From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #162 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 162 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Machismo Festapalooza [Rex ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [Rex ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [Capuchin ] Re: Machismo Festapalooza [2fs ] Re: reap at virginia tech [Capuchin ] Re: all you fegaholics [2fs ] Re: reap at virginia tech [2fs ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [2fs ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... ["Michael Sweeney" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:39:17 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Machismo Festapalooza On 4/18/07, 2fs wrote: > > On 4/18/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > > 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? Hey, it's an issue, for sure. One that might be of interest to a broad majority of people in this world shaped by the white man. But it just doesn't interest me that much personally. I'm a straigh white male, and I find my way through the world without much trouble... and last time I checked, while his overlarge piece of the pie may have diminished a tiny bit, Whitey's doing just fine. One reasons I'm not too taken with these films and the other "art" that addresses this stuff-- like Nu Metal or shock radio-- is that it is all predicated on anger and alienation and violence, which usually strikes me as pretty one-dimensional. Admittedly, even when it's presented in a sophisticated way, I tend not to enjoy depictions of anger, because I don't enjoy being angry. I find I'm more likely to accept it in literature for some odd reason. Jeffrey: > 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 - And that's where I see myself. I don't feel like I missed out on a golden age when I could have reaped more benefits from being The Man, because such advantages were and are largely unearned. My place in this culture feels right to me (although the culture itself is a bit wack). There are plenty of cultures, and corners of mainstream culture, too, where a man can still be "a man". That's where the guns can be found. People like me move away from those places. 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. It's clearly more sophisticated than that, as you articulate well, and again, I don't even dislike the film. But the culture that I'm speaking to *needs* its "woe to the white man" art to look as sophisticated as it can be in order to be effective, right?* Just plain umadorned machismo won't work. In fact one of its chief virtues is that it can be read a number of ways; I just find that its most ardent adherents like it because it can be read their way and doesn't clearly suck, like Rambo. They can have their beefcake and eat it, too. I think the > movie *interrogates* the way violence and bullying signify "leadership" - > not simply endorses such a view. I remember thinking it was going to be awful, seeing it, and realizing that it was very well done and nowhere near as lunkheaded as it could've been. But, not especially relishing the portrayal of bullying and violence, was left with no need to watch it again. Then again, I rarely watch movies more than once these days to begin with. I've never seen "Falling Down", but that's GOTTA suck... like my worst Howard Stern / Charles Bronson nightmare... anyone seen it? - -Rex * speaking of which, just read a review of the new NIN "interactive exeri-aunce. So... I guess Trent Reznor is still a tool after all these years, huh? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:44:45 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On 4/18/07, 2fs wrote: > > > (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?) Well, you DON'T tote on Superman's cape. Rex, winner of the "wedge a Croce reference into the thread" award for today ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:47:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: reap at virginia tech On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > 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?) You're serious, aren't you? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:02:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, FSThomas 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 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? Right now? Pretty close to black. I have no idea why you'd be "genuinely interested" in that, though. > What an off-the-hook, far-out, incredibly megalomaniacal statement. Megalomaniacal? It's "off-the-hook" and "far-out" to make a normative value judgment about what people should or should not do? > You're essentially saying "because I disagree with your beliefs and/or > desires I think you should socially reprimand and ridiculed." How > fucking fascist. Um, I'm pretty sure that we all do this all the time. We socially reprimand and ridicule people who make ignorant, racist statements. We socially reprimand and ridicule people who talk about having sex with children. Hell, in some circles, we socially reprimand and ridicule people for wearing the wrong sneakers. This is the primary means by which culture regulates itself. Our culture's tendency toward violence has gone largely unchecked. We all freak out when someone goes out and shoots a bunch of people, but we encourage the proliferation of weaponry, vengeance fantasies, and dehumanization or the "other". To me, this is very similar to drunken driving. It is culturally almost mandatory to drive a car and to drink alcohol