From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #486 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 486 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Ralph! [FSThomas ] Why's that angel so afraid of this subject line? Ah hell - I'm diving in... [2fs ] Re: "lolita" in the bedroom [Michael Sweeney ] Re: Showbiz Cat [Rex ] Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama [Rex ] Re: Ralph! [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Ralph! [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Ralph! [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: DANGER: TIGER!!! [FSThomas ] Re: Ralph! [Michael Sweeney ] Re: Sorry Jill [HwyCDRrev@aol.com] Re: Ralph! [Michael Sweeney ] Re: Why's that angel so afraid of this subject line? Ah hell - I'm diving in... [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Ralph! [2fs ] Re: Why's that angel so afraid of this subject line? Ah hell - I'm diving in... [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Ralph! [Benjamin Lukoff ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:58:31 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Ralph! 2fs wrote: > This is hilarious to me, as a former grad student now toiling in the margins > of academia. Even if I were a tenured, full professor, what I'd earn would > be significantly less than what most doctors earn, now. As long as your happy toling in the margins of academia, more power to you. If you're doing what you love, great. Just don't require and/or expect that everyone accept lower wages after years of education. You chose to do what you did after seeking what sounds like an extended education and that's great. However if someone aims for a high-income profession, excels and attains it don't hold it against them or try to take the potential reward away from them. > Every academic, for example, went to school "for God knows how long, > incur[red] piles of debt, put up with internships and wretched hours during > that hazing process" - though not called "internships." Residencies. I couldn't think of the term at the time. > To answer your question: plenty of people do. It's called "principles." > Believe it or not, not everyone in America makes every decision on the basis > of how much cash can they grub. But a lot make decisions on how much they can get for as little effort as possible. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:59:07 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Why's that angel so afraid of this subject line? Ah hell - I'm diving in... On 2/4/08, FSThomas wrote: > > > Not for nothing, but there's a methodology to choosing your dance > partner. Israel is a democracy. Is it? I'm not so sure I'd call "democratic" a society that systematically limits the rights of an entire subset of the populace. Of course, that described the US for most of its existence, too... - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:59:56 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: DANGER: TIGER!!! On Feb 4, 2008 4:30 PM, 2fs wrote: > A few more points on the political debate: > > 1. Wealth is relative. Word. 2. Money doesn't make you happy. *Word!* 3. Wealth isn't something that organically flows to individuals; it can do so only under social arrangements that manage wealth that way. *WORD!* Also, it's the root of all evil. Like, for reals. The stem, branches and leaves, too! It would be funny because it's true, except for it's not funny. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 00:59:12 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: Re: "lolita" in the bedroom Jeff wtote: >I mean, where would Gordon Sumner's career be without an overweening senseof superiority, I ask you?< "Hullo, my name is Gordon, and I'll be your server tonight -- would you like to hear a bass or lute solo while you mull over the appetizers-and-drinks list?" Michael "Take the space between us / And fill it up some way" Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:02:07 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: Showbiz Cat On Feb 4, 2008 4:32 PM, 2fs wrote: > But in fact, _Show Cat_ is a special edition of _Shadow Cat_ overdubbed by > Christopher Guest and his usual acting troupe, creating from the > characters > and situations of Robyn's songs the tale of a gang of idiots involved in > competitive cat breeding. (Peter Buck has a cameo as "Cat Rescue Man!" - a > superhero.) > > Either that, or _Show Cat_ is _Shadow Cat_ in an ad-free edition. > (British-style crossword division) > Jeff N. FTWX2 - -Rex, deploying videogame terminology (<--lost verse to "Search & Destroy") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:13:44 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama On Feb 4, 2008 4:42 PM, Jason Brown wrote: > > - Political dynasties are bad and GWB is prima facia evidence. Worse than war? - - Hillary offers no vision for the future just more no-compromise > political warfare, while McCain, like Obama, has shown a willingness > to compromise. McCain won't compromise on... well, the war. - - McCain is honest and straightforward while Hillary like Bill says > what she thinks people want to hear. Well, that's just horseshit-- see McCain's ad hoc attack on Romney's "secret timetable" statements. - - McCain is a war hero and a true patriot and like Obama makes one > proud to be an American. So McCain will be good at keeping us at war, as opposed to Obama or Hillary, who will get us out of there. Anyone who would vote for first Obama, then McCain, and then Clinton has really odd priorities. "My first choice is peace and positive change. If I can't have that, I'll take war, death and ruination. If they're all out of that, I'll settle for no war, death or ruination, but instead slightly less progressive change than in that first option". Personalities can really make people shortsighted. I'm basically gobsmacked. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:16:48 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Ralph! On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > -- 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. I suppose there are a number of people out there who would innovate just for the hell of it, profits be damned--but meanwhile, thank God for Amgen, Immunex, and Enbrel. Greed can be a great stimulus to work--it's entirely possible we'd have even better drugs and devices if private companies stayed out of it, but I'm kind of scared of betting my joints on it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:17:56 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Ralph! On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, FSThomas wrote: > 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! Or, rather, you've created a black market. > 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. Been watching Red Dwarf lately? :) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:22:03 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Ralph! On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Stacked Crooked wrote: [Snipped content comparing Israel to Al-Qaeda and pointing out the actions of Hamas do not violate international law, that they were democratically elected, and that the population approves of its methods] Just curious--what's your solution to the situation? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:30:22 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: DANGER: TIGER!!! 2fs wrote: > A few more points on the political debate: > > 1. Wealth is relative. So Ferris's stats re taxation rate of various nations > isn't all that relevant - some people are still wealthy relative to others > in that nation, and are therefore able to invest, etc., and all the usual > arguments in favor of wealth. If France, say, isn't choking on its taxes, > why hasn't the populace risen up in disgust and elected politicians to lower > them by gutting health care? Why isn't it even an issue? Probably because, > to all evidence, Europeans would sooner get rid of nearly anything before > their health care programs, which are seen as a universal value. Perhaps because it's entrenched in the national French psyche? Wealth is relative. What makes you technically, statistically impoverished in this country puts you on par with a good chunk of the middle class in much of Europe. Statistically those living in poverty in the US usually own at least one color TV, a microwave, an automobile, and a cell phone. If you earn less than $10,210 in a single-family household you're impoverished (www.hhs.gov. The 2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines. Retrieved on May 09, 2006.). A 2-family household is set at $13,690. By that measure there's 36.5 million people below that level in 2006. Sounds extreme, doesn't it? If you retired in 2006 at age 63 and never worked a lick again until you died then every year you would be in that 36+ million. Even with your five million in the bank. > 2. Money doesn't make you happy. Study after study has shown that, once > you're past poverty, having more money doesn't, on average. lead to greater > feelings of satisfaction with life. I agree with that. > 3. Wealth isn't something that organically flows to individuals; it can do > so only under social arrangements that manage wealth that way. That is, it's > a societal choice. We have rules and laws, regulations and ordinances, that > tell employers, bankers, investors, as well as their employees and > customers, what they can and cannot do with money in terms of compensation, > fees, etc. Do you think your employer pays you voluntarily - if he could get > you to work for less - hell, for nothing - why wouldn't he? I've worked for people like that. There's also the healthy model of supply and demand. If I have the supply of specialized labor I should be able to demand whatever the Hell I want for it. The balance is struck when you find "what the market will bear." Personally I do relatively specialized work. My work happens to be in demand at the moment and I live in a market where there's a lot of opportunity. Should I feel guilty that my salary has increased 225% in four years? I think I should feel pissed off those early years I stuck with shit jobs where someone was getting my labor for a song, I think. > We impose certain conditions upon employers in terms of worker compensation, > working conditions, etc. I suppose you could argue that all of that's a bad > thing - that if someone is able to enslave someone else, well, that's just > the law of the jungle, etc. Look up working conditions in China. It's a shining pinnacle of the success of Marxism. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 01:30:53 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: Re: Ralph! FSThomas fsthomas@ochremedia.com wrote: >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?< ...Right, because a single, bizarrely out-riding example from nearly 16 years ago truly defines the totality of our country's zeitgeist. Michael "My apologie if this has already been addressed; I came home to 3 digests and am just catching up" 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: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:41:00 EST From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: Re: Sorry Jill what if one were to discuss something more than 50 years old ? or what if you wanted to be extra sure you were not to be misinterpreted by being extra specific ? tine is round, space is curved (actually it's not) In a message dated 2/4/2008 12:26:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com writes: Who, as I pointed out, have been "The San Francisco Baseball Giants" for about fifty years now... **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 01:51:44 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: Re: Ralph! Kevin wrote: >To quote the old ladies from Monty Python, "Moan, moan, moan." ...and, as Sybil Fawlty used to whine (on the telephone, often about something Basil had done), "Ohh, I knoooooow..." Michael "Favorite FT sign rearrangement? 'Flowery Twats'..." Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail.-get your "fix". http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:56:34 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Why's that angel so afraid of this subject line? Ah hell - I'm diving in... On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, 2fs wrote: > On 2/4/08, FSThomas wrote: > > > > > > Not for nothing, but there's a methodology to choosing your dance > > partner. Israel is a democracy. > > Is it? I'm not so sure I'd call "democratic" a society that systematically > limits the rights of an entire subset of the populace. Of course, that > described the US for most of its existence, too... Once again, Israel being held to a higher standard than the rest of the world holds itself... I'll be the first to admit Israel isn't perfect, and even if it isn't "democratic" it's surely the closest thing in the region. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:03:50 EST From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: Re: in "arrested development" news/rumours to-day... we can only hope ! :-D In a message dated 2/4/2008 2:18:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, softboygirl@gmail.com writes: 'Arrested Development' Film Planned? **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:05:15 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Why's that angel so afraid of this subject line? Ah hell - I'm diving in... On 2/4/08, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, 2fs wrote: > > > On 2/4/08, FSThomas wrote: > > > > > > > > > Not for nothing, but there's a methodology to choosing your dance > > > partner. Israel is a democracy. > > > > Is it? I'm not so sure I'd call "democratic" a society that > systematically > > limits the rights of an entire subset of the populace. Of course, that > > described the US for most of its existence, too... > > Once again, Israel being held to a higher standard than the rest of the > world holds itself... Uhh...I rather specifically avoided that accusation by *including* another nation in the "undemocratic by this definition" column - a nation that, in fact, is typically presented as *the* democracy. No - I'm holding Israel to the standard that says in a democracy, people are not limited rights based on ethnicity or religion. In so saying, I'm making no statement about what other nations might also fall short of such a standard (there are many). Israel and the US share a troubling tendency to imagine themselves shining beacons, the best of the best, etc. I wish instead each nation would look to its ideals, recognize where it falls short, and work on improving - rather than belligerently yelling about how it's better than its neighbors, or that others are just as bad, etc. Sorry - but if I say to someone, you know, tossing that empty can on the street is kinda obnoxious, it's not a defense to say, yeah, but I live next door to a chemical plant that spews toxins into the river. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:10:50 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Ralph! On 2/4/08, FSThomas wrote: > > 2fs wrote: > > > We're a bit more litigious because our entire culture is about me me me > > me me me me me. And one of my main arguments re capitalism is that its > > essential immorality is that it does nothing to counter such a socially > > corrosive immorality but everything to further it. > > If you think you can legislate morality I'm surprised you don't fall in > line behind the religious right; they're all about that! Did I say I favored legislation re morality (or altruism)? No: I said that in a culture that privileges the "me" over everything else, naturally people in such a culture will use its legal system to try to get more for "me." The counterargument would be something like this: First, in any given system, there's a small number of folks who will do the right thing no matter what. There's an approximately equal number of folks who'll do the fucked-up thing no matter what. Disregard both small numbers, and look at the rest of the population, who are swayed toward the right or wrong (define those how you will) by social mores, benefits, risks, etc. My argument is that many more people will be selfish, even destructively so, in a culture that valorizes selfishness. In a culture that gave more worth to cooperation and community, more people (again: in the "middle" group) would be swayed in that direction. Tha'ts not "legislation" - that's the influence of cultural mores on behavior. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:20:34 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Ralph! On 2/4/08, FSThomas wrote: > > 2fs wrote: > > > This is hilarious to me, as a former grad student now toiling in the > margins > > of academia. Even if I were a tenured, full professor, what I'd earn > would > > be significantly less than what most doctors earn, now. > > As long as your happy toling in the margins of academia, more power to > you. If you're doing what you love, great. Just don't require and/or > expect that everyone accept lower wages after years of education. You > chose to do what you did after seeking what sounds like an extended > education and that's great. However if someone aims for a high-income > profession, excels and attains it don't hold it against them or try to > take the potential reward away from them. I don't understand your interpretation here. First, I'm not sure how you define "lower wages": lower than what? I'm not suggesting doctors make lower wages than, I don't know, busboys or something. I'm not even necessarily suggesting doctors make lower wages (although I might - separate arg.). What I was suggesting is that it's not entirely accurate to argue that, whatever doctors make, they deserve because they've had to work hard to get there. Lots of people work hard (most do), and they're not compensated accordingly. If doctors should be, so should manual laborers who sweat for 12 hours a day. Similarly, you act as if any sort of limitation (which, again, isn't really what I was discussing) is 'tak[ing] away the potential reward." Did I suggest doctors not be paid? What I actually said was that it's immoral to profit from others' accidental misery. There are any number of mechanisms whereby sick people could be treated, doctors make money (even good money), without huge enormous pharmaceutical/insurance/HMO-type profits being made. Again: European doctors don't seem to have to be begging for spare change in the streets. I imagine more than a few them drive nice expensive cars with leather seats. Yet citizens do not have to risk bankruptcy if they happen to be stricken ill. > > To answer your question: plenty of people do. It's called "principles." > > Believe it or not, not everyone in America makes every decision on the > basis > > of how much cash can they grub. > > But a lot make decisions on how much they can get for as little effort > as possible. > Some do - some always will. To repeat: that scenario is rendered more, not less, likely in under capitalism...because its bottom-line mentality overrules moral considerations. If you can get more by cheating, so what? To quote the great sage Leona Helmsley: "Taxes are for little people." And to repeat, yet again: in a society that values cooperation and community, "as much as they can get for as little effort" will be more frowned upon, because that attitude clearly devalues cooperation and community. You know, there are little outposts of non-market-thinking even in the heart of America (I'm shocked! shocked!): most families do not maximize their household profits by turning out their daughters to the streets as soon as their bodies become potential profit centers, for example. (Good thing families aren't publicly traded: shareholders would be outraged at the lack of fiduciary responsibility!) Many other social organizations, including many churches, etc., put values ahead of profit-making. It's not so strange, really. Why shouldn't the medical sector be another one? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:26:55 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Why's that angel so afraid of this subject line? Ah hell - I'm diving in... On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, 2fs wrote: > On 2/4/08, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, 2fs wrote: > > > > > On 2/4/08, FSThomas wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Not for nothing, but there's a methodology to choosing your dance > > > > partner. Israel is a democracy. > > > > > > Is it? I'm not so sure I'd call "democratic" a society that > > systematically > > > limits the rights of an entire subset of the populace. Of course, that > > > described the US for most of its existence, too... > > > > Once again, Israel being held to a higher standard than the rest of the > > world holds itself... > > > Uhh...I rather specifically avoided that accusation by *including* another > nation in the "undemocratic by this definition" column - a nation that, in > fact, is typically presented as *the* democracy. Since you added "for most of its existence" I assumed you were implying that recently the US had become truly democratic. My mistake if you didn't mean that, and meant it was still undemocratic. > No - I'm holding Israel to the standard that says in a democracy, people are > not limited rights based on ethnicity or religion. In so saying, I'm making > no statement about what other nations might also fall short of such a > standard (there are many). Fair enough. But why does Israel receive such criticism so much more often, though, than its size would lead one to expect? Merely because the US supports them? > Israel and the US share a troubling tendency to imagine themselves shining > beacons, the best of the best, etc. I wish instead each nation would look to > its ideals, recognize where it falls short, and work on improving - rather > than belligerently yelling about how it's better than its neighbors, or that > others are just as bad, etc. Does Israel really imagine itself as "the best of the best"? I think not...a shining beacon, perhaps--as it certainly was right after World War II...but I don't think everyday Israelis have any illusions of superiority. > Sorry - but if I say to someone, you know, tossing that empty can on the > street is kinda obnoxious, it's not a defense to say, yeah, but I live next > door to a chemical plant that spews toxins into the river. No defense meant. But if that person comes under harsher fire than the chemical plant on a regular basis, something's surely wrong. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:39:14 -0800 From: "Stacked Crooked" Subject: Re: Ralph! <<>> <> you tell me. you're the one claiming the seige of gaza is justified, n'est pas? you wanna rule the world by violence? well, don't be surprised when it bites you in the ass. i presume (not sure) that the UN Charter supersedes the conventions. not sure why you'd give a fuck about them, anyway -- aren't you the one who says "what we say goes" (to use bush sr.'s terminology) is just realistic thinking? i've always thought that the bleating about human shields was kind of odd, in that the bleaters *acknowledge* that they were aware that they were bombing civilians, but did it anyway. i mean, obviously, they acknowledge, generally speaking, that civilian casualties are "inevitable", but at least they try to sugar-coat it with some nice bullshit about "bending over backwards" to not blow up any civilians with their "precision" weapons. (it of course goes without saying that "military-age" niggers, anywhere in the world, at any time of day and night, are fair game.) the question is whether you would prefer the palestinians and iraqis use "terror tactics" to fight their respective occupations, or that they were as well-equipped as the occupying militaries (in which case they would, no doubt, stand and fight, rather than resorting to guerilla methods). you are aware, yes, that the territories are occupied? that the PLO didn't exist before 1948? that hezbollah didn't exist before 1982? that "al qaeda in iraq" didn't exist before 2003? that the sandanistas didn't exist before somoza? that the NLF didn't exist before the unilateral violation of the geneva accords? as a u.s. citizen, i don't really see why my opinion should be solicited -- except to say that, you know, u.s. troops (and weapons, and bases) out of israel, out of the middle east, out of korea, out of the philippines, out of south america, out of western africa, out of central asia, out of south asia, out of puerto rico, out of okinawa, out of...anything i missed? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:50:04 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Ralph! On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Stacked Crooked wrote: > > > as a u.s. citizen, i don't really see why my opinion should be solicited -- > except to say that, you know, u.s. troops (and weapons, and bases) out of > israel, out of the middle east, out of korea, out of the philippines, out > of south america, out of western africa, out of central asia, out of south > asia, out of puerto rico, out of okinawa, out of...anything i missed? California? Arizona? Texas? U.S. west of the Mississippi? U.S. outside of the original 13 states? North America? (Wouldn't have posted this but you mentioned Puerto Rico.) Oh--and I was just curious, U.S. citizen or not. So you don't have a solution except to have us withdraw? ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #486 ********************************