the top of the mountain. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:34:42 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter Jr." Subject: Re: Fuck me, baby, I'm a trolley bus! > From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" > Subject: Fuck me, baby, I'm a trolley bus! > > Well, that's really quite a good record. My LP hasn't arrived yet. Doesn't matter, though; I just sold my turntable to raise money for a new, bigger, better one: . That's a lie. I'm really planning on buying a VPI Scout. I'll probably christen it with OT. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:32:07 EDT From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: another Maxell's show - solo ! 18 Maxwell's _Hoboken, NJ _ (http://www.maxwellsnj.com/) 19 Maxwell's b Solo _Hoboken, NJ _ (http://www.maxwellsnj.com/) _http://www.robynhitchcock.com/auditori.htm_ (http://www.robynhitchcock.com/auditori.htm) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:20:08 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: reap On 9/22/06, Capuchin wrote: > > > See, turns out that a huge amount of the developed world is Mulsim. > > You like to point out that wherever you find a political struggle in a > non-Christian nation, you find Muslims fighting. The point you're utterly > ignoring is that every non-Christian nation in the developed world has a > huge number of Muslim people and they are going to have an interested > political wing (likely with some armed contingent) exactly like the > Christian political interests in the USA (for example) have their armed > contingents. Which is kind of what I was getting at the other day: you can't just compare utterly different regions of the world, assume all other things are equal, and conclude that religion is what makes the difference. If a large part of the developing world were Christian instead of Muslim, they would in all likelihood be fighting exactly the same, over exactly the same limited amount of resources and with exactly the same collection of power-grabbing warlords, etc. You may have noticed: poverty-stricken nations tend not to be all that peaceful - whatever the dominant religion. ("Poverty-stricken" refers to the bulk of the populace, even if the nation has vast resource wealth, since that wealth is often controlled by an elite and the populace doesn't really see the benefit.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:37:10 -0700 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: Ghastly On 9/21/06, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > > > There's a bonus CD?! I guess Yep Roc were too cheap-ass to mail it to > Canada, 'cos I ordered mine good and early. > > I'm annoyed now. If you ordered online, you can probably download "Embryo Twirl" from the YepRoc site. The other two tunes are inessential live takes, but you should've gotten 'em. I would complain and see what they do for you. - -SER ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:43:30 -0700 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: reap On 9/21/06, 2fs wrote: > > > But really: I think the thing that bugged me most about those last couple > of > trolling posts is that usually, your disagreements with me are civil. > These > seemed not only more mean-spirited, but they forcibly put ideas in my > head, > words in my mouth, Surely you jest. Such things simply don't happen 'round here. - -Spotted Eagle Troll (POKING FUN AT HIMSELF AS WELL AS OTHERS) BRIGGS ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:04:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: reap > > See, turns out that a huge amount of the developed world is Mulsim. Typo for developING or UNdeveloped, I presume? > If a large part of the developing world were Christian instead of Muslim, > they would in all likelihood be fighting exactly the same, over exactly the Of course a lot of the developing world IS Christian. The vast majority of Central and South America is one example; the Democratic Republic of Congo is another. Another non-Muslim poor nation is Nepal, where the vast majority of the population is Hindu, Buddhists come in second, and Muslims are a small minority. I think the records of these countries show that Islam is probably not the determining factor in making developing countries unpleasant. Having said that, I do think that there's a certain violent jihadist strain *within* Islam that currently outclasses any Christian equivalent. But all that really means is that people in Christian countries are more likely to kill each other over ethnicity or political ideology than over religion. (I've long thought that the jihadist movement among Muslims is more analogous to nationalist movements in the West than to any modern religious movement. Just remember that it does not yet have the same broad support in its "nation" that certain Western nationalist movements had at their peak.) Other than that, I'm serenely ignoring this whole debate. - --Chris ps: When Eddie wondered if Chavez might be "the next Marcos," was I the only one who first thought Ferdinand rather than Subcomandante? ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:24:21 -0500 From: Marcy Tanter Subject: RE: reap Bush threatened to bomb Pakistan, says Musharraf Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Friday September 22, 2006 The Guardian Pakistan president, Pervez Musharraf The president of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf in Washington. Photograph: Charles Dharapak/AP The Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" after the September 11 attacks if the country did not cooperate with America's war on Afghanistan, it emerged yesterday. In an interview to be aired on CBS television this weekend Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf, said the threat was delivered by the assistant secretary of state, Richard Armitage, in conversations with Pakistan's intelligence director. "The intelligence director told me that (Mr Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age'," Gen Musharraf was quoted as saying. The revelation that the US used extreme pressure to secure Pakistan's cooperation in the war on terror arrived at a time of renewed unease in the US about its frontline ally. Article continues _____ Advertisement _____ Gen Musharraf told CBS he was stunned at the bluntness of the US approach in the aftermath of the attacks. "I think it was a very rude remark," he said. But he yielded to the request. Mr Armitage disputes the language used, CBS said, but he did not deny that Pakistan was put on notice to help America's war effort. Gen Musharraf told CBS he balked at some of the US demands such as turning over border posts and bases to US forces. Pakistan abandoned its support for the Taliban government in Kabul and allowed US overflights of Pakistan. In the past five years, Pakistan has deployed thousands of troops in the border areas with Afghanistan in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and has cooperated with US intelligence services. It has also arrested a number of al-Qaida figures, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged architect of the September 11 attacks. "One has to think and take actions in the interests of the nation, and that's what I did," the general told CBS. Other US demands, which Gen Musharraf described as "ludicrous" such as barring anti-US demonstrations, were also refused. "If somebody's expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views," he said. Gen Musharraf is to visit the White House today where discussions are expected to focus on his recent decision to pull Pakistani troops out of North Waziristan, ceding checkpoints to tribal militias. US officials fear the withdrawal will be viewed as a sign of weakness, and will allow the Taliban a safe haven at a time of increased attacks against Nato forces in the south of Afghanistan. [demime 0.97c-p1 removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of image001.gif] [demime 0.97c-p1 removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a name of image002.jpg] [demime 0.97c-p1 removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of image003.gif] [demime 0.97c-p1 removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of image004.gif] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:12:09 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: reap On Sep 22, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Marcy Tanter wrote: > The Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the > stone age" > after the September 11 attacks if the country did not cooperate with > America's war on Afghanistan, it emerged yesterday. "Back" to the stone age? Puhleeze. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:16:40 -0700 From: Eb Subject: reap Boz Burrell, one time of King Crimson and Bad Company. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:30:35 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: reap >"The intelligence director told me that (Mr Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to >be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age'," Gen Musharraf was >quoted as saying. The revelation that the US used extreme pressure to secure >Pakistan's cooperation in the war on terror arrived at a time of renewed >unease in the US about its frontline ally. It goes to show you that this sort of lack of imagination regarding diplomacy runs rampant in the Bush administration. Had they been treated as a true ally, maybe Bin Laden wouldn't have a safe haven in Pakistan now. I wonder if Bush ever took a diplomacy class at Yale? He certainly shows no evidence that he ever did, as he has the worse diplomatic skill set of any President this side of US Grant. Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:33:26 -0700 From: "Stacked Crooked" Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard <> what is? the reason the u.s. hasn't tried to rub him out since the aborted coup (or at least hasn't succeeded in doing)? most observers consider ahmadinejad to be insane -- is this what's saving *him* from being rubbed out? at any rate, chavez is roughly twice as popular in his country as bush is in his. does this make the whole of venezuela "arguably insane"? or, if there were to be a worldwide popularity poll between the two, the guess here is that chavez would pick up about 85% of the vote. does this mean the entire world is "arguably insane"? in fact, don't look now, but plenty of americans are "arguably insane" as well (from ): >>"We are afraid we won't be able to heat our building this winter, and someone told me about this guy," said Arthur Rena McDowell, a florist. "Somebody has got to make it better. It should start with our president, but it is starting with the president of Venezuela."<< plenty of "trouble" already *has* come from him -- much more that the u.s. has ever tolerated in the past. and not only him: pretty much the entire continent of south america is in open revolt of the "washington consensus". mexico appears to be teetering on the "brink" as well. and the bush administration is powerless to do anything about it (apart from a lot of bitching and moaning). you may claim that the u.s. *could* rub him out any time it wanted, but doesn't need to do so because chavez is "arguably insane" (i don't know what its motivation would be -- sympathy?) - -- but given the administration has never said anything of the sort, an observer can only conclude that the real reason is that it is unable to do so. <-- and I don't even mean directly to the US but to, say, a neighboring nation -- who gets the thank you card? Jimmy Carter, (equally arguably) the worst president since Harding.