socially, but somehow it's supposed to be taboo to do them both at the same time. Drunk driving is just the overlap of the shadow of the two monoliths of drunkeness and driving that we have erected. We cannot shrink the shadow between them without decreasing the importance of drinking and driving individually. Given the way things are now, we should absolutely expect the behavior we're seeing. Punishing it after the fact does absolutely nothing. (FYI: Fascism is the use of state power to subordinate the people to a private economic oligarchy via obsessive reverence for the state over the interests of the individual or society. What I put forward is, in many ways, the opposite. The interests of the individual and society are best served via social forces and state power has no effective place in the mix.) > - 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. Gun-toting thugs have not and never will break down my door. First, it's unlocked, so that's not necessary. Second, that just doesn't happen except in your ridiculous Hollywood fantasies (whatever color the sky appears in the CGI). I see more gun-toting thugs in police uniforms than any other kind. And on principle, I don't let police in my home. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:59:49 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: virginia tech reap On 4/19/07, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > 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. Ha ha ha. And we all descended from ape-like creatures, and ultimately we're all from simple single-celled organisms, and elements, and atoms. Your point? That Bering crossing was so prehistoric relative to America as America as to be utterly irrelevant to the issue of American patriotism, predating the whole *concept* of any "state" beyond extended-familiar tribal groupings, pretty much. Except for Donovan: hail Atlantis! - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:06:25 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Machismo Festapalooza On 4/19/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > 2fs 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. "No, you see: it goes up to *eleven*..." > > > > 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? Because saying "a woman in a man's body" implies gender dysphoria, as if I feel I'm psychologically or emotionally a woman (and the assumption would be: a heterosexual woman; the phrase also sounds less like a joke, more like pain, and less funny in that for people who really feel it, it *is* painful. And, you know, I don't think anyone ever really says "lesbian in a man's body" - so i don't *think* I'm stepping on anyone's gendery toes). But that's not true at all; I never feel as if my "I" belongs in a differently sexed body. It'd be nicer to be in a slightly better maintained model, to be sure...and I could think of a few upgrades as well. You know, like Steve Austin. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:13:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: reap at virginia tech On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: >> (Of course, what is an armed robbery if not a member of the public >> taking up arms against economic oppression?) > > You're serious, aren't you? Yes. A person feels that he is deprived and uses a gun to make up for that deprivation. That, to me, is what the 2nd amendment is all about. Granted, this person has misplaced the source of his oppression, but in terms of finding a way to mitigate his circumstance, he's right on (assuming he overcomes the risks). J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:11:02 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: all you fegaholics On 4/19/07, ken ostrander wrote: > > > > "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. And not only that. The music is exceptionally beautiful as well - one of Robyn's best, I think. > >"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". See, the problem here is hanging out with people who have bongos to be monopolized. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:22:56 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: reap at virginia tech On 4/19/07, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > > > 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?) > > You're serious, aren't you? By which I assume you mean: of course armed robbery isn't "a member of the public taking up arms against economic oppression." Hmm. Certainly, armed robbery involves "a member of the public" (awkward phrase - but I think the context makes it clearer). And certainly it involves "taking up arms." The only questionable phrase is "against economic oppression" - since "economic oppression" is generally taken to be something a group suffers collectively - or more precisely, the whole phrase ("taking up arms against economic oppression") is generally taken as including an unspoken clause "on behalf of some others, or some ideology or principle." But of course, the phrase itself says no such thing: it does not explicitly exclude *one's own (and only one's own)* economic oppression ("oppression" here meaning merely "barriers in the way of gettin' the goods"). But is that true? Has anyone done a study on what people who commit property theft actually *do* with the proceeds of their crimes? And if so: is their use of those proceeds more or less socially distributed than what wealthy individuals most frequently do with their dividends and capital gains? Another approach entirely: interestingly, we tend to regard those who break the law "on behalf of some others, or some ideology or principle" as being superior in some way to the common thief, who tends to be thought of as selfish, desperate, depraved, etc. But given our highly individualistic society, and its emphasis on self-empowerment, competitiveness, etc., you'd think we'd praise the selfish thief, not the principled one. We'd sing songs in praise of Dooh Nibor, who steals from the poor to give to the rich (tip o' the hat to Momus there...): namely, himself. Or maybe we're less thoroughgoingly gung-ho on hypercompetitive individualism than our official ideology would claim. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:27:09 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On 4/19/07, Rex wrote: > > > > On 4/18/07, 2fs wrote: > > > > > > (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?) > > > Well, you DON'T tote on Superman's cape. > I'm pretty sure that line is "you don't TUG on Superman's cape." Then again, currently my iTunes is playing Spoon's "I Turn My Camera On," and I persist in hearing that line in the chorus as "hit me like a toad." Ow. Damned slimy toady wetness. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 03:43:44 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: Machismo Festapalooza Rex says: > Hey, it's an issue, for sure. One that might be of interest to a broad > majority of people in this world shaped by the white man. But it just > doesn't interest me that much personally. I'm a straigh white male, and I > find my way through the world without much trouble... and last time I > checked, while his overlarge piece of the pie may have diminished a tiny > bit, Whitey's doing just fine. but the fact that it doesn't interest you points to perhaps your not having a sense of loss about it. i don't think it has anything to do with whitey's pie...it's about finding a way through the world, which is not an easy thing, and even more difficult these days of the quick change. everyone wants a home in one way or another. hey, whitey feels pain too. i'm partly speaking from my personal view of being female and just not relating to a lot of dumb female shit. but i kid when i say that, because marriage and children and girlish dreams are very important to many females, and just because i'm not part of that world doesn't mean that e.g. i can't be sympathetic to female friends who want those things so very much and haven't found them. i mean, i want to understand math. the gal friend wants the big wedding and the handsome, successful guy who will love her unconditionally and forever (good fucking luck to either of us.) we all have our dreams, and to some extent, our dreams are just accidents inflicted upon us by our parents and society and if we're lucky, a bit by our own imagination. i don't advocate mindlessly sharing someone else's dream, but i do advocate understanding that it's their dream. sometimes the gal friend feels like i'm lucky for having never bothered to think of a wedding day, and sometimes i think she's lucky because she's not hitting herself over her head with "theory of computation", 2nd edition, feeling like an idiot. > One reasons I'm not too taken with these films and the other "art" that > addresses this stuff-- like Nu Metal or shock radio-- is that it is all > predicated on anger and alienation and violence, which usually strikes me as > pretty one-dimensional. Admittedly, even when it's presented in a > sophisticated way, I tend not to enjoy depictions of anger, because I don't > enjoy being angry. I find I'm more likely to accept it in literature for > some odd reason. i don't know about nu metal or shock radio, but i've seen all the movies mentioned save the one that started the conversation ("starship troopers.") perhaps they are all tied back to feelings of anger or alienation, but i don't find the portrayals of those feelings to be one-dimensional. examining things like anger or alienation isn't inherently a simple or easy thing to do. > > 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 - > And that's where I see myself. I don't feel like I missed out on a golden > age when I could have reaped more benefits from being The Man, because such > advantages were and are largely unearned. My place in this culture feels > right to me (although the culture itself is a bit wack). whether being such a male had "benefits" is absolutely besides the point. how things were is pretty different than how things are, that's all. the old myths are gone. the new myths haven't been created. > There are plenty of cultures, and corners of mainstream culture, too, where > a man can still be "a man". That's where the guns can be found. People > like me move away from those places. it's way more complicated than that. you could take the gun crowd as a subset, but for what i'm talking about, you might as well ignore it. well, wait a second - i might argue that there's more violence because of a certain repression is going on  it has to do with the dismissal of the old role of being male (in some circles, it's quite unfashionable to embody certain old-school male ideals.) well, regardless, whoever said evolving was going to be easy or pretty? > It's clearly more sophisticated than that, as you articulate well, and > again, I don't even dislike the film. But the culture that I'm speaking to > *needs* its "woe to the white man" art to look as sophisticated as it can be > in order to be effective, right?