From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest)
To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #161
Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org
Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


fegmaniax-digest       Thursday, April 19 2007       Volume 16 : Number 161



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  Re: Machismo Festapalooza           ["Jason Brown" <ripvanruben@gmail.com>]
  Re: Joe Boyd's Book                         [2fs <jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com>]
  Re: Machismo Festapalooza      ["Lauren Elizabeth" <softboygirl@gmail.com>]
  Re: Machismo Festapalooza                   [2fs <jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com>]
  Re: virginia tech reap         [great white shark <archive@bigpond.net.au>]
  Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free...  [FSThomas <fsthomas@och]
  Re: reap at virginia tech              [FSThomas <fsthomas@ochremedia.com>]
  Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free...  [2fs <jeffreyw2fs.j@gma]
  Re: virginia tech reap                      [2fs <jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com>]
  Re: reap at virginia tech                 [Capuchin <capuchin@bitmine.net>]
  Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free...  ["Lauren Elizabeth" <so]
  Re: virginia tech reap               [Benjamin Lukoff <blukoff@alvord.com>]
  Re: Machismo Festapalooza      ["Lauren Elizabeth" <softboygirl@gmail.com>]
  Re: reap at virginia tech                 [Capuchin <capuchin@bitmine.net>]
  re: all you fegaholics            [ken ostrander <blueridgekeno@yahoo.com>]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:01:30 -0700
From: "Jason Brown" <ripvanruben@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Machismo Festapalooza

On 4/18/07, Rex <spottedeagleray@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I don't get is what "Rent" and "Crash" have to do with each other.  Are
> they both liberal or something gay like that?

no, but both certainly are maudlin and awful.  Crash is particularly
shitty because for all its preaching about the horrors of racism every
single Asian character in the film is some sort of blatant uncommented
upon stereotype.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:09:15 -0500
From: 2fs <jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Joe Boyd's Book

On 4/18/07, John Irvine <jeirvine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm thoroughly enjoying Joe Boyd's memoir "White Bicycles."  There's a
> whole ton of music I had only been vagely familiar with - Fairport,
> Floyd and Nick Drake are the tiny tip of the iceberg.  And YouTube is
> proving to an amazing adjunct to the experience; nine times out of
> ten, when he discusses an obscure act there's a clip or two to be
> found.  Almost like having a multi-media edition.



Yeah, but does Boyd say anything about guns?

Sycamore is...open.


- -- 

...Jeff Norman

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:38:52 -0400
From: "Lauren Elizabeth" <softboygirl@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Machismo Festapalooza

The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com> says:
<snip>
> I see satires and critiques of various
> levels of intelligence that speak to the growing feeling of malaise and
> anxiety in post-capitalist White Male America, that once-mighty bastion
> that, even as we speak, is undergoing the death throes of an empire about to
> Change Into Something New and Scary.
>
> If I was younger, and perhaps in college or film school, I would think an
> interesting paper could be written about the genre of films that captures
> the anger of the Young White Male who is facing his eventual
> disenfranchisement. "Falling Down," "The Company of Men," "Fight Club," even
> "The Matrix" and maybe "True Lies" would all be worked in brilliantly, and I
> would earn an A+++, immediately rising to the top of my class, from whence I
> would garner fame and earn the right to kick Roeper away from Ebert's side,
> where I would settle my fat ass down into the long-languishing Chair of
> Greatness and thereby finally redeeming it -- all as Brother Siskel smiles
> indulgently downward from the Great Beyond....

i find these points pretty interesting.  i can't believe that as of
late, i've been finding myself discussing things that might be deemed
"gender issues" and then i try not to throw up on myself.

i don't see this as being about anger per se, but more about men
losing their place in modern culture.  which could well lead to anger,
but i think the initial problem is that much of the foundation of
being male in this culture has been really shaken apart.  and what's
there to replace it with - emo boys and metrosexuals?

i had a friend who had three teenagers - twin girls and a boy, and she
would talk about the twins' being at the top of the world.  they would
spell their names in big cursive letters, they were sort of bigger
than life with their sports teams and school plays and magic markers.
and she worried about her boy because she said in many ways he was
just invisible.  everyone was making sure the girls had their
modern-age self-esteem, which they did, and that was great, but it was
kind of like the boys were being left behind with no way to bridge the
gap between the old world and the new world.  and god knows what the
new world even is for a young man.  hold a door open for someone and
either get a thank you or the finger  it's a crap shoot.  be a good
listener and the girls still go chasing after the boys who exhibit
that sexy "criminal versatility."

i'm generalizing of course, but i hope some of my point is made anyway.


x   "still love my parents and still love the old world"   o

- -- 
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People with opinions just go around bothering one another."

