From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #480 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, February 3 2008 Volume 16 : Number 480 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Ralph! [FSThomas ] Re: Now THIS is fucking cool! [Michael Sweeney ] Re: something I've been wondering about [Michael Sweeney ] RE: something I've been wondering about [Michael Sweeney ] Re: something I've been wondering about [2fs ] RE: something I've been wondering about [Michael Sweeney ] Re: something I've been wondering about [Rex ] Re: something I've been wondering about [2fs ] Re: American tunes [Tom Clark ] Re: Ralph! [Capuchin ] Re: American tunes [HwyCDRrev@aol.com] Re: Ralph! [FSThomas ] Re: Ralph! [Steve Schiavo ] DIME: Robyn Hitchcock - Exeter - 2008-01-25 ["Matthijs van Geldere" ] Re: Phil's cafe [grutness@slingshot.co.nz] Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #474 ["Terrence Marks" ] Re: Ralph! [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Ralph! [2fs ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:48:46 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Ralph! Stacked Crooked wrote: > . Feh. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 01:54:09 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: Re: Now THIS is fucking cool! Jeff wrote: >The Story of "The Phil Bar" ...Semi-similar story (even at a bowling alley!) To this day, I and my slightly younger siblings can connect our mutual disdain for Bad Company to a mid-'70s Saturday-afternoon-with-divorced-Dad outing to a suburban bowling alley. After rolling a few games, we went to the alley's game room for some pinball, pool, foosball, etc. Some jamoch played BC's "Rock and Roll Fantasy" 4 or 5 times in a row on the game room's jukebox...and we reacted in increasing groans with each subsequent playing. Since then, I've never wanted to hear Bad Company (or Free, for that matter; some of The Firm's songs are still OK to me, though)... (And, tangentially, whenever I hear multiple songs on the radio by the same artist -- either in a row on the same station or serially on different stations -- and I know it's not a "Two-fer Tuesday" or "Friday Featured Artist" or "[So-and-so] Rock Block" sort of promotion, I always wonder if the artist / prominent member of the band has died. This probably goes back to the Nov/Dec '80 double radio whammy of John Bonham and John Lennon...lotsa Zep and Beatles got played, and since then, I think I got wincingly trained to interpret "Multiple songs played = Tribute to tragic death." Not to mention the '94 Cobain / Nirvana hammering...) Michael "Been semi-dreading a tribute block of Stones / K. Richards music for some 30 years..." Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 01:56:18 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: Re: something I've been wondering about Jeff wrote: >What did sleeves ever do to offend Larry the Cable Guy? ...Apparently the same thing that long sleeves did to Andy Sipowicz... Michael "...or long pants did to Kevin Smith" Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail.-get your "fix". http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 20:02:52 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: something I've been wondering about On 2/2/08, Michael Sweeney wrote: > > Jeff wrote: > > > >What did sleeves ever do to offend Larry the Cable Guy? > > > ...Apparently the same thing that long sleeves did to Andy Sipowicz... > > > Michael "...or long pants did to Kevin Smith" Sweeney > Yes, but you can go to the store and buy short-sleeve shirts, or short pants. You can't buy sleeveless flannel shirts, can you? (I mean, you couldn't: you probably can, now - thanks to the popularity of idiocy Larry the Cable Guy's "comedy." I don't understand why the sleeveless shirt thing in the first place. It's like: all male country singers must wear cowboy hats - regardless of whether they've had anything to do with cowboying, etc. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 02:23:10 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: RE: something I've been wondering about Jeff wrote: >You can't buy sleeveless flannel shirts, can you? (I mean, you couldn't: you probably can, now - thanks to the popularity of idiocy Larry the Cable Guy's "comedy."< ...Yeah, I'll bet you're right -- in fact, they're probably marketing LtCG-brand pre-ripped sleeveless flannel shirts now (available, natch, at Wal-Mart)... >It's like: all male country singers must wear cowboy hats - regardless of whether they've had anything to do with cowboying, etc. ...I always assume that at least half of those hat-wearings are due to the kind of flesh-headedness we have long since accepted... Michael "The conductor's name was Milo..." Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail.-get your "fix". http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 19:30:57 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: something I've been wondering about > Jeff wrote: > >What did sleeves ever do to offend Larry the Cable Guy? > And I've recently been thinking, say, this Larry the Cable Guy character has been around for a long time, and yet I don't know anything about him other that his catchphrase and that he seems lame. Where did he come from? Why do I suspect "drive time radio show sidekick?" (I just learned about that sleeveless shirt thing last week, although I think he's done voices in some of the millions of CGI animal movies I've seen with the kids in recent years.) - -Rex, his finger on the very pulse of pop-culture ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 21:46:44 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: something I've been wondering about On 2/2/08, Rex wrote: > > Jeff wrote: > > >What did sleeves ever do to offend Larry the Cable Guy? > > > > And I've recently been thinking, say, this Larry the Cable Guy character > has been around for a long time, and yet I don't know anything about him > other that his catchphrase and that he seems lame. Where did he come from? > Why do I suspect "drive time radio show sidekick?" (I just learned about > that sleeveless shirt thing last week, although I think he's done voices in > some of the millions of CGI animal movies I've seen with the kids in recent > years.) > Rex, this is why Jesus invented Wikipedia. (Short answer: yep - crappy radio call-in shows are partly responsible for his career.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 04:04:07 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: RE: something I've been wondering about Rex wrote: >Larry the Cable Guy [snip] he seems lame. [snip] I think he's done voices in some of the millions of CGI animal movies I've seen with the kids in recent years.< ...I won't even spend the less-time-than-it-would-take-for-me-to-type-this to check, but I think he did a voice (the tow truck) in "Cars" -- but his lameness is undeniable on a Dane Cook-like level... Michael "Childless...and not that frequent a cartoon-movie watcher...but often a pop-culture trap drain of sorts..." Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 04:13:11 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: RE: something I've been wondering about Jeff wrote: >this is why Jesus invented Wikipedia ...Yes, but don't forget, Sen. Stevens invented the series of tubes that brings you all the internets you receive. Michael "It's not a big truck..." Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 20:18:16 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: something I've been wondering about On Feb 2, 2008 7:46 PM, 2fs wrote: > On 2/2/08, Rex wrote: > > > Jeff wrote: > > > >What did sleeves ever do to offend Larry the Cable Guy? > > > > > > > And I've recently been thinking, say, this Larry the Cable Guy character > > has been around for a long time, and yet I don't know anything about him > > other that his catchphrase and that he seems lame. Where did he come from? > > Why do I suspect "drive time radio show sidekick?" (I just learned about > > that sleeveless shirt thing last week, although I think he's done voices in > > some of the millions of CGI animal movies I've seen with the kids in recent > > years.) > > > > Rex, this is why Jesus invented Wikipedia. (Short answer: yep - crappy > radio call-in shows are partly responsible for his career.) I know, but consulting the feg-mind usually yields funnier dividends. Conversely, consulting Wiki implies, if only to myself and God, that I care. - -Rex > > > > -- > > ...Jeff Norman > > The Architectural Dance Society > http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 20:21:39 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: something I've been wondering about On Feb 2, 2008 8:04 PM, Michael Sweeney wrote: > Rex wrote: > > > >Larry the Cable Guy [snip] he seems lame. [snip] I think he's done voices > in some of the millions of CGI animal movies I've seen with the kids in > recent years.< > > > ...I won't even spend the less-time-than-it-would-take-for-me-to-type-this > to check, but I think he did a voice (the tow truck) in "Cars" - > Right. Mater. He was actually good, although it was mostly the writing. > - but his lameness is undeniable on a Dane Cook-like level.. > Another phenomenon whose origin-issue I missed. But I do know all them Disney Channel shits inside-out! - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 22:24:09 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: something I've been wondering about On 2/2/08, Rex wrote: > > > > consulting the feg-mind usually yields funnier dividends. Conversely, > consulting Wiki implies, if only to myself and God, that I care. > Yes...but to whom does consulting the feg-mind imply that you care? "And mine is the other bit..." - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 20:36:08 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: American tunes On Feb 2, 2008, at 6:11 AM, Marcy Tanter wrote: > Squeeze--"Some Americans" I meant to tell Melissa over lunch a few weeks ago: "America - Fuck Yeah!" from the "Team America" soundtrack. Also, anyone remember that cheesy video that some guy did post-9/11 that was total jingo? I wish I could find it. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 00:10:06 -0600 (CST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Ralph! On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, FSThomas wrote: > Stacked Crooked wrote: >> . > > Feh. While I'm sure we all appreciate your attempt at a cogent and thoughtful rebuttal, I must say that it does not add much to any discussion of the real issues of the world. In that way, I suppose it's very much like the debate that was the topic of the article. Care to try again? J. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 01:49:58 EST From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: Re: American tunes Leonard Cohen DEMOCRACY (is coming to the USA) In a message dated 2/2/2008 11:39:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tclark@mac.com writes: I meant to tell Melissa over lunch a few weeks ago: "America - Fuck Yeah!" from the "Team America" soundtrack. **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:32:41 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Ralph! Capuchin wrote: > On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, FSThomas wrote: >> Stacked Crooked wrote: >>> . >> >> Feh. > > While I'm sure we all appreciate your attempt at a cogent and thoughtful > rebuttal, I must say that it does not add much to any discussion of the > real issues of the world. In that way, I suppose it's very much like > the debate that was the topic of the article. > > Care to try again? The "feh" was more geared at the author than the content. Nader is one of those people who I've learned to routinely disregard. He and Ross Perot are to an older generation Ron Paul is today: an aberrant figure who may raise the odd good point but is far out on the fringe that he renders himself entirely un-electable. Regarding the debate: it was safe and boring, but I expected little else from the performance based on the audience at the Kodak that evening. Regarding the Israel question poised by Mr. Hedges: When Hamas stops lobbing rockets and mortars into Israel the blockade will stop. If the rocket attacks don't cease then neither should the blockade. (And yes, it really is that easy.) I find it borderline hilarious how Nader and the media at large turn a blind eye to Hamas's use of terror tactics while summarily slamming Israel for creating a "humanitarian crisis." The crisis is of Hamas's making, not Israels. In regards to violating the Constitution, Nader has something in common with current candidate John McCain: an apparent love for campaign finance reform. McCain-Feingold pretty clearly violates the first amendment, but no one seems to grouse about that. (MF is one of a list of reasons I cannot support McCain.) Nationalized health care will be a nightmare of untenable proportions whether it's Hillary's or Obama's plan. Keep in mind that there are very, very few things the Federal government does well. They were entrusted with Social Security (nothing more than an entitlement plan mean to earn votes and a bad idea in the first place) and see how well they've done with that. Does anyone really want to entrust them with the health care of every man, woman and child in the US? The idea scares the utter crap out of me. Lastly, regarding Nader's last point on corporate welfare: I'll support an end to nurturing business in the country the moment other welfare programs are likewise removed. The task of helping individuals in unfortunate circumstances is best left to the private, local level and not from on high. And why would anyone want to hinder business, anyway? Why would they call for higher taxes on business and those who run business? Those who *write paychecks*? Because they want to get the economy to stumble? Because they want to see a spike in unemployment? A drop in the GNP? Is it due to a general disdain for capitalism? A desire to suppress individuality and to punish those who manage to achieve or, God forbid, over-achieve? It doesn't make any sense. Hell, even Bill Clinton said recently, "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ..." That sounds like a fantastic idea. I'm certain China and India will be on board with that one and follow suit immediately. It's foolishness. And that's why I gave it a "feh" and moved onto other things. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:44:33 -0600 From: Steve Schiavo Subject: Re: Ralph! On Feb 3, 2008, at 8:32 AM, FSThomas wrote: > Hell, even Bill Clinton said recently, "We just have to slow down > our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ..." That > sounds like a fantastic idea. I'm certain China and India will be > on board with that one and follow suit immediately. You need to go find the other half of the quote. In fact, Clinton was making exactly the point that you are making. Kinda kills any other arguments you might try to make. - - Steve _______________ Interconnectedness among living beings can be accounted for by nonlocal quantum entanglement. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 18:20:23 -0000 From: "Matthijs van Geldere" Subject: DIME: Robyn Hitchcock - Exeter - 2008-01-25 Robyn Hitchcock The Phoenix - Exeter - UK http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=182163 Friday January 25th 2008 Recorded and mastered by Matthijs Audio Source Information: - - Sound Professionals SP-CMC-2 cardioid mics - - SP-SPSB-6 Battery Box - - Edirol R09 (WAV 24 bit / 44.1 KHz mode) - - Adobe Audition 2.0 (remastering and downmix to 16 bit mode) - - CDWAV CD1 01 Intro 02 Nocturne (Prelude) 03 My Wife And My Dead Wife 04 Cathedral 05 Flavour Of Night 06 Sounds Great When You're Dead 07 Uncorrected Personality Traits 08 Ye Sleeping Knights of Jesus 09 I Used To Say I Love You 10 Winter Love 11 This Could Be The Day 12 My Favourite Buildings CD2 01 Trams Of Old London 02 That's Fantastic Mother Church 03 Heart Full Of Leaves 04 Autumn Is Your Last Chance 05 I Often Dream Of Trains 06 Visions Of Johanna 07 Queen Elvis 08 All Shook Up 09 Goodnight I Say Robyn Hitchcock - Guitar, Vocals Terry Edwards - Soprano Sax, Trumpet, Keyboards, Bass, Backing vocals Tim Keegan - Guitar, Background vocals ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:51:46 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Ralph! Steve Schiavo wrote: > On Feb 3, 2008, at 8:32 AM, FSThomas wrote: > >> Hell, even Bill Clinton said recently, "We just have to slow down our >> economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ..." That sounds >> like a fantastic idea. I'm certain China and India will be on board >> with that one and follow suit immediately. > > > You need to go find the other half of the quote. In fact, Clinton was > making exactly the point that you are making. Kinda kills any other > arguments you might try to make. One half of both, it's still a frightening statement and either side can cling to the first half and take it as gospel. A decade from now it'll be undisputed that the whole Global Warming phenom was a joke, just as we now know the threats of a coming ice age back in the 70s were a joke. I just hope that the US can avoid gimping itself with either Kyoto or some more heinous "treaty" in the meantime. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:21:33 +1300 From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz Subject: Re: Phil's cafe >Of course, it was only the jukebox going ape, and the bartender had had >enough and just turned it off. From that day on, the smallest, dullest bar >in this place was known forevermore as "The Phil Bar." reminds me of something which for unknown reasons I immortalised in a travelogue on my website: "Any indication that we were in the fabled twilight zone that is the West Coast were not dispelled as we pulled, sweltering, into Murchison. We were both in need of food and drink, and I wanted to check the way to a little-known picturesque spot indicated in a guide book - the Maruia Falls. The local dairy/cafe - truly an Out-of-Time cafe - proved to be a good munchie spot, but while we were there we noticed something a little curious about the background music being played. The songs were, in order: "I don't know what to do with myself" (Dusty Springfield), then "Heartbreaker" (Dionne Warwick), then "I don't know what to do with myself" (Dusty Springfield), then "Heartbreaker" (Dionne Warwick), then "I don't know what to do with myself" (Dusty Springfield), then "Heartbreaker" (Dionne Warwick), then... having eaten, we left before finding out what the next track would have been." James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 15:29:14 -0800 From: "Terrence Marks" Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #474 > Subject: song request > > fegs, > I'm collecting suggestions for any songs that might work with this year's > Burning Man theme - American Dream. any suggestions would be appreciated - > esp as the list has a mich wider and deeper appreciation of music than > many of the folks in the camp. basically we'd do anything to avoid having > to hear ring of fire over and over again. I've probably been scooped, but.... I prefer Yes' cover of "America" to the Simon & Garfunkel original. You also need The American Metaphysical Circus by United States of America, and John Linnell's State Songs. I'm away from my music collection right now. I think some Phil Ochs would be appropriate. Tape from California or Cops of the World. Assuming that you'll be around people who'll put up with Phil Ochs and not just turn their music up a bit louder. Terrence Marks ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:38:03 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Ralph! On 2/3/08, FSThomas wrote: > > Capuchin wrote: > > On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, FSThomas wrote: > >> Stacked Crooked wrote: > >>> . > > In regards