* Just plain umadorned machismo won't > work. In fact one of its chief virtues is that it can be read a number of > ways; I just find that its most ardent adherents like it because it can be > read their way and doesn't clearly suck, like Rambo. They can have their > beefcake and eat it, too. but i don't think the movies we're talking about are that sort of immature art. i don't think i'd be interested in these movies if they didn't have something fairly subtle and articulate to say about people (males and females) in general. in fact "the company of men" IMO is disturbing very much because it can't be dismissed simply as a "male" movie. > I've never seen "Falling Down", but that's GOTTA suck... like my worst > Howard Stern / Charles Bronson nightmare... anyone seen it? i've seen it and i don't think it sucked. rex, i don't mean to single you out on this  it's just that i feel strongly about these issues. and i don't mean to dismiss your point of view. i know it's your point of view. i unfortunately just feel the desire to express mine as well. i just noticed it's 3:30am so at least i have an excuse for forgetting what my point was. x "waiting for the hero with the 1001st face" o - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:46:46 +0000 From: "Michael Sweeney" Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... Ferris wrote: >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. Gee, I wasn't aware that police (or other sworn peace officers) could decide who to bestow their services/protection upon based on whether or not they agree with the citizens' a) politics, b) stand on gun control laws, or c) some sort of perceived perception of wholehearted support (and/or the flipside - derision) for the police. What color is the sky, indeed? >How fucking fascist. Isn't it ironic (doncha think)? Michael Sweeney Not much in the mood for my usual attempts at semi-humorous sign-offs or kickers... _________________________________________________________________ Download Messenger. Join the im Initiative. Help make a difference today. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_APR07 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:55:16 +0000 From: "Michael Sweeney" Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... Jeff wrote: >(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?) What about actual totes -- bags...or even Totes . brand Footwear? Surely they were made (or at least named) to be toted... As for "twiddled"...well, I've twiddled...but never twiddled and told. Michael "And just like that..I'm back!" Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian. http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:32:42 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... - --On 19. April 2007 01:14:50 -0400 Lauren Elizabeth wrote: >> 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. Sad, but probably true. As usual I find myself agreeing with Capuchin *in principle*, but I'm a bit too disillusioned to believe those principles could be practically applied on a larger scale. I'd like to expound on this, but right now I don't have the time. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:26:49 +0930 From: great white shark Subject: rights young master ferris wrote: > /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." yeah tis awful , it could never happen in the states , lets just forget about segregation, the goons who used to beat up strikers in the 30s, the invasions of various countries ( panama, grenada, haiti and many others) the supporting of so many right wing regimes for decades including iraq, the war on drugs, prohibition , the indian wars, slavery, the 2000 and 2004 elections , the invasion fo cambodia , New Orleans and almost everything the bush regime has ever done . thats not to say that almost everyone else tramples on people human rights too, but the statement you made is so naive that it staggers the imagination . The US has stood up at times and has sometimes done a stirling job to stop oppression , but usually only when its own interests are threatened, this " champion of the free world " crap just does not wash . When it suits, the US is just as capable of trampling on rights as the next guy, just ask all the people rotting in jail for minor acid and grass offences over the years . Its interesting how conservatives want " their " freedoms preserved isn't it ? They trumpet long and loud about ' rights " but they won't give me the right to take drugs, to ask to die with dignity if I am terminally ill, to join with other workers in collectively bargaining , or to have a right to cheap medical attention, but its ok for them to carry lethal weapons, to treat animals as objects , to pay below subsistance wages, to export jobs to other countries where they rip off workers , pollute the waterways , deforest the land and kill off the biodiversity , buy up all the assets such as water and native plants ( yes I'm talking about YOU Coca Cola ) and generally fuck up the planet. These are " Rights" - unalienable ones in their minds . Unregulated guns are just another symptom of our collective madness, those of us who have been trying to warn of the dangers of robber baron capitalism and endless growth for the past 40 years or so have been ridiculed , vilified and sometimes persecuted for our beliefs, it is interesting how so many conservatives are now having to make backflips as the science proves there is a problem, but ultra right wingers ( and extreme left wingers too ) really piss me off as they are so fucking unable to see any other perspective other than their own . der pissed off Kommander ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #162 ********************************