From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest)
To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #519
Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org
Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


fegmaniax-digest     Wednesday, February 27 2008     Volume 16 : Number 519



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.  [Tom Clark <tclark@mac]
  Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.  ["Stacked Crooked" <et]
  Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.  [lep <softboygirl@gmai]
  Robyn Hitchcock: Spooked February 27, 2008 by Denise Sullivan    [HwyCDRre]
  Re: He's About to Cry Out for Attention By Dumping in Someone's Pool. Ignore.  [Michael Sweeney <m_l_sweeney@hotmai]
  Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.  [Capuchin <capuchin@bi]
  Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.  [FSThomas <fsthomas@oc]
  Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.  [FSThomas <fsthomas@oc]
  REAP                                                    [HwyCDRrev@aol.com]
  Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.  [FSThomas <fsthomas@oc]
  Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.  [2fs <jeffreyw2fs.j@gm]
  LOWE / HITCHCOCK / GRAND BALLROOM APRIL 9th  [Steve Talkowski <stevetalkow]
  Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.  [Caroline Smith <carol]
  Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.  [FSThomas <fsthomas@oc]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:22:07 -0800
From: Tom Clark <tclark@mac.com>
Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.

On Feb 26, 2008, at 7:56 PM, FSThomas wrote:

> Tom Clark wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 2008, at 5:11 PM, FSThomas wrote:
>>> From World Net Daily...
>> That right there should tell you all you need to know.
>
> Don't break Godwin's law too quickly. Wait a day or two.

Sorry, I just have a hard time equating journalism with a guy humping  
a floor.

- -tc

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:21:51 -0800
From: "Stacked Crooked" <etews@inwa.net>
Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.

<From World Net Daily and submitted right before I go on vacation to stir
the pot a bit.>

well, every time you do so, you end up running away and hiding whenever
somebody shatters your illogic and ignorance into thousands of tiny shards
- -- so i guess it's no great stretch that you're now doing so *literally*.

was going to post this for you the other day, but figured it would be just
piling on after your latest display of cowardice in the face of your own
hypocrisy (i had forgotten how quickly you're able to re-charge your
limbaugh battery after a thorough dressing-down); but, maybe not (from
<URL:http://tinyurl.com/25eppw>):

>>Over the last two decades, few industries have lobbied more ferociously
or effectively than banks to get the government out of its business and to
obtain freer rein for financial innovation. 

But as losses from bad mortgages and mortgage-backed securities climb past
$200 billion, talk among banking executives for an epic government rescue
plan is suddenly coming into fashion.<<


uhm, i had said a few weeks ago that i didn't expect blackouts to begin
hitting metropolitan areas in the u.s. for another year or so...guess i was
wrong.  nothing major, to be sure --  although some other headlines from
to-day aren't exactly what one might term "inspirational":

FDIC to Add Staff as Bank Failures Loom 
Bat die-off in Northeast baffles scientists
Wheat Breaches $12 for First Time After Biggest Gain Since 2002 
Argentina seeks to avoid energy crisis, as Brazil refuses to share Bolivian
natural gas

have received via the mails a review copy of the new kunstler novel.  first
few pages are looking like more less a re-hash of *Long Emergency*, only
told "folks-style" (or what).

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 02:07:10 -0500
From: lep <softboygirl@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.

FSThomas <fsthomas@ochremedia.com> says:
>  From World Net Daily and submitted right before I go on vacation to
>  stir the pot a bit.
>
>  Reading it the guy makes perfect sense. To me.
>
>  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494
>
>  *Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts*
>
>  Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder
<etc., etc.>

this cracked me up.

actually, it reminded me of a much better theory that depressives
aren't screwed up so much as they are just more realistic than
non-depressives (like maybe the regular people should be the ones
listed in the DSM-IV.)

personally, i find idealists kind of irritating and very unrealistic.
then again, if the world were left to people like me, nothing would
ever happen.

the point being that there's a place for everyone.  the world needs
dreamers just as much as it needs tired, old cynics to put them in
their damn place.

xo

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

                   - The Buddha

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 02:30:57 EST
From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com
Subject: Robyn Hitchcock: Spooked February 27, 2008 by Denise Sullivan  

_http://crawdaddy.wolfgangsvault.com/Article.aspx?id=5826_
(http://crawdaddy.wolfgangsvault.com/Article.aspx?id=5826)