                   - The Buddha

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:53:37 -0500
From: 2fs <jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Machismo Festapalooza

On 4/18/07, Lauren Elizabeth <softboygirl@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com> says:
> <snip>
> > I see satires and critiques of various
> > levels of intelligence that speak to the growing feeling of malaise and
> > anxiety in post-capitalist White Male America, that once-mighty bastion
> > that, even as we speak, is undergoing the death throes of an empire
> about to
> > Change Into Something New and Scary.
> >
> > If I was younger, and perhaps in college or film school, I would think
> an
> > interesting paper could be written about the genre of films that
> captures
> > the anger of the Young White Male who is facing his eventual
> > disenfranchisement. "Falling Down," "The Company of Men," "Fight Club,"
> even
> > "The Matrix" and maybe "True Lies" would all be worked in
> brilliantly....
>
> i find these points pretty interesting.  i can't believe that as of
> late, i've been finding myself discussing things that might be deemed
> "gender issues" and then i try not to throw up on myself.
>
> i don't see this as being about anger per se, but more about men
> losing their place in modern culture.  which could well lead to anger,
> but i think the initial problem is that much of the foundation of
> being male in this culture has been really shaken apart.  and what's
> there to replace it with - emo boys and metrosexuals?



Agreed. For men who think or thought they could define themselves in
traditionally masculine terms, the game's pretty well up: that doesn't
really work anymore. Some find new roles; some openly embrace formerly
scorned roles (the blatantly effeminate gay man, say); but others are lost.
Others (and I kinda count myself here) generally don't feel the pressure of
needing to conform to any particular male role - but still now and again
feel a twinge (particularly where sexual desire rears its little purple
head, of course).

I agree with Quail and disagree with Rex (ha! I think *some people* probably
never expected that sentence...) on the way _Fight Club_ in particular
works: I think a viewer that takes it straight (pun intended) as a macho
fantasy is truly missing the point. The movie undercuts that perspective
consistently and continuously: within the film to hold to that perspective
is essentially equivalent to psychosis, and of course, such a diagnosis is
not thoroughly and only confined to the movie's fictive world. I think the
movie *interrogates* the way violence and bullying signify "leadership" -
not simply endorses such a view. (To take it that way is sorta like folks
who think "Born in the USA" is the sort of song that goes well with
fist-pumping and flag-waving...or that "The One I Love" is an appropriate
song to sway lovingly arm-in-arm with one's sweetheart to.)

Of those other films, I've seen only Matrix and True Lies - and don't really
remember Matrix (other than the obvious shit).

i had a friend who had three teenagers - twin girls and a boy, and she
> would talk about the twins' being at the top of the world.  they would
> spell their names in big cursive letters, they were sort of bigger
> than life with their sports teams and school plays and magic markers.
> and she worried about her boy because she said in many ways he was
> just invisible.  everyone was making sure the girls had their
> modern-age self-esteem, which they did, and that was great, but it was
> kind of like the boys were being left behind with no way to bridge the
> gap between the old world and the new world.


Sometimes I've joked that I'm a lesbian in a man's body... That, of course,
isn't correct - but it is true that, for most of my life, I've been closer
to women than to men, and that many men's worldviews and interests don't
mesh with my own very well at all.

Then again, apparently I like to argue...

- -- 

...Jeff Norman

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:04:49 +0930
From: great white shark <archive@bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: virginia tech reap

capuchin wrote:

> We don't have a gun control problem, we have a gun problem.
  precisely and master ferris completely overlooked my point, we  
don't HAVE metal detectors in aussie schools because our culture -  
although very similar to yours in many ways , doesn't have this  
ingrained mentality regarding arms bearing . its NOT important to  
us . The vast majority of our kids would consider anyone who carried  
a gun to school to be a total kook.

I know a lot of expat yanks who love it in oz because we don't have  
this problem - along with a lot of others that relate directly or  
indirectly to the precious constitution -which is regularly used to  
batter us all over the head about the US being THE  bastion of  
freedom and democracy -( despite the fact that you don't even have  
universal healthcare , your drug laws largely suck, something like 4%  
of the population own around 90% of the wealth , you can't run  
elections without fucking up the count and you keep on dragging us  
into shitty wars :)  yet we have the ferris's of this world who have  
so little faith in their democracatic system that they feel the need  
to keep a few shotguns in the house just in case the govt takes over  
one of these days - oh ye of little faith !
theres a lot I like about the US , but in many ways its a really  
WEIRD society and you can probably only realise this fully until you  
have lived somewhere else where the population is slightly less  
brainwashed and a lot less patriotic/jingoistic/fundamentalist .etc .

der commander 

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:30:48 -0400
From: FSThomas <fsthomas@ochremedia.com>
Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free...

