From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #740 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, October 8 2008 Volume 16 : Number 740 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: The "Eye" debate... ["kevin studyvin" ] Re: Master Debaters [FSThomas ] Re: Master Debaters [Christopher Gross ] Re: Miles on BSDR (I know - I keep changing thread names...) [HwyCDRrev@a] Re: Master Debaters [FSThomas ] Re: various (very little RH content) ["David Stovall" ] Re: Master Debaters [2fs ] =?us-ascii?B?UmU6IEhpISAgSZJtIGFuIGFkbWluIGZyb20gYSBGbGlja3IgZ3 JvdXAg?= =?us-ascii?B?Y2FsbGVkIJNDUlQgTW9uaXRvcnMgYW5kIERvdCBNYXRyaXggUHJpbnRlc nMg?= =?us-ascii?B?RlRXIZQgYW5kIHdlkmQgbG92ZSB0byBhZGQgeW91ciBwaG90byE=?= [] Re: Master Debaters [FSThomas ] Re: Master Debaters [Christopher Gross ] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Re:_Hi!_I=92m_an_admin_from_a_Fli?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ckr_group_called_=93CRT_Monitors_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?and_Dot_Matrix_Printers_FTW!=94_a?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?nd_we=92d_love_to_add_your_photo!?= [] Re: Master Debaters [Christopher Gross ] Re: Master Debaters [2fs ] Re: Master Debaters ["Jeremy Osner" ] Re: Master Debaters [2fs ] Re: Master Debaters [2fs ] Re: Master Debaters ["Jeremy Osner" ] Deninger Sez: Time Is Up ["Nectar At Any Cost!" ] RE: Master Debaters ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: Master Debaters [Jeff Dwarf ] spousal references [Jill Brand ] Re: spousal references [2fs ] Re: spousal references ["Jeremy Osner" ] new yorker editorial [great white shark ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:44:41 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: The "Eye" debate... > i started buying spin because they knew iggy pop was cool (rolling > stone did not.) remember the glory days of spin when every issue > ended with their latest position paper on AIDS? ISTR, they were > against it. > Good lord, and they interviewed that guy who was treating himself by drinking his own urine (he recommended chilling it first), with what he reported as excellent results - I can only wonder if he's still around. Those were scary days, when nobody really knew what was going on and Peter what's-his-name was spreading the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" meme for all he was worth. I was convinced at the time that it was a germ-warfare experiment that had escaped the lab, and I wasn't alone. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:00:34 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Master Debaters kevin studyvin wrote: > My hope ... is that the present state of affairs just > *may* suggest to the citizenry that it isn't in their best interests to go > along with the unspoken Republican program of undoing every last vestige of > the social-welfare apparatus created by Roosevelt Even though that same social-welfare apparatus is directly responsible for the current situation? The pressures asserted by Acorn and furthered by the Democrats in Congress in the name of socio-progressivism caused the failure of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac (exacerbated by extremely bad business judgment, granted). The very idea behind the Community Reinvestment Act may have been well-intended, but it was abused and now we're dealing with the Law of Unintended Consequences. Progressive programs never work as intended and result in very real failure and, ultimately, damage to the country both sociologically and economically. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:00:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Master Debaters > Not anywhere near as scary as this shit: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy09UpI60F8 My god, that IS scary. Umm, you meant the comments thread, right? - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:07:31 EDT From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: Re: Miles on BSDR (I know - I keep changing thread names...) yikes - well it depends of what KIND of EC you like here are the major releases : whatever you choose - get the Rhino 2 CDs set whenever possible i love The JULIET LETTERS - with the Brodsky 4tet if the idea of EC writing 20 songs in a classical style appeals to you then i'd recommend this BRUTAL YOUTH - i know lots of 2nd generation of fans that were turned onto EC by this album - i think it's just ok KOJAK VARIETY - the Rhino 2 CD version is an amazing collection of covers not always successful - but disc 2 includes an entire album of demos EC recorded for George Jones to cover ! ALL THIS USELESS BEAUTY - nice collection - kind of low key featuring some songs he wrote for others No Rhino versions of these : PAINTED FROM MEMORY - with Bacharach -you already know if you'd like this WHEN I WAS CRUEL - back to rocking - some great songs - like "45" as well