Robyn Hitchcock: Spooked
February 27, 2008
by Denise Sullivan
 (http://www.yeproc.com/artist_info.php?artistId=171) Robyn Hitchcock
Spooked
(Yep Roc,  2004)

I'm crazy about Robyn Hitchcock's music, and have been ever since  Peter Buck
sang praises of Hitchcock's b70s band the Soft Boys to us slavish  R.E.M.
followers in the b80s. By then the Soft Boys had disbanded and Hitchcock
was
officially a solo artist, sometimes accompanied by his band the Egyptians on
his
poetic/surrealist/existentialist songs, which were collected on frequently
released albums with pleasantly perverse titles like Black Snake Diamond  Role
and I Often Dream of Trains. I prided myself on never missing a  record, or a
San Francisco performanceband there were many, especially when he  made camp
in town for a short stay in the b80s. This was Hitchcock's
golden-god-of-college-radio era, when he roamed the pre-alternative music
underground like our
very own Syd Barrett (without the unstable side)ban  admitted influence on
his
bizarre song invention.

But b80s schmadies, as  there would be a whole 25 years of productivity
ahead
for the iconoclastic  songwriter with a case of Dylanitis. The b90s had him
re-jigging a thing or two  as he settled into his folky guitar roots on Moss
Elixir, performing his  act in a storefront for a Jonathan Demme full-length
feature film and in another  one-off event, reenacting Dylan's historic Royal
Albert Hall concert. By  the end of the decade, he'd begun what would become
an
ongoing collaboration  with the Minus Five (comprised of members of R.E.M. and
the Young Fresh  Fellows), and in 2002 he paid proper tribute to his hero
Dylan on the two-disc  set Robyn Sings!.

As he turned 50 in 2003, Hitchcock recorded  Luxor in his own honor and was
still regularly releasing albums that  anyone could love, if only they could
find them in the shops. By then, most of  my contemporaries were home with
their
families and had long stopped listening  or going to see Hitchcock or anybody
else play. They were mostly unimpressed  when I'd mention, "He played 'Purple
Haze' and 'The Wind Cries Mary'!" in  addition to our old favorites like
"Brenda's Iron Sledge" and "My Wife and My  Dead Wife."

And yet by 2004, when Hitchcock was on to Spooked, his  collaboration with
David Rawlings and Gillian Welch, I, too, became less  connected to his
recorded
output. I can't tell you for sure why, after 20 years  of Hitching, I didn't
connect with Spooked. I suppose that I was, erm,  bbusy.b I listened to
the
album, but I didn't really hear it. I listened some  more and it still didn't
penetrate. I noticed some of my colleagues, rock folk  who had never been on
board with Hitchcock's wide and varied catalog of folk,  rock, and folk-rock,
were calling it one of the best records of the year. But  instead of
intriguing
me, the fuss-making fried me; it made me like  Spooked less than I already
didb
interesting given that I hadn't really  actually listened to it. But I never
gave up on Hitchcock the performer; I still  went to the shows, and his more
recent album OlC) Tarantula with the Venus  Three became one of my latter day
favorites. Meanwhile, Spooked sat at  the bottom of the pile of my "listen to"
records, falling further down each year  while records by Swamp Dogg and Tex
La
Homa replaced him up top, waiting their  turns. And then one day from the
corner of my eye I saw Spookedbit was  still sitting there. I could no
longer
ignore it, as it taunted mebdared mebto  give it another try.

As it turned out, I already knew the first three  songs, note for note.
"Television" glistened in its half-lit mood; "If You Know  Time" was one for
the
jingle-jangle freaks; "Everybody Needs Love" is, simply  put, undeniable.
"Sometimes a Blonde" and "Creeped Out" (pretty much says it  all) share the
album's
titular quality. For some reason Rawlings' dobro, which  sounded so
un-Hitchcock to me in 2004, sounds so right at the start of 2008  (an
assertion of
nothing more than my own whim and inability to metabolize roots  instruments
from
moment to moment). Welchbs vocals add just the right phantasmal  touch. Folk
gothicb& that's it! Why didn't I get that before? There's even a  decoyed,
contemporary Dylan song on board: "Tryin' to Get to Heaven (Before They  Close
the
Door)."

