From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest)
To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Subject: fegmaniax-digest V15 #225
Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org
Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


fegmaniax-digest      Tuesday, September 26 2006      Volume 15 : Number 225



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard  ["Stacked Crooked" <tew]
  Re: let's hear that riff again              [2fs <jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com>]
  Re: let's hear that riff again  ["Spotted Eagle Ray" <spottedeagleray@gmai]
  75 bands in one picture  [Sebastian Hagedorn <Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de]
  Re: let's hear that riff again    ["Stewart C. Russell" <scruss@gmail.com>]
  Re: let's hear that riff again  ["Spotted Eagle Ray" <spottedeagleray@gmai]
  Re: let's hear that riff again  ["ken ostrander" <jesuspresley@hotmail.com]
  Re: let's hear that riff again  ["Spotted Eagle Ray" <spottedeagleray@gmai]
  ooo!                                             [grutness@slingshot.co.nz]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:45:36 -0700
From: "Stacked Crooked" <tews@drizzle.com>
Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard

<<> apologies if i didn't state it clearly enough.  but now i'm curious
what you had thought i meant.>>

<I thought the statement too obfuscated to bother with and moved on.>

but you *did* bother with it.  maybe it's not worth going around in circles
over, but, here's the sequence:

FERRIS: While I'm at it I'll poke the bee's nest.  Any comment on either
Ahmadinejad or Chavez's comments at the UN?

EDDIE: i'm beginning to think that chavez is the next marcos.  but what
amazes 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.

FERRIS: It's because he's arguably *insane.*

EDDIE: 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)?

FERRIS: Assassination of a head of state?  My my my but you're pushing the
envelope here a bit.

so, what was the "it's" you were referring to?  looking at the paragraph
you responded to, it could only be the sentence regarding not wearing a
mask and not refraining from riding in airplanes.  if you didn't get what i
was driving at with the mask and airplanes references, you might've asked
for clarification rather than give a response that, while it didn't make a
lot of sense, at least gave the impression you *did* get what i was driving
at.

for what it's worth.


<<that's not what carter said.  he said that he *didn't* see compelling
evidence of fraud.>>

<Venezuela's opposition party finally forced a recall election, with
opinion polls showing that voters favored his recall by a margin of more
than 2 to 1.>

of course, vcrisis.com don't cite the polls they're referring to.  my own
personal recollection is that chavez had a healthy lead in pre-referendum
polling.  let's see if we can find some hard data.  hang on...

<URL:http://www.voltairenet.org/article121349.html> gets to the bottom of
it, i think.  the article includes a graph showing 57% support for a recall
in february 2003, but only 44% in june 2004.  so it looks like those sneaky
"devils" at vcrisis.com managed to pull one over on you.

corroboration, from
<URL:http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1329>: "A week before
the Aug 15 recall referendum on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, new polls
continue showing the embattled leader as the winner of the long awaited
recall. Chavez's advantage ranges between 8 and 31 percent, depending on
the poll."  it cites the various polling organisations, with the results
and the polling methods used (and, importantly, the *dates* the polls were
conducted).


<Carter ignored a press release from the polling firm Penn, Schoen &
Berland Assoc. that reported, "Exit Poll Results Show Major Defeat for
Chavez.">

actually, both the carter center and the OAS found that their samples
matched the official results.


<Seize property from its rightful owners and co-op it.  Even better: have
the government do it for you.  I like the cut of your jib, comrade.>

ferris, you've been contributing to this board for as long as i can recall
- -- longer than myself, for all i know.  so you should know by now that the
last thing i'm going to advocate is some sort of neo-stalinism.  which is
kind of what i've been trying to get at: you -- always, as far as i'm aware
- -- ignore evidence that doesn't fit with your preconceptions as though it
had never been submitted, and go right on arguing as though it hadn't.  it
gets a bit tiring after a while.