Capuchin wrote:

> While I am certainly advocating the ceased wholesale production of
> firearms, I am not saying that there should be any kind of legal ban.
> (Hell, enforcing that sort of thing just requires more firearms to fight
> the arms manufacturers, right?)  Instead, I think we have to attack this
> social problem with our social tools.  People who own or want to own
> guns (including police and military) should be socially reprimanded and
> ridiculed.

What the *fuck* color is the sky in your world?  I don't mean that
rhetorically, or even as some sort of joke. I'm genuinely interested.
When you go outside and look up, what color is the sky?

What an off-the-hook, far-out, incredibly megalomaniacal statement.
You're essentially saying "because I disagree with your beliefs and/or
desires I think you should socially reprimand and ridiculed."  How
fucking fascist.

- -f.

- - Here's hoping that cop you reprimand and/or ridicule for wanting to
have a gun to protect your ass forgets your derision and actually shows
up when you call looking for assistance with that gun-toting thug
breaking down your door.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:53:54 -0400
From: FSThomas <fsthomas@ochremedia.com>
Subject: Re: reap at virginia tech

Stewart C. Russell wrote:
> FSThomas wrote:
>>
>> Look at the English Bill of Rights, for example.
>>
>> Oh, that's right.  You can't.
> 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Bill_of_Rights>

Wow. I stand entirely corrected.

While it goes a long way to define Parliament's position it doesn't
extend any guarantees to freedom of religion, speech (outside of
Parliament), press, or peaceable assembly.  Nor does it  guarantee
against unreasonable search and seizure. Or grant protections from
self-incrimination. Or offer any guarantee of private property.  Or to a
speedy trial, much less to one governed by a jury.

I don't want to get into a governmental pissing match over this.  My
apologies for not having looked into it more.

- -f.

/remembers reading Gerry Adams' book years ago and being aghast at the
laws and/or permissions granted the British military/Northern Irish
Police in the routing out of the IRA and thinking, "they're trampling
people's rights."  Haven't got the book handy atm, though it cited some
good (wretched) examples.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:56:41 -0500
From: 2fs <jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free...

On 4/18/07, FSThomas <fsthomas@ochremedia.com> wrote:
>
> Capuchin wrote:
>
> > While I am certainly advocating the ceased wholesale production of
> > firearms, I am not saying that there should be any kind of legal ban.
> > (Hell, enforcing that sort of thing just requires more firearms to fight
> > the arms manufacturers, right?)  Instead, I think we have to attack this
> > social problem with our social tools.  People who own or want to own
> > guns (including police and military) should be socially reprimanded and
> > ridiculed.
>
> What an off-the-hook, far-out, incredibly megalomaniacal statement.
> You're essentially saying "because I disagree with your beliefs and/or
> desires I think you should socially reprimand and ridiculed."  How
> fucking fascist.
>
> - Here's hoping that cop you reprimand and/or ridicule for wanting to
> have a gun to protect your ass forgets your derision and actually shows
> up when you call looking for assistance with that gun-toting thug
> breaking down your door.



While I think that Jeme's perspective here is indeed a bit naive, Ferris
pretty clearly misunderstands the term "socially" (or at least, he reads it
so differently from the way I do that in his reading, it might as well not
be there). Cap's not saying that *individuals* should reprimand cops, in the
sense of telling them how fucked-up they are, nor is he using "reprimand" to
mean "punish in a socially accepted manner, such as fining or imprisonment,"
he means (I think) that, as the desire to have and use guns as an expression
of authority is anti-social (in his lights), a clear-headed society would
regard people who have such desires as deviant or pathetic.

If I agreed with the gist of this, I'd say the *social* (not individual)
ridicule, and corrective intention, ought to be directed at the attitudes
rather than the individuals holding them - but I think the point is that we
ought to reconsider our acceptance and love of violence: we believe that
there are many situations in which having the ability to blow someone's
brains out is the only way to solve problems. That itself leads to people
retaining for themselves the means to blow other people's brains out.