In one listen, Spooked felt warmer to me than it  did during the incredibly
heavy year of its release. If you remember: John  Kerry lost the presidential
election and a tsunami wiped-out Southeast Asia;  The Lord of the Rings, of
all
things, swept the Academy Awards (surely a  marker of the beginning of the
middle of the end); a quick scan of the year  on Wikipedia notes that smoking
was banned in Ireland (an act of God, I should  say); The Scream was stolen
from
the Edward Munch Museum (what better  image to illustrate our lives and
times?). At the end of the world as we knew  it, I didn't feel so fine: I felt
like
I was hanging on for dear life. In my  so-called busyness while in the eye of
an inner storm, I forgot that music is  what often soothes my ravaged soul.
Had I made the connection and tuned into one  of my favorite channels for
information, I would've listened to all of  Spooked back then, including
"Flanagan's Song", a delirious elegy that  would've helped quiet my fears of
decay. Itbs
now three years later, and I'm no  longer afraid of the End. Attempting to
scale Spooked isn't so scary  anymore either, although its songs have just
begun
their job of haunting me.
Listen: _Various  Tracks_ (http://www.myspace.com/robynhitchcock)  [at
myspace.com]
B; Previously: _Vampire  Weekend_
(http://crawdaddy.wolfgangsvault.com/Article.aspx?id=5520)



**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf
fy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:49:48 +0000
From: Michael Sweeney <m_l_sweeney@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: He's About to Cry Out for Attention By Dumping in Someone's Pool. Ignore.

FSThomas wrote:


><snip>"Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal
responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their
needs from cradle to grave."<

...Well, since this in no way describes any flavor of liberal "orthodoxy"
('cept maybe as charter V. R. W. C. members might wish to paint it), the rest
o' the house of cards perched so precariously upon it can be safely
discarded...


Michael "As only Nixon could go to China, so apparently could only 'modern'
Conservatism be destroyed from within by Bush & Cheney" 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: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:21:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Capuchin <capuchin@bitmine.net>
Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, FSThomas wrote:
> *Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts*

Doesn't the very existence of a "mental disorder" imply that we depend on 
one another to establish cognitive and behavioral norms?

Isn't that the mental state of the "collective intellect" that Tom 
mentioned working to improve and of which Ferris claimed he wanted no 
part?

Um... doesn't that make Ferris the one with the mental disorder, since he 
shuns the collective mind that establishes the norm?

It's all too silly to contemplate, really.  There is no society -- no 
civilization, no culture, no science, no community, no standards -- 
without massive interdependence.

> "A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the 
> vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity b 
> as liberals do," he says.

Moral integrity?  Really?  Which morals and how disintegrated?

I digress...

> "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore 
> individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, 
> and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population b 
> as liberals do.

Huh?  It's very easy to do exactly that with not even apparent 
contradiction:

Make no false assumption at the start about the relationship between 
whatever you're calling "talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic" 
from economic status.

Not only is that relationship poorly understood by the right wing (the 
ludicrous claim, for example, that people who work hard will all succeed 
financially and people who are broke can all blame themselves for not 
working hard enough), you have to go some bit out of your way to maintain 
that relationship -- removing freedoms in the process.  How is it that any 
person can maintain more property than they can reasonably use at any one 
time or more space than they can reasonably occupy?  Why, through the 
impositoin of their will on all others via a state-funded squad of armed 
thugs who "protect and serve", that's how!

> And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an 
> environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's 
> citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the 
> state b as liberals do."

I agree about over-regulation, but probably completely disagree about 
which regulations have the corrupting influence.

However, no social service policy reduces any adult to a ward of the 
state.  And note that every bit of aid available from a public agency is 
completely voluntary (with the possible exception of a primary education). 
If a person wants to not receive any kind of public welfare assistance, 
one need only fail to apply for such aid.  It is not forced upon anyone.

(Now, before you start making some argument about being "forced" to pay 
your taxes to support these programs, I will state right up front that I 
agree that all involuntary taxation is an abridgment of our freedom. 
However, if you are going to take an anarchist stance and encourage the 
devolution [look it up] of the state, consider this:  If the world had no 
police to protect you, the wealthy, from the desperate, would you be 
better off establishing organizations to keep people clothed and fed or 
just allowing the poverty to grow unchecked?  I think your safety 
absolutely depends on either a police state designed to protect the rich 
from the poor (and do little else) OR a free society that embraces mutual 
aid as a fundamental necessity on par with fresh water and clean air.