<<when saddam began denominating oil-for-food proceeds in euros?>>

<Wasn't that under the Clinton administration?  Dang, that's right. Clinton
was too preoccupied to pay that situation any mind.>

it was in november of 2000.  but i think you missed the point: saddam (as
with the others i listed, and so many more) paid the price for his
intransigence in the form of a u.s. military action; but, since the failed
coup attempt, chavez hasn't paid any price for *his* intransigence.  and
now all of south america is more less out of the empire's control.  i
happen to think that's a good thing.  but that's neither her nor there.
the point is that it's unprecedented.  and i don't think that the bush
administration has allowed it to happen because chavez is "arguably
insane".  i think it's allowed it to happen because it's unable to do
anything about it.

and this is the *only* point i wanted to make (well, except for noting that
chavez' rhetoric is becoming as poetic as marcos') in response to your
solicitation for thoughts on chavez' speech.  i didn't expect it to spin
off into this whole big thing.  but, whatever.


<Would you rather we have no military whatsoever?  (Actually, I think I
know the answer to that one.)>

i would rather have no *state* whatsoever.  but i could certainly live with
the popular will: polling suggests that the american public would prefer
that about 10% (rather than the current 50%) of the discretionary budget
were allocated to the military.

but, more germane to the topic at hand (state subsidies for the rich), why
should military contractors *profit* from "national defense"?  why, if the
state will unilaterally draft the public's money to fund its wars and, via
the "poverty draft" and "stop loss" orders force certain sectors of the
public to fight its wars even against their wills, doesn't it command the
contractors to provide military hardware and "services" at cost?


<<i'm not the one running my mouth off about "personal responsibility".
even  so, i'll hazard a guess that i'm much less a ward of the state than
yourself.>>

<I'm up for that argument.>

i think i'd rather take it offlist, only 'cause i don't wanna sound more
pretentious than i already usually do.  i'll just say that even while i'm
confident that i create far fewer externalities than the average american,
i'm quite sure that i create far more than are ecologically sustainable --
so i've still got a long way to go.


<I just as easily add to your list of allures your utter and complete
unwillingness to drop the Pollyanna mentality and take a rational look at
global issues.>

"pollyanna" implies that i actually believe we can put an end to injustice.
 i don't.  but i nevertheless feel we're morally obligated to *try to*.


<An unwillingness to set aside partisanship when assessing a situation>

if you (or anybody else) would care to give some examples, i'd be eager to
address them.  i mean, the only party which i could even *conceivably* be
argued to have shewn reflexive loyalty to is the greens -- but i'm not even
a member, don't attend meetings or conventions, don't send money, don't
send e-mails on its behalf, don't vote a straight ticket.  so...i dunno.
but, again, i'm more than willing to entertain examples.


<and your clutch on failed socialist/communist policies.>

again, examples would be nice.  as far as i can remember, my position has
been that -- outside of spain, where it was crushed by outside force --
anarcho-syndicalism has never really been tried.  besides, i'm much more an
anarcho-primitivist now than an anarcho-syndicalist.


<Video of Hezzbollah positioning and/or firing missiles from civilian areas
of Lebanon:>

i didn't look at them, but i'll concede the point.  doesn't jibe with what
i've read, but, pictures are worth more than words.  the more important
point still stands: hezbollah and hamas arose in opposition to unjust
israeli policies, just as the iraqi resistance arose in opposition to the
u.s. occupation.  if they were equipped with gajillion-dollar militaries to
fight back with, they surely wouldn't use the guerilla methods we so detest
- -- they'd stand and fight.  would that make you happier?

i should say that i happen to agree with you that "rules of war" are kind
of like a sick joke.  if the martians came down with some incredibly
superior military force and started blowing everybody to shreds, would we
ask, "why are they killing so many civilians rather than uniformed
soldiers?" or would we ask, "why can't they fuck off and mind their own
business?"?


<<right, and the deaths of scores of millions of americas-indians, and tens
of millions of subcontinent-indians, and millions upon millions more
indigenous people at the hands of the western "democracies" indicates just
how precious we consider life, and just how peace-loving we are.>>

<What part of left field did *that* come from?  American Indians?
Sub-continent Indians?>

the same part that your reference to the nazis killing millions of jews --
to which i was responding -- came from, maybe?


