From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #483 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, February 4 2008 Volume 16 : Number 483 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Showbiz Cat [hssmrg@bath.ac.uk] Re: Ralph! [FSThomas ] Re: so let's talk about Buffy [Christopher Gross ] Re: Ralph! [Benjamin Lukoff ] in "arrested development" news/rumours to-day... [lep ] Re: so let's talk about Buffy [lep ] Re: Ralph! [Barbara Soutar ] Re: Ralph! [Christopher Gross ] Re: Ralph! [FSThomas ] Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama [The Great Quail ] Re: due props [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: Quail's relatives [Carrie Galbraith ] Re: Quail's "redneck" relatives have got it right [Sebastian Hagedorn ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:46:09 +0000 From: hssmrg@bath.ac.uk Subject: Showbiz Cat Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 02:00:16 -0500 From: lep Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd:_Get_"Show_Cat"_by_Robyn_Hitchcock_for_=A39. 99?= From: Amazon.co.uk Date: Feb 4, 2008 1:29 AM Subject: Get "Show Cat" by Robyn Hitchcock for #9.99 To: "softboygirl@gmail.com" Greetings from Amazon.co.uk, As someone who has purchased or rated music by Robyn Hitchcock, you might like to know that Show Cat will be released on 11 February 2008. You can pre-order yours for just #9.99 by following the link below. Show Cat Robyn Hitchcock Price: #9.99 Release Date: 11 February 2008 Track Listings show cat? is that the british-language release? as ever, lauren * No, mine is titled "Shadow Cat", published by Sartorial Records, PO Box 30608, London E1 1TS sartorial@terryedwards.co.uk www.terryedwards.co.uk - - MRG n.p. "Goodnight I Say" from the Fleece... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:50:20 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Ralph! Christopher Gross wrote: > Gotta pipe up here to point out that the two are not really comparable. > In the 70s there were just a handful of articles speculating about a > possible coming ice age. There was no broad scientific consensus about > it, as there is today about global warming. And in the 70s there wasn't a move to suppress any contrarian points of view which you do see today, though. > Re: your prediction about a decade from now, you seem awfully confident. > Would you care to lay ten bucks on it? (Maybe we can get woj to hold the > money.) I just might be up for that. Woj? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:50:43 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: so let's talk about Buffy Well, if you insist. About the question of involved with or detached from the characters, as discussed by Capuchin, Jeff and Lauren others: I never forget that they are just fictional creations, but nevertheless I definitely share in their triumphs and tragedies. This is, in fact, one of the *most* important reasons that I love Joss's shows: he and his colleagues are better than almost anyone else at creating characters I can get emotionally invested in. It's kind of like watching a horror movie to experience fear without any actual danger. I watch Buffy, Angel and Firefly in part to experience these emotional situations without actually having to, for example, be forced to kill my lover to save the world. Of course there is *some* emotional distance -- losing a real-life friend would hurt a lot worse than watching even the most beloved Buffyverse character die. But there isn't nearly *enough* distance to keep me from empathizing with the characters. And that's why I can understand Lauren's wish that something good would occasionally happen to Wesley, for example. It's just another way of saying that you hurt when the character hurts. Sure, it's as illogical as wishing that Buffy was never placed in physical danger again - -- where would that leave the show? But it's still completely natural. Now, about the poll craigie linked to: I think the whole question is fundamentally wrong. It doesn't quite fill me with the urge to wash afterwards, but it does make me shake my head sadly. I don't think either vampire is right for Buffy, not in the long run. More importantly, why should we pick either one of them? Who says that the only possiblities Buffy will ever have are two guys she met when she was in high school? And most importantly, would answering this burning question really make the hypothetical movie any better? I'd expect the opposite. "Resolving" Buffy's love life would inevtiably take up attention and screen time at the expense of other, equally (or more) important parts of her life. Sorry, vampire romance is not the be-all and end-all of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Feh. (Also, the writer, who I suspect thinks of him/herself as a Spike fan, makes a blatant error in the chronology: Spike was introduced in the *third* episode of season 2.) Besides, we all know Buffy is eventually going to hook up with Faith.... - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:55:39 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Ralph! On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, 2fs wrote: > On 2/4/08, FSThomas wrote: > > > > > > > What doesn't make any sense is this apparent ideological link you are > > > trying to make between individualism and capitalism when it is > > > all-too-clear that capitalism cannot exist without a massive state > > > siphoning the wealth of most poeple into the hands of the few. The > > > state is a friend of capitalism and an enemy of the individual. > > > > Right. And becoming another sheep in a herd to spend your entire life > > with a hand out to the government for everything from cradle to grave is > > what, then? > > Preferable to dying of a curable disease merely because you can't afford > healthcare - or having every aspect of life controlled by some business > utterly out of our control. Damn, it's times like these I wish the Complete Peanuts was also available electronically, because there's a particular strip I'd really like to paste in here.... Essentialy: SNOOPY: It says here, "It is better to have lived one day as a lion than one thousand days as a sheep." What do you think of that, Woodstock? WOODSTOCK: BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA [one of the few times he doesn't just say ||||||||||||] Fortunately it doesn't have to be either extreme....does it? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:00:30 -0500 From: lep Subject: in "arrested development" news/rumours to-day... << 'Arrested Development' Film Planned? Actor Jason Bateman has confirmed plans are underway for a movie version of cancelled TV sitcom Arrested Development. A rumored meeting between the star and series creator Mitch Hurwitz late last year fuelled speculation a big-screen adaptation of the cult show was in the pipeline. And now the Juno star has confirmed the cast has received calls from executives asking if they would be interested in reviving their roles once the ongoing Hollywood writers strike is over. He tells E! News, "I can confirm that a round of sniffing has started. Any talk is targeting a post-strike situation, of course. I think, as always, that it's a question of whether the people with the money are willing to give our leader, Mitch Hurwitz, what he deserves for his participation. And I can speak for the cast when I say our fingers are crossed." >> taken from: http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/#celeb8 as ever, lauren - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:19:06 -0800 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Re: Ralph! ferris said: "Why would someone go to school for God knows how long, incur piles of debt, put up with internships and wretched hours during that hazing process, and then spend the rest of your career paying massive insurance premiums to prevent themselves from getting sued into the stone age if there's no light at the end of the tunnel; no reward?" Interesting factoid: Canadians rarely sue doctors. Mainly because they don't need to recoup their losses for paying expensive medical bills - medical litigation often comes about when people feel bitter about being ripped off. Therefore the amount of insurance Canadian doctors pay is not too high. In fact, they make an excellent living and I have seen my neurosurgeon's house. His mansion by the sea was featured in our newspaper last year. Barbara Soutar Victoria, BC ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:30:53 -0500 From: lep Subject: Re: so let's talk about Buffy Chris explained: > Well, if you insist. > > About the question of involved with or detached from the characters, as > discussed by Capuchin, Jeff and Lauren others: I never forget that they > are just fictional creations, but nevertheless I definitely share in their > triumphs and tragedies. This is, in fact, one of the *most* important > reasons that I love Joss's shows: he and his colleagues are better than > almost anyone else at creating characters I can get emotionally invested > in. It's kind of like watching a horror movie to experience fear without > any actual danger. well, while chris is around, i might as well ask him to "explain" a few things... WARNING: SPOILERS. (space) (end of space) i never really got past angel's anger at wesley for taking the baby conner. for me, it was his biggest black mark, and also for his pals who towed his party line against wesley. i swear, sometimes angel is such a drama queen with "oh, kill me when you know it's the right thing to do", but heaven forbid, you try to save the damn baby. do you think it was written to generate that effect, or that's more of a personal reaction, i.e. does everyone tend to think angel acted like a complete ass? and, just because i like to point these things out, how come joss is like "oh, buffy can't possibly be with spike" because it would be too "luke and laura" (even after spike gets a soul), but meanwhile, angel offs jenny calendar, tortures giles, threatens joyce, and kills willows goldfish, but, when he gets his soul back, it's all okay, because, you know, now he has a soul. i'm just saying. btw, agreed about chris' evaluation of the angel vs. spike poll. buffy has more important things to do than deal with those two. xo lauren - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:32:15 -0800 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Re: Ralph! Here's some statistics to back up that factoid I threw out in an earlier post: "Malpractice litigation" "The extra cost of malpractice lawsuits accounts for some of the difference in health spending in the two countries. In Canada the total cost of settlements, legal fees, and insurance comes to $4 per person each year, but in the United States it is $16. Average payouts to American plaintiffs were $265,103, while payouts to Canadian plaintiffs were somewhat higher, averaging $309,417. However, malpractice suits are far more common in the U.S., with 350% more suits filed each year per person. While malpractice costs are significantly higher in the U.S., they make up only a small proportion of total medical spending. The total cost of defending and settling malpractice lawsuits in the U.S. in 2001 was approximately $6.5 billion, or 0.46% of total health spending. Critics say that defensive medicine consumes up to 9% of American healthcare expenses. In the same year in Canada, the total burden of malpractice suits was $237 million, or 0.27% of total health spending." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:47:30 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Ralph! On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, FSThomas wrote: > > Gotta pipe up here to point out that the two are not really comparable. > > In the 70s there were just a handful of articles speculating about a > > possible coming ice age. There was no broad scientific consensus about > > it, as there is today about global warming. > > And in the 70s there wasn't a move to suppress any contrarian points of > view which you do see today, though. Don't really see it today, either; though if you have evidence of such suppression please do post it. What I see is more like one point of view losing out because most scientists find the other view to be better supported by the evidence -- much as those 70s papers about the coming ice age lost out. > I just might be up for that. Woj? You'll also have to decide who wins in the event of any dispute, woj. The duties of a listmeister are never-ending. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:50:47 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Ralph! Barbara Soutar wrote: > Interesting factoid: Canadians rarely sue doctors. Mainly because they > don't need to recoup their losses for paying expensive medical bills - > medical litigation often comes about when people feel bitter about being > ripped off. I think things are a bit more ... litigious here in the US. We're the people who order coffee at a drive-thru, hold it between our legs while driving and then sue when we burn our respective crotches, remember? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:42:58 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama Rex, > Maybe. Not a single one of them would actually vote for Obama, either, True, but I have been surprised at how many of these "redneck" types would rather have Obama than Hillary as president. Granted, they'd rather have any Republican in office than either of those two, but still.... > though. Racism aside, his policies are damn near the same as Hillary's, and > that's what the debate will have been about for months, come November. I agree that their actual policies are virtually indistinguishable. I may be naove, but I am won over by Obama's idealism. I think that he sets a better tone. Indeed, because the two candidates are so similar on paper, I think it's all the more important to look at qualitative factors such as leadership potential, personality, and even style. When I see Hillary rallies, I see a bunch of aging white Boomers and their kids. When I see Obama rallies, I see the future of an America I desperately crave to inhabit. When I listen to Hillary, I hear the echo of past battles being granted the status of current affairs. When I listen to Obama, I hear the voice of a generation that's moving beyond those battles, eager to create a new world. When I think about Hillary, I find myself mired in cynicism. When I think about Obama, I find myself actually hoping again for the first time in years. Maybe I am being naove -- I am certainly being naove, and I am sure Eddie would be happy to hand me my ass on a plate -- but dammit, Obama makes me feel proud to be an American again. > Some might underestimate it for that reason, but not me-- I broke up with > the Clintons a long time ago (midway through Bill's first term) and have > only recently come to support Hillary, based on the campaign she's put > together. To further your metaphor, I suppose I am not ready to crawl back to an old lover, no matter if she's finally found her voice, no matter of she wants a second chance. (Hell, or believes she's entitled to it.) I want to move on. Again, I'd point to the Andrew Sullivan piece. > Question for you, non-intentionally-antagonizing department: what is it > about Hillary per se that would make voting for her in November so much more > of a hold-your-nose proposition? Aside from the fact I dislike her? And aside from the fact I believe she really does polarize people? And aside from the reasons I have already supplied? Well, I could write on and on about it, but frankly, I wouldn't be saying anything new. I do not believe a word she says, I find her cold, calculating, dishonest, imperious, humorless, and out of touch with anyone under the age of Boomer. Nor do I want another Clinton/Bush in the White House. Jesus -- let's abolish the parties, and just pick Clinton/Bush every four years! I do like her hair, though. I think she's brilliant, and for an older woman, kind of sexy. > For that reason I'm flummoxed by your (I assume essentially Democratic) > friends-- and make no mistake, I'm glad you're not one of them-- who would > pick McCain over Clinton in November. Well, those few friends tend to skew more libertarian or simply craggy. The majority of my Democratic party friends will vote for Hillary, though most feel the same way I do about her. Bear in mind, she was our state senator, so maybe we've dealt with her more, and have developed more of a distaste for her artificiality. > Well, as I said, I'm not aware of any of the candidates' takes on > videogames, partially because I don't give a shit about them personally. And isn't that the root of most political apathy? > That aside, I do see a litte bit > of a difference between video games as they exist now and most other kinds > of art, even the hideously violent kinds, inasmuchas they put > people/children literally in the position of killers and so forth and sell > that as "cool" or whatever. But that just alarms me on a cultural level (as > does the popularity of anything immensely stupid and morally bankrupt), and > I can pretty much contain that by not buying