as some misses NORTH - avoid DELIVERY MAN - solid album, not great haven't gotten the last few hope this helps my blog is "Yer Blog" http://fab4yerblog.blogspot.com/ http://robotsarestealingmyluggage.blogspot.com/ In a message dated 10/8/2008 11:54:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kstudyvin@gmail.com writes: Last thing I heard from Elvis the C. was My Flame Burns Blue, which the wife picked up because she's a big fan of old-school jazz (and thinks his version of "Funny Valentine" is the best ever). Before that it was Mighty Like a Rose. His stuff was one of those things I kinda lost track of after getting married. Anyone especially recommend anything in the years I've missed? **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:30:49 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Master Debaters Christopher Gross wrote: >> Not anywhere near as scary as this shit: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy09UpI60F8 > > My god, that IS scary. > > Umm, you meant the comments thread, right? Some of the comments, sure, but the video is a bit too militaristic, no? A bit over-the top? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:34:17 -0400 From: "David Stovall" Subject: Re: various (very little RH content) > From: "kevin studyvin" > Subject: Re: Miles on BSDR (I know - I keep changing thread names...) > > Last thing I heard from Elvis the C. was My Flame Burns Blue, which the wife > picked up because she's a big fan of old-school jazz (and thinks his version > of "Funny Valentine" is the best ever). Before that it was Mighty Like a > Rose. His stuff was one of those things I kinda lost track of after getting > married. Anyone especially recommend anything in the years I've missed? I dunno how universal this feeling is, but I love love love When I Was Cruel. - --------------------------------- > From: "kevin studyvin" > Subject: Re: A couple of things about Eye > > When the term "arena rock" comes up all I can think of is Boston, and I > instinctively try to kill the brain cells where "More Than a Feeling" is > inscribed - no luck so far, though. Boston/Tom Scholz: "Ah, the sound of eight million guitars being sucked through a straw." - Mike Keneally - --------------------------------- McCain: I had a realization on my drive home yesterday. "Being John Maverick" Starring Jerry Van Dyke as John McCain, Edie McClurg as Sarah Palin (this is the one casting decision I insist upon in this lot, the rest are definitely arguable, and somebody here can certainly come up with some funnier ones), Bill Cosby as Barack Obama, Charlton Heston's reanimated corpse as Joe Biden, Catherine Keener just 'cos she's hawt, and, in a comeback performance, Sweetums from the Muppet Show as the dimension-twisting portal up John McCain's ass. There's a scene in a restaurant. Maybe a Cracker Barrel. Maybe an Old Country Buffet. Nah, *probably* a Cracker Barrel: "Maverick maverick. Maverick maverick maverick. Maverick maverick maverick maverick maverick. Maverick! Maverick maverick." (Palin: Sounds as if she's been assigned a 20 page essay but barely has 10 pages of material.) - ---------------------------------- Oh, yeah. Queen Elvis (the album) is, for me, Robyn's _Back to the Egg_. Criminally underrated, totally rockin', satisfying in ways very little other RH is, even if it's,... not as much *so* as many other RH albums. d9 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:42:44 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Master Debaters On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 8:49 AM, FSThomas wrote: > Bachman, Michael wrote: > > A couple of the frothing minions at Palin's gatherings have been downright >> scary with some of their shouts. >> >> >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/is-palin-trying-to-incite_b_132534.html >> > > Not anywhere near as scary as this shit: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy09UpI60F8 > So a bunch of teenagers marching around singing is *more scary* than a candidate for Vice President of the United States accusing the opposing party's presidential candidate of associating with terrorists, of people in the crowd directly calling him a "terrorist," and of threatening violence against him? You've got an odd notion of what's scary. Do you seriously believe large numbers of people would follow Obama off a cliff if he asked them to - or that he's likely to do so? Do you think "Obama-mania" is more intense than Reagan-mania was back in the early '80s? THere've often been candidates who, for good reasons and bad, attract intense attachment among some - that does not in itself make them dangerous. (If Reagan was dangerous, it wasn't particularly because of the sort of zealot that wants to put him on Mt. Rushmore.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 09:48:57 -0700 From: "Nectar At Any Cost!" Subject: =?us-ascii?B?UmU6IEhpISAgSZJtIGFuIGFkbWluIGZyb20gYSBGbGlja3IgZ3 JvdXAg?