>    * satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and 
> compensation;

Want to read the words we use most often for the "infantile claim to 
entitlement... and compensation"?

"Property" and "Wages".

Just try to describe either of those without invoking entitlement or 
compensation.

>    * rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to 
> the will of the government.

That's the unfortunate path of all hierarchical structures.  I oppose it, 
too... but I'm smart enough to know that a system without government had 
better damned well take good care of all of its participants or else there 
will be blood and no one is safe or free.

> "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages 
> against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of 
> persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal 
> mind becomes painfully obvious."

Right... those liberals are trying to run the lives of competent persons 
by, say, banning abortion, stem cell research, video games, and "bad 
words" or nudity in public media; sending thousands of armed troops into 
foreign nations and subjugating their populations until they agree to the 
system of government of our choosing; increasing the number of goods and 
services on which the public is dependent while pushing control of those 
resources into the hands of a few that are not directly accountable to 
the now-dependent sovereign individuals; and, as mentioned, constantly 
lobbying for more and better armed goons to patrol our streets with 
greater freedom to coerce the population with violence or threats of 
violence (which is, of course, terrorism).

Oh, wait... those are all policies of the conservative parties.

My bad.

J.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:49:39 -0500
From: FSThomas <fsthomas@ochremedia.com>
Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.

Tom Clark wrote:

> Sorry, I just have a hard time equating journalism with a guy humping a 
> floor.

Your logic is impeccable.  I bow to your obviously superior arguments on 
all points.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:48:23 -0500
From: FSThomas <fsthomas@ochremedia.com>
Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.

2fs wrote:

>> "A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the
>> vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity b
>> as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human
>> nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal
>> appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social
>> equality on the population b  as liberals do.
> 
> 
> Really - that's what "liberals" do? Ignoring individual differences sounds
> more like the refusal to acknowledge difference, and assume everyone's equal
> beforehand, and that determination and moral strength overcome all social
> obstacles...

Equal under the law is one thing. Forced homogenization is something 
completely different.

> As to "reduces to wards of the state" - again, what exactly does Rossiter
> mean by that term? It certainly isn't a scientific category; I highly doubt
> that citizens during the long era of liberal dominance from the New Deal or
> earlier up through the 1970s felt like "wards of the state." They acted as
> citizens (or rather, could act in that capacity, among others), and were
> otherwise relatively free to live their lives as they saw fit - within the
> bounds (fair and unfair) otherwise set by social norms, of course - but
> those surely were not entirely the creation of any "state."

I believe he addressed his view on wards of the state here:

"Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal 
responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet 
their needs from cradle to grave.

The New Deal along with passage of the 16th Amendment marked the 
beginning of the long slide to the demise of the US and is best 
encapsulated by Alexander Tyler writing about the Athenian Republic:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only 
exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from 
the public treasure. [The New Deal & 16th Amendment] From that moment on 
the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money 
from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always 
collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The 
average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred 
years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: 
from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, 
from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to 
selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, 
from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

> Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of
>> inferiority in the population by:
>>
>>      * creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
> 
> 
> You mean, like how white men can't catch a break these days?

No, I mean like how the Democrat party is supposedly the party of 
minorities while at the same time seeming to go out of their way to be 
certain minorities are lifted up, just not all the way there.  Now 
granted Obama's success might argue somewhat against this, but I can't 
place his success on anything other than he's not Hillary Clinton.  He 
could very well be George Clinton and he'd probably be doing as well.

The Democrat party hasn't be best record when it comes to minority rights.

* Jefferson Davis had a (D) after his name, whereas Lincoln had an (R). 
  * The Civil Rights Act of 1965: 74% opposition was from the Dems.
* The Voting Rights Act of 1965: 75% opposition was from the Dems.

Does that mean there weren't some Republicans (et.al.) who voted against 
it? No. But the vast majority of dissent came from the Democrat party.

I find it almost laughably amusing how quickly people forget history and 
blindly pull voting levers for the same party that appointed Robert Byrd 
their leader.

>      * satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and
>> compensation;
> 
> Like wealthy folks who say they'll take their bat and ball and go home if
> they're not granted every last tax break?

Sure. Exactly.  It's a very symbiotic relationship: Remove the 
entitlements and compensations and there will be no need for tax cuts 
because there wouldn't be the need for excruciatingly high taxes in the 
first place.