my kids Grand Theft Auto or > whatever I will decline an extensive argument on this subject, but I feel you are typifying the position of the other side, which tends to demonize and ghettoize video games in the same way that comic books and rock music were also marginalized in the 80s. However, you nail a valid point at the end -- as a parent, it's your job to know the ratings, and to limit what your kids can do in your own home. That's why video games are rated. My argument is not that kids should play GTA; but that *adults* should be allowed to play games that remain as unrestricted as other forms of entertainment media. > But it's points against both of them in my > book that they're wasting time keeping up with serialized television, and > that's pretty much it. "The Wire" is pretty much one of the best show's that's ever been on television. Of course, if you have dismissed the entire medium of serialized television as a waste of time, that's not going to sway you. I rather believe that every medium has its wasteland of junk, its few solid hits, and its occasional flashes of genius. > Hopefully this is useful stuff-- YMMV. What does YMMV mean? - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:21:23 -0500 (EST) From: Jill Brand Subject: Quail's "redneck" relatives have got it right Quail (hey, Quail!) wrote: "...but they see Romney as a used car salesman." Around here we tend to call him "the empty suit." He's a weasel. His only position on anything is "I want to get elected." He voted for no new taxes in MA but raised fees on everything because there was no way for the state to live within his tax parameters. He takes credit for bringing business to the state when, in fact, a number of the businesses he takes credit for were well on the way to opening branches here before he took office. He's for legal abortion and then he's against it. He'll tell you anything that you want to hear. And he has NO presence whatsoever in his chosen hometown, and that says a lot to me, too. I'm really conflicted about tomorrow. I am not a Hillary Clinton fan (though I don't hate her as some do), but I am somewhat concerned that Obama will wildly promise things (which I'd love to see in a perfect world) which he can't possibly come through on. However, I am pretty sure that Hillary Clinton is unelectable. Will the country vote for a black president? I don't know. I've been the only person in my family to vote for years, but now, all of a sudden, the two male members will be voting, too. My husband became a citizen this past summer (after living here since 1978) and my son turned 18 last March. It's interesting to see Thomas talk about elections now that he can't sit on his non-voting high horse anymore. Jill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:26:53 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Ralph! On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Barbara Soutar wrote: > A Canadian subsidizes health care with their taxes very willingly. There > shouldn't be any entrepreneurial component to health care... in To ANY aspect of health care? I mean drug design, device design, etc..? > September of 2000 when I had my brain surgery I wasn't in any position > to "choose" my brain surgeon with price in mind. I was helpless and > grateful to be given the best care suggested by my family doctor. I was > given the same care that the Prime Minister would have received. My only > fear was survival - if I'd had to worry about paying for it, the anxiety > would have been too much to bear. Sick people are not to be exploited, > although they are desperate. They aren't "customers". Agree with you here. > Taxes are not supposesd to be a punishment, except when it comes to > cigarette and alcohol taxes. They're the price you pay for living a > civilized life. Sin taxes are meant to be punishment? Maybe in theory. Lots of states are beginning to RELY on them, though: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1835.html http://enlightennj.blogspot.com/2006/03/increase-in-cigarette-tax-to-result-in.html I wonder if they really reduce consumption, anyway. It's really just a half-assed method of prohibition... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:33:48 +0100 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: due props - -- Jill Brand is rumored to have mumbled on 4. Februar 2008 13:10:14 -0500 regarding due props: > I think that the Giants deserve kudos for their upset victory last night. That's very big of you. > What I really hate is that Boston baseball and football seem to have > taken on this Yankee-like persona or reputation. Yup. > Everyone thought it was > great when the Sox finally won in 2004, but now everyone hates them. And > the country cheered when the Pats upset the Rams in SB XXXVI (I'm just > practicing my Roman numerals), but now they made the nation happy by > losing. This is natural. Exactly. I think with the Pats there's more antagony because of the cheating allegations and the way Bill Belichick behaves in general. - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Am alten Stellwerk 22, 50733 Kvln, Germany http://www.uni-koeln.de/~a0620/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:36:01 +0100 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama - -- Rex is rumored to have mumbled on 4. Februar 2008 10:19:54 -0800 regarding Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama: >> PPS: Hillary's favorite TV show is "Grey's Anatomy." Obama's favorite TV >> show is "The Wire." Need I say more? > > Well, to me you do (not that I ask you to) because I don't watch > television, so I don't know much about those shows. Is Grey's Anatomy > the one with the "Mc-" thing? It is. > That's not cool. Well, it used to be. :-) > But it's points against > both of them in my book that they're wasting time keeping up with > serialized television, and that's pretty much it. That's just as BS as saying reading (fiction) is a waste of time. TV *can* be as valid an art form as anything. In the case of "The Wire", it is. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:43:54 +0100 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Ralph! - -- Benjamin Lukoff is rumored to have mumbled on 4. Februar 2008 12:26:53 -0800 regarding Re: Ralph!: >> A Canadian subsidizes health care with their taxes very willingly. There >> shouldn't be any entrepreneurial component to health care... in > > To ANY aspect of health care? I mean drug design, device design, etc..? That's exactly one of the current problems with the system as it is. A friend and colleague of mine has type 1 diabetes (the auto-immune variety with unknown cause). With the increase of type 2 diabetes all new developments are targeted towards the latter group. What's worse, the pharmaceutical companies have even taken products *off* the market. The reason is of course that there's more money in the type 2 market. This actually leads to a decrease in life quality for affected patients, because the remaining products are harder to handle for type 1 patients. Remember: type 1 patients need this to survive! For type 2 patients it's not that simple. The same goes for devices: it's apparently a real problem to find insulin syringes that let you exactly measure the smaller doses that type 1 patients require. They're all targeted at type 2 patients, who require larger doses. - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Am alten Stellwerk 22, 50733 Kvln, Germany http://www.uni-koeln.de/~a0620/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:47:20 -0800 (GMT-08:00) From: Carrie Galbraith Subject: Re: Quail's relatives - -----Original Message----- >From: Jill Brand > >I've been the only person in my family to vote for years, but now, all of >a sudden, the two male members will be voting, too. My husband became a >citizen this past summer (after living here since 1978) and my son turned >18 last March. It's interesting to see Thomas talk about elections now >that he can't sit on his non-voting high horse anymore. I have an adopted nephew from Ukraine. He's 27 and has been in the US (and our family) since he was 16. He just told my sister this weekend that he is taking citizenship at the end of Feb. And it's a big thing because Ukraine does not allow dual citizens so he has to give that up. And he is doing it because he feels that he MUST vote this year. I am not conflicted about tomorrow. Since I can't vote for Edwards, I am throwing in with Obama for many of the reasons Quail noted. He is the future. Hilary is the product of an old, well-oiled political machine. It has served the Clinton's (and the Bush's) well and it is time to toss it out. Bathwater and all. And can I just add - Quail! - - c ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:49:22 +0100 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Quail's "redneck" relatives have got it right - -- Jill Brand is rumored to have mumbled on 4. Februar 2008 15:21:23 -0500 regarding Quail's "redneck" relatives have got it right: > However, I am pretty sure that Hillary Clinton is unelectable. Will the > country vote for a black president? I don't know. That makes the choice pretty clear regardless, doesn't it? > I've been the only person in my family to vote for years, but now, all of > a sudden, the two male members will be voting, too. My husband became a > citizen this past summer (after living here since 1978) Did he follow German politics and vote here or did he really not vote anywhere? And I guess he could've become a citizen sooner had he wanted to, right? It's too bad Germany doesn't allow double citizenship! I was all for it, of course, but the CDU made a real cultur war out of that ... - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Am alten Stellwerk 22, 50733 Kvln, Germany http://www.uni-koeln.de/~a0620/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:57:49 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Ralph! Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Sin taxes are meant to be punishment? Maybe in theory. Lots of states are > beginning to RELY on them, though: > http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1835.html > http://enlightennj.blogspot.com/2006/03/increase-in-cigarette-tax-to-result-in.html > > I wonder if they really reduce consumption, anyway. > > It's really just a half-assed method of prohibition... Not to mention the fact of what to do when they succeed. Example: You have 100 sinners sinning. You want to discourage sinning so you tax it at $1 per infraction. The 100 sinners sin once. ($1 * 100 infractions = $100). Due to sin taxation the over-all number of sinners has decreased. Now you have 50 sinners still sinning the same amount, but shit! Tax revenue is down by 50%! Solution? Cut services? Hell no! Hike the tax 200% to $2 per infraction ($ 1 * 2 * 50 = $100). Now you have 25 sinners, but tax revenues are down again. Cut services? Hell no! Double the tax again to $4 per sin ($2 * 2 * $25 = $100). Now after only a short time you've got complete success and you've effectively eradicated sinning via excessive taxation! Your next task is to find something *else* to demagogue and subsequently tax to generate that now-missing $100 in revenue. Sin taxes may work on some level but they really fail when they really succeed. It's the Ouroboros again and behavioral modification through subsidization/taxation. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #483 ********************************