to violating the Constitution, Nader has something in common > with current candidate John McCain: an apparent love for campaign > finance reform. McCain-Feingold pretty clearly violates the first > amendment, but no one seems to grouse about that. (MF is one of a list > of reasons I cannot support McCain.) Are you alluding to the absurd "money = speech" ruling? Because how on earth is money speech? Bribery should be legal then, right? It's just an expression of opinion. Nationalized health care will be a nightmare of untenable proportions > whether it's Hillary's or Obama's plan. Funny how every other industrialized nation on earth disagrees with you. Keep in mind that there are very, very few things the Federal government > does well. They were entrusted with Social Security (nothing more than > an entitlement plan mean to earn votes and a bad idea in the first > place) and see how well they've done with that. And what are the problems w/Social Security? Reports of its imminent demise are rather off - and if there is a funding shortfall, simply raising the cap on FICA can take care of that. It makes no sense that above whatever the current cutoff is, people's dollars are worth more simply because they no longer have to pay those taxes on that money. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 16:05:30 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Ralph! On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, 2fs wrote: > On 2/3/08, FSThomas wrote: > > > > Capuchin wrote: > > > On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, FSThomas wrote: > > >> Stacked Crooked wrote: > > >>> . > > > > In regards to violating the Constitution, Nader has something in common > > with current candidate John McCain: an apparent love for campaign > > finance reform. McCain-Feingold pretty clearly violates the first > > amendment, but no one seems to grouse about that. (MF is one of a list > > of reasons I cannot support McCain.) > > > Are you alluding to the absurd "money = speech" ruling? Because how on earth > is money speech? Bribery should be legal then, right? It's just an > expression of opinion. Money isn't necessarily speech, but advertising surely is. > > Nationalized health care will be a nightmare of untenable proportions > > whether it's Hillary's or Obama's plan. > > Funny how every other industrialized nation on earth disagrees with you. That aside, does anyone know how much our taxes would have to go up to pay for it? Serious question. 1%, fine--I think you'd have very few people against it. Bring back Depression-through-Carter rates and regardless of the cause I think people will balk. I believe everyone should have access to good health care in this country regardless of their ability to pay. That said I wonder if *nationalizing* the system is the best way to make that happen. > > Keep in mind that there are very, very few things the Federal government > > does well. They were entrusted with Social Security (nothing more than > > an entitlement plan mean to earn votes and a bad idea in the first > > place) and see how well they've done with that. > > And what are the problems w/Social Security? Reports of its imminent demise > are rather off - and if there is a funding shortfall, simply raising the cap > on FICA can take care of that. It makes no sense that above whatever the > current cutoff is, people's dollars are worth more simply because they no > longer have to pay those taxes on that money. One problem is it really doesn't PAY that much...but I guess it IS *Supplemental* Security Income, so maybe that's OK. I think they could do away with the fiction that you pay into the system now and get back what you put in later. Why not abolish the tax, roll it into the income tax (yes, it'd have to go up) and be honest about what it is--a tax to support those who need help? Yes, there are people who'd be against THAT, but at least we wouldn't be lied to. As long as they maintain the fiction that it's your money being held in trust, the idea of private accounts makes total sense. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 18:39:49 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Ralph! On 2/3/08, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, 2fs wrote: > > > On 2/3/08, FSThomas wrote: > > > > > > Capuchin wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, FSThomas wrote: > > > >> Stacked Crooked wrote: > > > >>> . > > > > > > In regards to violating the Constitution, Nader has something in > common > > > with current candidate John McCain: an apparent love for campaign > > > finance reform. McCain-Feingold pretty clearly violates the first > > > amendment, but no one seems to grouse about that. (MF is one of a > list > > > of reasons I cannot support McCain.) > > > > > > Are you alluding to the absurd "money = speech" ruling? Because how on > earth > > is money speech? Bribery should be legal then, right? It's just an > > expression of opinion. > > Money isn't necessarily speech, but