>      * augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
> 
> ...thy name is greed - and Greed Is Good, remember?

Please.  The grass is always greener on your neighbor's lawn. Elect me 
and I'll take that lawn and give you part of it.

>      * rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to
>> the will of the government.
> 
> Ironically, it's Rossiter who here utterly rejects the sovereignty of
> liberals, making symptoms of their choices and preferences and refusing to
> believe that a genuinely autonomous person could choose differently from
> Rossiter's own preferences. So, not the will of the government per se - but
> if Rossiter's views gained purchase in the medical establishment, something
> much worse.

The problem with the very sovereignty of the Liberal is that they are in 
no way content with bettering themselves and those *willingly* of the 
like-mind, but rather that their idea is better for the whole and *you 
will comply*. The Collective.  There's no freedom of choice because they 
(The Imperial Federal Government) know better than you do.

> "The roots of liberalism b  and its associated madness b  can be clearly
>> identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to
>> adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs
>> of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines
>> about imaginary victims, 
> 
> Again re victimized white guys, Christians forbidden from private school
> prayer, etc. etc.
> 
> 
> rages against imaginary villains 
> 
> like the jackbooted thugs of the Federal government, just itching to do
> their worst just as soon as guns are taken away, you mean?

Or turn waterhoses on people and release the dogs.

Oh, wait ... Bull Connor was a Deomo ... Shitshitshit.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:52:36 EST
From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com
Subject: REAP

_http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/chris-townson-drummer-with-johns
- -children-787838.html?r=RSS_ 
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/chris-townson-drummer-with-johns-children-787838.html?r=RSS) 
Chris Townson: Drummer with John's  Children



**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.      
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:59:45 -0500
From: FSThomas <fsthomas@ochremedia.com>
Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.

Stacked Crooked wrote:
> <From World Net Daily and submitted right before I go on vacation to stir
> the pot a bit.>
> 
> well, every time you do so, you end up running away and hiding whenever
> somebody shatters your illogic and ignorance into thousands of tiny shards
> -- so i guess it's no great stretch that you're now doing so *literally*.

If I don't reply to something it's usually because it's been posted to 
another thread or the subject line has been changed. I don't read every 
single thread that comes across the list.  And frankly some of the 
tangents that people go down are so far afield and/or irrational that 
they don't warrant a response.

> was going to post this for you the other day, but figured it would be just
> piling on after your latest display of cowardice in the face of your own
> hypocrisy (i had forgotten how quickly you're able to re-charge your
> limbaugh battery after a thorough dressing-down)

Yer so cute! And witty!

> but, maybe not (from
> <URL:http://tinyurl.com/25eppw>):

Hmm. Link req's registration.

>>> Over the last two decades, few industries have lobbied more ferociously
> or effectively than banks to get the government out of its business and to
> obtain freer rein for financial innovation. 
> 
> But as losses from bad mortgages and mortgage-backed securities climb past
> $200 billion, talk among banking executives for an epic government rescue
> plan is suddenly coming into fashion.<<

And here I thought that the loosening of lending guidelines and 
underwriting standards came from attempting to "end discrimination." 
The Community Reinvestment Act, maybe?

No verification of income. No verification of liquid assets. Little if 
any consideration of the borrower's ability to repay the loan. Little or 
no down payments. Etc.  All of that came about by forcing lenders (via 
legislation) to lend to customers they otherwise would never have touched.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:48:16 -0600
From: 2fs <jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.

On 2/27/08, FSThomas <fsthomas@ochremedia.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of
> >> inferiority in the population by:
> >>
> >>      * creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
> >
> >
> > You mean, like how white men can't catch a break these days?
>
>
> No, I mean like how the Democrat party


The adjectival form of "Democrat" (as in the party) is "Democratic." Always
has been, always will be - at least until "nucular" is equally correct.
Christ - you take even your pronunciation and spelling cues from W. now?


> The Democrat party hasn't be best record when it comes to minority rights.
>
> * Jefferson Davis had a (D) after his name, whereas Lincoln had an (R).
>   * The Civil Rights Act of 1965: 74% opposition was from the Dems.
> * The Voting Rights Act of 1965: 75% opposition was from the Dems.
>
>
> >
> > rages against imaginary villains
> >
> > like the jackbooted thugs of the Federal government, just itching to do
> > their worst just as soon as guns are taken away, you mean?
>
>
> Or turn waterhoses on people and release the dogs.
>
> Oh, wait ... Bull Connor was a Deomo ... Shitshitshit.