<How far back do you want to roll the clock for reparations, "I'm sorry"s
and "what can I do to make you like me"s?  How far back into history do you
have retreat before everyone will be satisfied to your liking?>

well, the united states' history is pretty short.  but it's really not my
place to say whether past wrongs have been sufficiently addressed: it's the
victims'.  granting that we can't turn back the clock, we can still bend
over backwards to do whatever we can to right the wrongs.  first we've got
to *acknowledge* them, of course.  but that's another story.


<As much as you rail against the Terrible White Man and his aggression
against Everyone Else, there's one thing that seems to be a relative
undercurrent: the vast majority of the places that are in strife today
weren't always so.>

actually, horrific campaigns of violence are as old as civilisation, and
the perpetrators have come from pretty much every region.  but that's no
justification for us continuing the pattern.


<Vietnam: Colonized by France in the mid-19th century, lasting up to WWII
(30 years later, what happened there?)>

uh, they kicked our dimpled asses out?  or was this a reference to pol pot?


<Would you like to see a modern-day repeat?  Let Iran become a nuclear
power and you just might.>

you can *say* that.  or, you can say *why* you think it's so.  i said why i
think it's *not* so, to wit:

>>there is, of course, no indciation whatever that iran will launch an
attack upon israel.  ahmedinejad might (or might not) desire it, but he's
not calling the shots.  anyhow, knowing that any attack would result in a
massive retaliation in kind, iran is, obviously, not going to do anything
of that sort.<<

so you could address the flaws you see in my argument, or not.  but if you
want anybody to take you seriously, you should at least lay out a line of
reasoning.


<As the only democratic country in that part of the world (whether it be
Jewish, Christian, Muslim or worshiping the noodly appendage of the Flying
Spaghetti Monster) the country of Israel is a natural ally to the West.  To
ask them to disarm would be asinine.>

you can't really call israel a democracy if some of its subjects (namely
palestinians living in the occupied territories) are completely shut out of
the political process.  beyond that, since when are democratic countries
"natural allies" to the united states (this is *not* a rhetorical
question)?

and if we don't expect israel (and the united states, and russia, and
pakistan, and india) to give up their nukes, why should we expect iran and
north korea to give up theirs?


<< it was imperialism's fault.  and so long as the west was unwilling to
renounce imperialism, it was as culpable for the bloodshed as were germany
and japan.>>

<See above.>

*which* above?  the part about the supposed benefits of colonialism?
whether true or not, that's beside the point.


<That could quite possibly go a long way to stabilizing at least a portion
of the region.  I would say, however, that support for the state of Israel
would have to go ahead.>

to which bin laden might respond: "i would say that our terror operations
would have to go ahead."  but why, pray tell, do you argue that support of
the israeli occupation must go ahead, and then a few paragraphs later argue
that saddam's occupation of kuwait had to be countered?


<However Hussein should have never have been allowed to disregard the UN's
conditions brought about at the end of the War. [...] the international
community put down conditions and he routinely ignored them.>

dude, we've been over this before, and *not* very long ago.
(<URL:http://www.fegmania.org/archives/fegmaniax/v15.n130>, to refresh your
memory.)

and again i must protest that seeing you repeat un-truths just a few days
or weeks after they've been refuted gets awfully old.  if you don't feel
that they've been adequately refuted then you ought (in my opinion) not to
ignore the refutations and then go on to re-state the point of contention
as though it had never *been* in contention; but rather ought to *address*
the refutation.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:03:52 -0500
From: 2fs <jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: let's hear that riff again

On 9/24/06, ken ostrander <jesuspresley@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> adventure rocket ship needs its own cartoon



Funny you should say that: <
http://www.robynhitchcock.com/storyboards/index.html>


- -- 

...Jeff Norman

The Architectural Dance Society
http://spanghew.blogspot.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:21:55 -0700
From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" <spottedeagleray@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: let's hear that riff again

On 9/24/06, ken ostrander <jesuspresley@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> \
> spotted eagle ray (next three):


No, not me!  I'm the one talking about the new record.