> the state department accepted the results as well (something it refused to do in, for example, ukraine); so you may as well blame bush. yes, and i suppose you'll argue -- as does everyone who's confronted with the fact of "social programmes" for the rich utterly dwarfing those for the poor -- that you "don't agree with" corporate welfare...and then go right back to denouncing social programmes for the poor. well then, why not do us all a favour, philospher ferris? to wit, rather than running your mouth incessantly, how about stepping up to the plate? will you voluntarily pay the unsubsidised price for a gallon of gas (estimated at about $10)? the unsubidised price for grain? will you pay out of your own pocket for the value of your "externalities"? or will you, as you have always done in the past, simply ignore your double-standards and hypocrisies as though they had never been brought up (thereby, in this case, allowing the rest of us to continue to subsidise your lifestyle); and then in a day or so go back to running your mouth? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:39:34 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: reap On Sep 22, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Eb wrote: > Boz Burrell, one time of King Crimson and Bad Company. Dude wore the coolest sheepskin coat ever when I saw Bad Company back in '77. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:52:20 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: reap On 9/22/06, Bachman, Michael wrote: > > > I wonder if Bush ever took a diplomacy class at Yale? He certainly shows > no evidence that > he ever did, as he has the worse diplomatic skill set of any President > this side of US Grant. I wonder if Bush ever *attended* any of his classes at Yale (home of the "Gentleman's C"). But perhaps I'm being too harsh. After all, he's a man with an ekuhlektik reading list - I mean, he's actually read three Shakespeares! (Too bad the reporter didn't ask him which ones, and for plot summaries...) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:54:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard My delete-key finger's been getting a great workout today! On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Stacked Crooked wrote: > < me is that he doesn't feel the need to hide behind a mask...or even to > refrain from riding in airplanes. that may be the signal indicator of the > bush administration's impotence.>> > > > > what is? the reason the u.s. hasn't tried to rub him out since the aborted > coup (or at least hasn't succeeded in doing)? most observers consider > ahmadinejad to be insane -- is this what's saving *him* from being rubbed > out? > > at any rate, chavez is roughly twice as popular in his country as bush is > in his. does this make the whole of venezuela "arguably insane"? or, if > there were to be a worldwide popularity poll between the two, the guess > here is that chavez would pick up about 85% of the vote. does this mean > the entire world is "arguably insane"? > > in fact, don't look now, but plenty of americans are "arguably insane" as > well (from ): > > >>"We are afraid we won't be able to heat our building this winter, and > someone told me about this guy," said Arthur Rena McDowell, a florist. > "Somebody has got to make it better. It should start with our president, > but it is starting with the president of Venezuela."<< > > > > > plenty of "trouble" already *has* come from him -- much more that the u.s. > has ever tolerated in the past. and not only him: pretty much the entire > continent of south america is in open revolt of the "washington consensus". > mexico appears to be teetering on the "brink" as well. > > and the bush administration is powerless to do anything about it (apart > from a lot of bitching and moaning). you may claim that the u.s. *could* > rub him out any time it wanted, but doesn't need to do so because chavez is > "arguably insane" (i don't know what its motivation would be -- sympathy?) > -- but given the administration has never said anything of the sort, an > observer can only conclude that the real reason is that it is unable to do > so. > > > <-- and I don't even mean directly to the US but to, say, a neighboring > nation -- who gets the thank you card? Jimmy Carter, (equally arguably) the > worst president since Harding.> > > the state department accepted the results as well (something it refused to > do in, for example, ukraine); so you may as well blame bush. > > > not failure.> > > yes, and i suppose you'll argue -- as does everyone who's confronted with > the fact of "social programmes" for the rich utterly dwarfing those for the > poor -- that you "don't agree with" corporate welfare...and then go right > back to denouncing social programmes for the poor. > > > mentality and nation-state lifetime benefit is a step towards the grave not > only for the US economy but the country as a whole.> > > well then, why not do us all a favour, philospher ferris? to wit, rather > than running your mouth incessantly, how about stepping up to the plate? > will you voluntarily pay the unsubsidised price for a gallon of gas > (estimated at about $10)? the unsubidised price for grain? will you pay > out of your own pocket for the value of your "externalities"? > > or will you, as you have always done in the past, simply ignore your > double-standards and hypocrisies as though they had never been brought up > (thereby, in this case, allowing the rest of us to continue to subsidise > your lifestyle); and then in a day or so go back to running your mouth? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:07:40 -0700 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: reap On 9/22/06, 2fs wrote: > > But perhaps I'm being too harsh. After all, he's a man with an ekuhlektik > reading list - I mean, he's actually read three Shakespeares! > > (Too bad the reporter didn't ask him which ones, and for plot > summaries...) He didn't mean Shakespeare "plays"... just that he'd read the word "Shakespear" on three occasions. Geddit, 'cuz, see, he's dumb. He really is! - -SER ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:16:35 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard Stacked Crooked wrote: > what is? the reason the u.s. hasn't tried to rub him out since the aborted > coup (or at least hasn't succeeded in doing)? most observers consider > ahmadinejad to be insane -- is this what's saving *him* from being rubbed > out? Assassination of a head of state? My my my but you're pushing the envelope here a bit. >> <-- and I don't even mean directly to the US but to, >> say, a neighboring nation -- who gets the thank you >> card? Jimmy Carter, (equally arguably) the worst >> president since Harding.