You make the idiotic assumption that "liberal" equals and has always
equalled "the Democratic party."  Of course it hasn't. No liberal these days
is going to defend Bull Connor* - so why the fuck adduce him as evidence
against liberalism?

* that is to say, anyone who would defend him is ipso facto not displaying
any sort of liberal attitude

- -- 

...Jeff Norman

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:48:19 -0500
From: Steve Talkowski <stevetalkowski@mac.com>
Subject: LOWE / HITCHCOCK / GRAND BALLROOM APRIL 9th

For all NY fegs (and those coming in for the show) tickets go on sale  
this Friday!

http://www.bowerypresents.com/calendar/show/1362/

- -Steve (hoping to have internet access for ordering, as i'll be  
enjoying the warm weather and exploring the Mayan Riviera in Playa del  
Carmen over the next 5 days...)

- --

Steve Talkowski
Character Design & Animation
http://sketchbot.blogspot.com

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:06:10 -0500
From: Caroline Smith <caroline@redchocolate.ca>
Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.

On 27-Feb-08, at 9:59 AM, FSThomas wrote:

> Stacked Crooked wrote:
>> <From World Net Daily and submitted right before I go on vacation  
>> to stir
>> the pot a bit.>
>> well, every time you do so, you end up running away and hiding  
>> whenever
>> somebody shatters your illogic and ignorance into thousands of tiny  
>> shards
>> -- so i guess it's no great stretch that you're now doing so  
>> *literally*.
>
> If I don't reply to something it's usually because it's been posted  
> to another thread or the subject line has been changed. I don't read  
> every single thread that comes across the list.  And frankly some of  
> the tangents that people go down are so far afield and/or irrational  
> that they don't warrant a response.


Life is more fun with tangents.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:11:03 -0500
From: FSThomas <fsthomas@ochremedia.com>
Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss.

Capuchin wrote:

> Isn't that the mental state of the "collective intellect" that Tom 
> mentioned working to improve and of which Ferris claimed he wanted no part?
> 
> Um... doesn't that make Ferris the one with the mental disorder, since 
> he shuns the collective mind that establishes the norm?

But what if at its core "the norm" is broken? What if "the norm" seeks 
fundamental and (IMHO) self-destructive change?

> It's all too silly to contemplate, really.  There is no society -- no 
> civilization, no culture, no science, no community, no standards -- 
> without massive interdependence.

Massive interaction, yes. Interdependence? No.

>> "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore 
>> individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work 
>> ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the 
>> population b as liberals do.
> 
> Huh?  It's very easy to do exactly that with not even apparent 
> contradiction:
> 
> Make no false assumption at the start about the relationship between 
> whatever you're calling "talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic" 
> from economic status.
> 
> Not only is that relationship poorly understood by the right wing (the 
> ludicrous claim, for example, that people who work hard will all succeed 
> financially and people who are broke can all blame themselves for not 
> working hard enough), you have to go some bit out of your way to 
> maintain that relationship -- removing freedoms in the process.  How is 
> it that any person can maintain more property than they can reasonably 
> use at any one time or more space than they can reasonably occupy?  Why, 
> through the impositoin of their will on all others via a state-funded 
> squad of armed thugs who "protect and serve", that's how!

Riiight.

Let me give you an example that's alive and well today.   You have a 
neighbor. Your neighbor's doing pretty well for himself. He's got a nice 
house, nice car, high-paying job, and a trophy wife.  He went to school 
and made the best of his education and talents.  He's got money.

Now you, as the neighbor, can't climb over the fence and go to  your 
neighbor and demand some (or most or all) of his money. That would be 
robbery.  You *can* however, elect politicians who'll do it for you. 
Elect those who'll craft the right legislation and they (not you) can 
use the police power of government to enter your neighbors house and at 
the point of a (legal) gun seize his assets and dole them out to you.

That's your squad of armed thugs. Protecting and serving.

> However, no social service policy reduces any adult to a ward of the 
> state.  And note that every bit of aid available from a public agency is 
> completely voluntary (with the possible exception of a primary 
> education). If a person wants to not receive any kind of public welfare 
> assistance, one need only fail to apply for such aid.  It is not forced 
> upon anyone.