I've come to the conclusion that the lyrics to "Museum of Sex" may be the
most quintessentially Robyn thing ever, and it's that much cooler because
the musical setting is a little unusual for him, and he nails it.

Damned good record.

I don't have much to contribute to the political threads that one couldn't
guess from my previous ill-advised forays onto such terrain.

Damned good record, though.

- -SER

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:55:29 +0200
From: Sebastian Hagedorn <Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de>
Subject: 75 bands in one picture

Apparently this isn't new, so maybe you've already seen it, but I think 
it's cool:

<http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5639/2020/1600/75_Bands_full_948x554.0.jpg>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:52:36 -0400
From: "Stewart C. Russell" <scruss@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: let's hear that riff again

2fs wrote:
>
> http://www.robynhitchcock.com/storyboards/index.html

Why, there's a musical saw in the last couple of panels!

  Stewart

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:11:32 -0700
From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" <spottedeagleray@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: let's hear that riff again

On 9/25/06, Stewart C. Russell <scruss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2fs wrote:
> >
> > http://www.robynhitchcock.com/storyboards/index.html
>
> Why, there's a musical saw in the last couple of panels!


I was kind of unclear on what the two seated figures were doing.  McCaughey
looks just like himself... Buck has funny hair but a probably
Rickenbacker... and one of the seated guys seems to be tambourining
(although in the last sketch it sorta looks like he's just reading).
Musical saw seems correct, although I was kinda thinking viol or rebec, one
of those old-time bowed mandolin-y things.  Also, Robyn sometimes seems to
be wearing a dress.  Hermaphridite in style?

- -SER

- -SER

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:06:10 -0400
From: "ken ostrander" <jesuspresley@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: let's hear that riff again

apologies for the confusion.  the original message (to which i was
replying) was sent thusly:

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:26:48 -0400
From: FSThomas <fsthomas@ochremedia.com>
Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard

it was the last one in digest 221.

i've been fighting a cold this weekend that the family has been passing
back and forth all week.  not an excuse; just an explanation.  i throw
myself upon the mercy of the court.

ken  "unzipper me with love"  the kenster

  --------------------------------------------------------------------

  From:  "Spotted Eagle Ray" <spottedeagleray@gmail.com>
  To:  "ken ostrander" <jesuspresley@hotmail.com>
  CC:  fegmaniax@smoe.org
  Subject:  Re: let's hear that riff again
  Date:  Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:21:55 -0700

  On 9/24/06, ken ostrander <jesuspresley@hotmail.com> wrote:

  \
  spotted eagle ray (next three):

No, not me!  I'm the one talking about the new record. 

I've come to the conclusion that the lyrics to "Museum of Sex" may be the
most quintessentially Robyn thing ever, and it's that much cooler because
the musical setting is a little unusual for him, and he nails it.

Damned good record. 

I don't have much to contribute to the political threads that one
couldn't guess from my previous ill-advised forays onto such terrain.

Damned good record, though.

- -SER

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:01:53 -0700
From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" <spottedeagleray@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: let's hear that riff again

On 9/25/06, ken ostrander <jesuspresley@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>  apologies for the confusion.
>

No problem.  I'm probably gonna say something off-pissing any minute now,
anyway.

Heh... peenis.

- -SER

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:44:29 +1200
From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz
Subject: ooo!

I've just been listening to an album that rates a solid ooo! How come 
no-one's mentioned the Handsome family here? Pure C&W Americana but 
with the most bizarre twists in the lyrics, which somewhere between 
Tom Waits and David Thomas.

If you can cope with steel guitars and autoharp-accompanied songs 
about Nikola Tesla and drunkenly vandalising gold courses, then this 
is for you.

James
- -- 
    James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand    <http://tinyurl.com/c2q9>
    -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-
    =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-.
    -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=-
    .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=

------------------------------

End of fegmaniax-digest V15 #225
********************************