My question to Ferris, though, is this: why would the expression of such an
attitude - even if you think it's naive, grossly unrealistic, etc. - create
such *anger* in you? I mean, it seems patently absurd to me to call his
ideas "fascist" - as if he's mobilizing some sort of state power against any
who'd disagree with him. (I think you imagine "social reprimand" as roughly
equivalent to "being arrested" - whereas I interpret it as more akin to the
regard we as a society might have for someone who, say, has impulse-control
problems and habitually flies off the handle and curses everyone.)

But apparently the mere fact that Cap has ideas radically different from
yours is enough to set you off cursing and throwing around the f-word
("fascist"). Is that really appropriate or, uh, healthy? Or is this a
Margaret Thatcher moment: there's no such thing as "society" in your world?

(Incidentally, what things other than guns - and bales (of cotton) - are
"toted"? Or is that one of those verbs - like "twiddled" - that seems to be
used only with an extremely limited number of nouns?)

- -- 

...Jeff Norman

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:10:16 -0500
From: 2fs <jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: virginia tech reap

On 4/18/07, great white shark <archive@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
> I know a lot of expat yanks who love it in oz because we don't have
> this problem - along with a lot of others that relate directly or
> indirectly to the precious constitution -which is regularly used to
> batter us all over the head about the US being THE  bastion of
> freedom and democracy -( despite the fact that you don't even have
> universal healthcare , your drug laws largely suck, something like 4%
> of the population own around 90% of the wealth , you can't run
> elections without fucking up the count and you keep on dragging us
> into shitty wars :)  yet we have the ferris's of this world who have
> so little faith in their democracatic system that they feel the need
> to keep a few shotguns in the house just in case the govt takes over
> one of these days - oh ye of little faith !


Which raises the interesting question: often, such folks consider themselves
"patriots." What, exactly, are they loyal to? Nations are founded on many
different bases - but in much of the world, those bases are most prominently
language, culture, and land-provenance (that is, we've lived here forever).
The first and last of these cannot apply to America as a nation; the second
one is rather dubious, since (except for Native Americans a/k/a them savage
red injuns) we're all from somewhere else ultimately. The most common root
of American patriotism is, essentially, philosophical: it's the set of
ideals set forth in the nation's founding documents. The paradox, though, is
that those ideals are explicitly presented as universal - *not* as
applicable only to American citizens. That is, as a basis for imagining one
nation superior to others, they don't offer much support.

But American government minimalists who also call themselves patriots have a
bit of a problem here: it is, of course, key to those ideals that a
particular type of government instantiate and protect those principles. If
you all but dissolve government, how are those ideals to be preserved or
enforced? More directly: what is your patriotism loyal to? The principles -
which are explicitly collective, for the most part; even the most
"individualistic" among them (freedom of speech, religion - even that
dreaded Second Amendment often parsed as "the right to bear arms" actually
begins "a well regulated militia" - a body of citizens...) - are in context
socially directed. A free monad only contradictorily can embrace a document
proclaiming his freedom of speech: the document is itself an expression of
collective will.

Probably, there are well-intentioned libertarians who are basically
philosophical anarchists, who don't necessarily hold to the Constitution per
se but to more individualistic renderings of similar (but not self-same)
principles. But more prominent, minimal-government right-wingers (including
those in power): what exactly is their point, where's their loyalty?

I'm pretty sure I named their true nation earlier this evening - the
imaginary entity (imaginary in physical existence, all too real in effect) I
called Plutopia. Maybe the most characteristic American attitude is the
presence in the mind of even some guy digging ditches that he too can become
a citizen of Plutopia...but is that for the "freedom" it offers (from what?
to what? On anyone else's behalf?), or merely the power - the ability to say
"fuck you" without consequence to all the people whose ideas and way of
living you disagree with?

...Jeff Norman

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Capuchin <capuchin@bitmine.net>
Subject: Re: reap at virginia tech

Just a drive-by to make one small, but very important point:

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, 2fs wrote:
> Without going into the whole "what's a 'militia'?" pissing match, I will 
> note that the phrase "well regulated" is also in the Second Amendment. 
> Even if you argue that a single, private individual can constitute part 
> of a "militia," you must concede that said militia is supposed to be 
> "well regulated."

In 18th century military parlance, "regulations" are guns.

"Well-regulated" means having lots of the equipment you need.  "A well 
regulated militia" is one that's got plenty of firepower.

J.
- -- 
_______________________________________________

Capuchin   capuchin@bitmine.net   Jeme A Brelin
_______________________________________________

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:14:50 -0400
From: "Lauren Elizabeth" <softboygirl@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free...