And neither is there any impetus to get people *off* such aid, and 
that's where I find extreme fault. Fault to the point that a system 
structured in that manner is better scrapped and never resurrected than 
fixed.

I can fully understand needing temporary assistance to get your feet 
back under you in the event of an emergency, but not an ever-full teat 
for your suckling pleasure.

If your house burns down tomorrow the Red Cross (a non-government 
agency) will lend you aid.  They shouldn't be required to still be 
holding your hand two and a half or three years later as FEMA (for some 
odd reason) is required to do.

> (Now, before you start making some argument about being "forced" to pay 
> your taxes to support these programs, I will state right up front that I 
> agree that all involuntary taxation is an abridgment of our freedom. 
> However, if you are going to take an anarchist stance and encourage the 
> devolution [look it up] of the state, consider this:  If the world had 
> no police to protect you, the wealthy, from the desperate, would you be 
> better off establishing organizations to keep people clothed and fed or 
> just allowing the poverty to grow unchecked?  I think your safety 
> absolutely depends on either a police state designed to protect the rich 
> from the poor (and do little else) OR a free society that embraces 
> mutual aid as a fundamental necessity on par with fresh water and clean 
> air.

If by devolution you mean a restructuring and/or removal of programs, 
then yes, I'm all for it.  I'm interested in seeing the Federal 
Government slapped back into the stone age and restricted by the 
Constitution.  The Constitution doesn't grant you rights, it prevents 
the Government from infringing on your rights.

And I don't consider myself the wealthy by any stretch. I also don't 
consider the desperate in this country all that bad off when compared 
with the destitute around the world.

I haven't a problem with mutual aid. I have a problem with it coming via 
a Federal fiat.

>>    * satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and 
>> compensation;
> 
> Want to read the words we use most often for the "infantile claim to 
> entitlement... and compensation"?
> 
> "Property" and "Wages".
> 
> Just try to describe either of those without invoking entitlement or 
> compensation.

Wages are compensation for services rendered.  Compensation for drawing 
breath is something completely different. Read up on The Earned Income 
Tax Credit.  *That* is an entitlement, an indulgence, and (undo) 
compensation.

>>    * rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to 
>> the will of the government.
> 
> That's the unfortunate path of all hierarchical structures.  I oppose 
> it, too... but I'm smart enough to know that a system without government 
> had better damned well take good care of all of its participants or else 
> there will be blood and no one is safe or free.

And up until c.1933 we had a pretty good system.

>> "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages 
>> against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives 
>> of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the 
>> liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
> 
> Right... those liberals are trying to run the lives of competent persons 
> by, say, banning abortion, stem cell research, video games, and "bad 
> words" or nudity in public media; sending thousands of armed troops into 
> foreign nations and subjugating their populations until they agree to 
> the system of government of our choosing; increasing the number of goods 
> and services on which the public is dependent while pushing control of 
> those resources into the hands of a few that are not directly 
> accountable to the now-dependent sovereign individuals; and, as 
> mentioned, constantly lobbying for more and better armed goons to patrol 
> our streets with greater freedom to coerce the population with violence 
> or threats of violence (which is, of course, terrorism).
> 
> Oh, wait... those are all policies of the conservative parties.

I cannot speak for conservatives. I'm rather socially liberal.

I have no interest in banning abortion (and find it humorous that the 
most vocal opponents are men).

Pro stem cell research (though I'm not sure the government should back 
it, not based on moral grounds but rather because the private sector can 
do it and there seem to be better options out there).

Video games, bad words and nudity should all be market-driven and not 
regulated by some moral authority.

Use of armed troops to protect vital national/regional interests, in the 
support of allies, or to depose abusive leaders I can understand, but 
with hesitation. Isolationism by and large hasn't ever worked. Read up 
on US policies pre-WWI for a lesson on what can happen if you ignore 
your back yard for too long.

While I'm drawing political/ideological lines in the sand I'll finishe 
it by adding I'm 100% pro-2nd Amendment.  At the same time while I 
appreciate the better-armed goons patrolling our streets I do have 
concern for "greater freedom to coerce the population."  Gun control 
(like it or not) only lends towards the greater empowerment of the State.

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

End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #519
********************************