> > > the state department accepted the results as well > (something it refused to do in, for example, > ukraine); so you may as well blame bush. Is this the same election result that Carter went down to monitor? And - -- even though he saw fraud rampant in the election -- accepted the results because otherwise there may have been "violence." Rather than raise questions with a fraudulent election he erred on the side of appeasement; just letting the fraud go un-checked. > at any rate, chavez is roughly twice as popular in his country as bush is > in his. does this make the whole of venezuela "arguably insane"? or, if > there were to be a worldwide popularity poll between the two, the guess > here is that chavez would pick up about 85% of the vote. does this mean > the entire world is "arguably insane"? Well that's very possible. Keep this mind when mulling your theoretical poll results: Who's going to win the popularity contest: the guy who will pay you $100 if you work for the money, or the one who will give you $20 for doing fuck-all nothing? The vast majority (and this goes outside of just the US culture), when given the choice of (relatively) boundless returns through effort or subsistence through inaction will opt for the latter. > in fact, don't look now, but plenty of americans are "arguably insane" as > well (from ): Of all the places in the New York area where else would Chavez go for a warm reception and rousing round of applause? A majority black church stuffed with Latin immigrants? In Harlem? Sounds about right. Chavez, encouraged by a rousing response after he made another reference to Bush as the devil, played to the crowd, calling the president "an alcoholic and a sick man," and imitating what he called Bush's cowboy swagger. URL:http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0922-06.htm Well, once an alcoholic always an alcoholic, I guess. That doesn't explain this: It gave Chavez a chance to speak glowingly of friends like Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who he said is recovering well from intestinal surgery. At times Chavez sounded as if he was giving one of Castro's famously interminable speeches - reciting agricultural statistics, digressing into the merits of drinking tea made from coca leaves and complaining that windows aren't big enough in modern buildings. URL:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/454733p-382690c.html Tea made from coca leaves? So he's into the coke? Fan*tastic*. >>> "We are afraid we won't be able to heat our building this winter, and > someone told me about this guy," said Arthur Rena McDowell, a florist. > "Somebody has got to make it better. It should start with our president, > but it is starting with the president of Venezuela."<< Again, see above regarding the preference towards state provided benefits. If you can't afford to heat your building you're faced with two options: If you own the building: Improve the heat or, if it's as good as it gets and you still can't afford it, you can't afford the building If you rent: Petition the landlord to fix it. If they don't, you move. > plenty of "trouble" already *has* come from him -- much more that the u.s. > has ever tolerated in the past. and not only him: pretty much the entire > continent of south america is in open revolt of the "washington consensus". > mexico appears to be teetering on the "brink" as well. Well we are Venezuela's largest oil customer. If you were in business you might consider speaking nicely to your biggest client, but when you're the sole provider of a niche product you can pretty much bend them over and roger then all night long and they'll still pay you because, well, you have to. > you may claim that the u.s. *could* > rub him out any time it wanted, but doesn't need to do so because chavez is > "arguably insane" Maybe I've had a stroke, but I don't recall ever saying that we could "rub him out." I said that? I think he should be *ignored* at the least and I certainly don't get inviting him into the country. > the fact of "social programmes" for the rich utterly dwarfing those for the > poor Example? Social Security? Or do you consider 401ks "social programmes for the rich"? > you "don't agree with" corporate welfare...and then go right > back to denouncing social programmes for the poor. I don't think there should be corporate welfare, no. I don't think the US Government has any business in bailing out failed auto manufacturers or airlines. I don't think it's the government's place to pay company pensions when the company no longer finds it pleasant to do so, either (example: Delta's bankruptcy and push of pilot's pensions onto the Fed). > well then, why not do us all a favour, philospher ferris? to wit, rather > than running your mouth incessantly, how about stepping up to the plate? > will you voluntarily pay the unsubsidised price for a gallon of gas > (estimated at about $10)? the unsubidised price for grain? will you pay > out of your own pocket for the value of your "externalities"? I will if everyone will. Including you. > or will you, as you have always done in the past, simply ignore your > double-standards and hypocrisies as though they had never been brought up > (thereby, in this case, allowing the rest of us to continue to subsidise > your lifestyle); and then in a day or so go back to running your mouth? You're an absolute charmer, you know that? ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V15 #220 ********************************