Capuchin <capuchin@bitmine.net> says:
> The thing that sickens me the most about this is that schoolmates have
> pretty uniformly said that he was scary and they were just waiting for him
> to do something hurtful.  So where the fuck were they?

it sounds like a number of people tried to reach out to him.

> Some of you like to go on about the responsibility of citizens to gun down
> one another when it looks like there's a threat.  What about the
> responsibility of citizens to hug one another when it looks like there's a
> miserable piece of shit among us?

i'm not sure whose hugging who in that paragraph, but some people,
especially some "miserable piece of shit" people, really don't want to
be hugged.  or maybe they did a long, long time ago, but that was a
long, long, time ago.

> You can't wait for some authority figure to intervene.  Telling your
> teacher or counselor when a kid is fucked up is the FIRST step because
> those people need to be prepared to be used as a LAST resort.  After you
> talk to your teacher, you need to take it upon yourself to talk to the guy
> you think is crazy.  Take him to lunch.  If you can't stand his company,
> well, get a dozen other folks to take him to lunch, too... that way you
> only have to do it fortnightly.

IMO, not all mental illness can be cured with kindness.  sometimes
people are just kind of broken.  and others have the right to protect
themselves.  i'm not saying with guns or with violence, but perhaps
there's a damn good reason to not take him to lunch.

xo

- -- 
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People with opinions just go around bothering one another."

                   - The Buddha

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Benjamin Lukoff <blukoff@alvord.com>
Subject: Re: virginia tech reap

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, 2fs wrote:

> Which raises the interesting question: often, such folks consider themselves
> "patriots." What, exactly, are they loyal to? Nations are founded on many
> different bases - but in much of the world, those bases are most prominently
> language, culture, and land-provenance (that is, we've lived here forever).
> The first and last of these cannot apply to America as a nation; the second
> one is rather dubious, since (except for Native Americans a/k/a them savage
> red injuns) we're all from somewhere else ultimately.

It's pretty well settled that American Indians came over the Bering land
bridge from Asia.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:28:12 -0400
From: "Lauren Elizabeth" <softboygirl@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Machismo Festapalooza

2fs <jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com> says:
> Others (and I kinda count myself here) generally don't feel the pressure of
> needing to conform to any particular male role - but still now and again
> feel a twinge (particularly where sexual desire rears its little purple
> head, of course).

my current theory is (using god here as a metaphor since i'm rather an
agnostic) is that god created men and women and as an afterthought
wondered, "oh no, what if my plan doesn't work and they forget to
reproduce?" and then he went to the male sex drive dial and went to
turn it up to 100.  but figured, ah, hell, 1000...just in case.

(generalizing again.)

> Sometimes I've joked that I'm a lesbian in a man's body... That, of course,
> isn't correct - but it is true that, for most of my life, I've been closer
> to women than to men, and that many men's worldviews and interests don't
> mesh with my own very well at all.

i'm curious as to why you say lesbian in a man's body instead of just
a woman in a man's body.  is it the being attracted to females thing?

when i was kid, i wanted to be a boy, but i ended up just hanging out
around them instead.    it seemed like kind of the same thing.

xo

- -- 
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People with opinions just go around bothering one another."

                   - The Buddha

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Capuchin <capuchin@bitmine.net>
Subject: Re: reap at virginia tech

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, FSThomas wrote:
> While it goes a long way to define Parliament's position it doesn't 
> extend any guarantees to freedom of religion, speech (outside of 
> Parliament), press, or peaceable assembly.  Nor does it guarantee 
> against unreasonable search and seizure. Or grant protections from 
> self-incrimination. Or offer any guarantee of private property.  Or to a 
> speedy trial, much less to one governed by a jury.
>
> I don't want to get into a governmental pissing match over this.  My 
> apologies for not having looked into it more.

It is almost sweetly naive to argue that the 2nd amendment actually keeps 
the powers checked by the people.

[Of course, that was the intent when Jefferson wrote it, but NONE of the 
first ten amendments are treated like amendments at all.  They're kind of 
like half-assed addenda that are (much like the rest of Jefferson's 
writings) only used to take the moral high ground in policy arguments and 
never stand in the way of a real power grab.  (If they WERE amendments, 
the 1st would trump Article I Sec. 8's copyright clause, for example.)]

The people are no match for the military in terms of firepower.  The ONLY 
thing that prevents the cops/military from turning on the public is the 
consciences of the cops/military persons and the ability of the powers 
that be to marginalize those that the cops/military are sent in to 
intimidate/injure/kill.