advertising surely is. It is? So, if I phone up _Newsweek_, and say I want to pay for the first 30 pages and the cover of the next issue - and I can afford to do so - they *have* to say yes, just because I can afford it? No - of course not. It's their magazine: they have the right to refuse my "advertising." Advertising is, by definition, paid speech. Someone's getting paid; someone can accept that pay or not. Now, for independent media, government regulation of that sort of thing becomes iffy. But for broadcast media (whose airwaves are, you will recall, a public resource), of course it should exist: the theoretical point is that the airwaves are a scarce public resource over which the government is to exercise custodianship. It doesn't, of course, and hasn't - but in theory, it could - and should. The problem is where advertising speech is concerned, it's a limited resource - and this is true even in privately owned news publications. And the problem with that is that one person's ability to pay for more speech effectively can shut out someone else's speech, if they can't pay for it. The point of prohibiting govt. from restricting speech was not to turn the right to speak into an auction, sold to the highest bidder. So you're saying if, say, Bill Gates decided he'd spend the entirety of his fortune so that all ads in the US for the next two years said nothing but MICROSOFT IS GOOD, you'd have no problem with that? This is tending to go off into weird hypothetical areas - simply because the nature of "speech" has changed dramatically in the 200+ years since the Constitution was written. Getting back to my earlier hypothetical: it's reasonable to say that a candidate for public office has certain restrictions. The President must be at least 35 years old, for instance. The effect of allowing unlimited spending on political ads would effectively be to allow wealthier candidates to bribe the public (or the media in which they're advertising, more directly) - and bribery is, of course, illegal. That is, it's entirely reasonable to hold candidates for public office to particular standards, which would include their ability to use their wealth to influence public discourse. Or perhaps we should just say that all campaign ads need to be vetted by a committee of scholars and shorn of any and all lies, inaccuracies, false implications, and innuendo...does that seem reasonable? ;-) > > Nationalized health care will be a nightmare of untenable proportions > > > whether it's Hillary's or Obama's plan. > > > > Funny how every other industrialized nation on earth disagrees with you. > > That aside, does anyone know how much our taxes would have to go up to pay > for it? Serious question. 1%, fine--I think you'd have very few people > against it. Bring back Depression-through-Carter rates and regardless of > the cause I think people will balk. The problem with taxes is that no one likes to see them go up. Yet they're necessary to the functioning of modern society. "Depression-through-Carter" is a pretty huge continuum, during which there was a fair amount of variance...but it wasn't as if the nation was suffering from its huge tax burden during those years. Arguably, in fact, many of those years were the nation's peaks in terms of power, influence, wealth, and productivity. Also, several surveys have asked the public exactly that question...and large numbers of the public *do* say they'd be willing to accept increases in taxes *if* it meant guaranteed health care for everyone, for life. What we have now, instead, is just spending money on the enormous black hole that is Iraq *without* any means to pay for it - since no politician seems brave enough to say that, you know, if we think this is necessary, we need to pay for it. The concept of "sacrifice" - common enough in govt. rhetoric for WWII and the like - has been utterly absent from this war. Yet it's not free. Government seems able to spend money on its priorities - too bad its priorities are the war in Iraq and not health care. I believe everyone should have access to good health care in this country > regardless of their ability to pay. That said I wonder if *nationalizing* > the system is the best way to make that happen. Well, that's an interesting debate. But I don't think it's very useful for someone just to say, oh, government will fuck it up because that's what govts. do. Some governments fuck some things up, yes. Generally, the reason they fuck things up has much to do with the larger social and economic situation...including the general attitude toward such issues as enrichment, selfishness, public service, the greater good, public health, etc. Our environment right now is pretty toxic toward anything except personal enrichment...so it's no wonder that any agency trying to do anything else doesn't work so well...particularly if, as with government, it also enables routes *to* self-enrichment. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #480 ********************************