I would further argue that any attempted revolution or resistance fought 
with aggressive violence is only going to leave a system ruled by the most 
aggressive and violent parties.

Our best means of revolution is resistance.  When they take away our 
ability to grow food and collect water, then we will have no means to 
fight back.  Until then, we have all the power we need.

Lastly, I think you've made a gross error in side-stepping Jeffrey's point 
about other nations not having so many guns and still not being 
totalitarian (indeed, maintaining a higher public approval rating for 
their leaders than we have in the USA).  If your argument is that their 
system of government is different, so they don't NEED to assure guns for 
the public in order to prevent totalitarianism, then doesn't that strongly 
argue for the adoption of whatever traits allow for the two to coexist?

Personally, I think that the 2nd amendment gives the illusion of 
government accountability without providing any at all.  The Right loves 
the 2nd amendment because it allows them the ethical argument that their 
power, however poorly received, is legitimate because the people HAVE NOT 
taken arms against them en masse.  (Of course, what is an armed robbery if 
not a member of the public taking up arms against economic oppression?)

J.
- -- 
_______________________________________________

Capuchin   capuchin@bitmine.net   Jeme A Brelin
_______________________________________________

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: ken ostrander <blueridgekeno@yahoo.com>
Subject: re: all you fegaholics

  re: all you fegaholics was: re: qeh no info; games for may some info
   
  >>For all you fegaholics, what are your favourite single lines in his songs?<<
   
  there are so many that float in and out of my stream of consciousness.  monday i had "if you're going to fight then you're just dying to get killed" running around; so i put on 'underwater moonlight' when i was playing in the basement with shuggie.  perhaps it was the conjunction of the massacre with dancing and spinning with the upset of a broken toy; but by the time the record got to 'postive vibrations' i could feel my heart pounding to the beat of the song.  it was unnerving.  i think it was a panic attack.  i had to lay on the floor.  when side one was over i decided to switch to something a little more soothing (side four of 'songs in the key of life') and calm  myself down.  it took longer than twenty minutes though.  
   
   
  other lines rolling through my head (this week):
   
   
  "do you really serve the devil if it's all god's plan?"
   
  "we practice but we don't know"
   
  "nobody wants to be vulnerable"
   
  "the widows of a lifetime keep a warning in their eye"
   
  "when they are twarted by people in later life they will become psycotic"
   
  "i know how judas felt but he got paid"
   
  "the face of death is my best friend"
   
  "this briggs will explode"
   
  "the horror of you floats so close by my window"
   
  "look at the massacre on cable"
   
  "i'm so sorry if i turned you off back there"
   
  "are you sure you're not insane?"
   
  "you'll never have the damn thing out"
   
   
   
  
> "if i was on my knees, you'd have a good view of my skull".<
   
  the whole spoken bit from 'linctus' is up there for me.  i also like "i'm not the kind to push you around; but i don't want to make myself vulnerable"
  
>>>>
> "and in the element of summer
> the cliffs suspended in the heat
> the air in columns"
> it's not really so quotable but after all this time, i still notice it
> very much when i hear the song.  it reminds me of those black and
> white photographs on "element of light" and how the sun washes things
> out in them.  also later i read about robyn's love of the isle of
> wight and so the lyrics in that song tie in to that too.
<<<<
  >>>
  > Good choice. Have you heard that intro that he used to do about how
the cliffs fell into the sea but the ghosts haven't noticed, so they
still walk above the waves?
<<<
>>
And since the coastline has been eroding, the farther out you get the
ghosts have different, older costumes. That was the first thing I
thought of reading Lauren's comments. Weird.
  <<
   
  the whole of 'airscape' has that kind of mystical quality to it, though when you see the words written out they somehow lose some of their magical power.  i especially like "the quick explosion and the slow release of heat"  as a description of laughter.  
   
  while i was reading it (lauren's message) the first time, i was watching iconoclasts on sundance with eddie vedder and laird hamilton and they were sitting on a cliff overlooking the ocean talking about the erosion and the awe and respect of nature.  it just happens to be on again right now.  
   
   
  >"i'm gonna burn your bongos tonight"<
   
  fabulous line.  i always hear something sexual in it, though i do know many people who monopolize the bongos.  i have one such friend that we like to call "bongo fury".  i'm also reminded of andrew mccarthy having a private moment with the bongos in st elmo's fire.  some bongos just need to be burned.  
   
   
   
   
  ken     "who's got all the tunes?"    the kenster


       
- ---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

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

End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #161
********************************