= =?us-ascii?B?Y2FsbGVkIJNDUlQgTW9uaXRvcnMgYW5kIERvdCBNYXRyaXggUHJpbnRlc nMg?= =?us-ascii?B?RlRXIZQgYW5kIHdlkmQgbG92ZSB0byBhZGQgeW91ciBwaG90byE=?= this was in june of '89, yes? they only did the eastern half of the country (they had done the southwest in march, opening for r.e.m.; but never did make it to seattle that year). too bad there aren't any videos from that jaunt! my opinion, from : >>it just so happens that i listened to *Perspex Island* last night. the received wisdom is that it's the weakest egyptians album -- but that the *songs*, in a live setting, are quite fantastic (this point was driven home quite dramatically during the ROCK ARMADA tour). it's a wisdom i have (unlike the similar wisdom concerning *Groovy Decay*) agreed with. but i'm telling you, if you listen to that fucker through headphones (i previously had not), with the volume cranked up way past "ten"; it'll rock you to the very core of your being (that is, when it's not haunting you to the very core of your being -- see especially "If You Go Away"). this has been a public service announcement.<< ...that is, i think i disagree. move to arizona (where all the old-folks go). if you need him to, chris gross can explain! ferris, if i'd not met you in person, i'd swear you were some kind of bot; designed to periodically scan limbaugh's website, cut-and-paste certain "nuggets", and pass them on here. nothing inherently wrong with holding a given opinion, of course. but when you keep coming back with the exact same opinions, even though they've time and time and time and time and time and time and time again been demonstrated, in this very forum, to've been factually and logically wanting, i do have to wonder whether your fac-fac-faculties are intact. i suppose it depends upon *why* you're unable to do. if it's because the necessities aren't *available*, that's more an indication that your species' population is too large. that could be considered a problem; but it's not a big one, as the species' population will adjust to match its available food supply. but if your species has been able to temporarily transcend the laws of nature, thereby allowing its population to continue growing even after it's become too large, then, that's a *big* problem for other species (and, eventually your own). hence, the situation to-day: . sleater-kinney knocked "Fortunate Son" out of the park during their *All Hands On The Bad One* tour. speaking of which, mr. gilde (frequent taper/uploader of seattle robyn h. gigs) has just torrented his recording of last week's plant/krauss show, whose setlist includes "Black Country Woman". yow! wouldn't have minded attending that show myself, if it hadn't been so awfully damned expensive. <> and in fact, the bubble began expanding during the clinton administration, while the republicans were riding herd over congress. they're entirely interchangeable. the funny thing is, the republicans' representatives are so much stupider that the dems', yet when push come to shove, the parties' policies are more less identical. what does that say about the "smarter" dem representatives? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:56:22 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Master Debaters 2fs wrote: > So a bunch of teenagers marching around singing is *more scary* than a > candidate for Vice President of the United States accusing the opposing > party's presidential candidate of associating with terrorists, of people in > the crowd directly calling him a "terrorist," and of threatening violence > against him? You cannot control the crowd. Should she have stopped and rebuked the person who shouted out? Sure. She also might not have heard it. Here's a quiz question: Q: What do Barak Obama and Osama bin Laden have in common? A: They're both friends with someone who bombed the Pentagon. C'mon, man! What type of political party nominates a Presidential candidate who's friends with an admitted, unrepentant domestic terrorist? What party (much less nation) elects someone like that? > You've got an odd notion of what's scary. Yep, I guess I do. > Do you seriously believe large numbers of people would follow Obama off a > cliff if he asked them to - or that he's likely to do so? Do you think > "Obama-mania" is more intense than Reagan-mania was back in the early '80s? > THere've often been candidates who, for good reasons and bad, attract > intense attachment among some - that does not in itself make them dangerous. > (If Reagan was dangerous, it wasn't particularly because of the sort of > zealot that wants to put him on Mt. Rushmore.) I don't remember the press covering people crying when any other candidate speaks. I don't recall people *fainting* at Reagan's speeches. Nor were there rock concerts focused around voting drives. I think there's more than a little hero worship going on. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:57:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Master Debaters >>> Not anywhere near as scary as this shit: >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy09UpI60F8 >> >> My god, that IS scary. >> >> Umm, you meant the comments thread, right? > > Some of the comments, sure, but the video is a bit too militaristic, no? A > bit over-the top? Of course it is. And if these eight or nine goofy teenagers were in any way representative of Obama supporters or a future Obama administration, I would feel scared. But they're not, so I don't. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:13:12 -0400 From: "Jeremy Osner" Subject: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Re:_Hi!_I=92m_an_admin_from_a_Fli?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ckr_group_called_=93CRT_Monitors_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?and_Dot_Matrix_Printers_FTW!=94_a?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?nd_we=92d_love_to_add_your_photo!?= On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Nectar At Any Cost! wrote: > but i'm telling you, if you listen to that fucker through headphones (i > previously had not), with the volume cranked up way past "ten"; it'll rock > you to the very core of your being (that is, when it's not haunting you to > the very core of your being -- see especially "If You Go Away"). Yay!!! Somebody *gets it*! J - -- If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the essential words. -- Josi Saramago http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:52:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Master Debaters On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, FSThomas wrote: > speaks. I don't recall people *fainting* at Reagan's speeches. Nor were I hate to nit-pick*, but this particular point has bugged me for a long time now. People faint at large events all the time! I've seen lots of people faint at concerts, for example, and on the Mall every Fourth of July. Most likely a couple of people fainted at an Obama rally in some hot, sunny outdoor location over the summer, a reporter mentioned it, and it's been blown out of proportion ever since. Unless someone comes up with some hard figures that *more* people, proportionally, faint at Obama rallies than at anyone else's rallies, I'm going to write this off as just another urban legend. - --Chris * "I don't like to brag.... Who am I kidding? I *love* to brag!" --Spike ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:55:30 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Master Debaters On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:18 PM, 2fs wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:56 AM, FSThomas wrote: > >> 2fs wrote: >> >> Here's a quiz question: >> >> Q: What do Barak Obama and Osama bin Laden have in common? >> A: They're both friends with someone who bombed the Pentagon. >> >> C'mon, man! What type of political party nominates a Presidential >> candidate who's friends with an admitted, unrepentant domestic terrorist? >> What party (much less nation) elects someone like that? >> > > Ayers is not Obama's "friend." > Specifically: *http://tinyurl.com/3odkjm* > > > -- > > ...Jeff Norman > > The Architectural Dance Society > http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:06:20 -0400 From: "Jeremy Osner" Subject: Re: Master Debaters On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:56 PM, FSThomas wrote: > C'mon, man! What type of political party nominates a Presidential candidate > who's friends with an admitted, unrepentant domestic terrorist? What party > (much less nation) elects someone like that? Look, this is bugging me all day. Obama worked with Ayers on public school issues in Chicago -- an area where Ayers is an acknowledged expert, in the city where they both reside. It's so totally unremarkable that the two would have been in contact. The Republican Party has demonized Obama for this but it's the tiniest footnote to his career. It boggles my mind that you would bring it up as the deal-breaker, the key point which should make Obama unelectable. Like it makes you sound like you haven't given the matter any thought at all. J - -- If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the essential words. -- Josi Saramago http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:09:08 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Master Debaters On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:56 AM, FSThomas wrote: > > > >> Do you seriously believe large numbers of people would follow Obama off a >> cliff if he asked them to - or that he's likely to do so? Do you think >> "Obama-mania" is more intense than Reagan-mania was back in the early >> '80s? >> > > I don't remember the press covering people crying when any other >> candidate speaks. > > Which is not, of course, the same thing as people not crying. And god forbid anyone be moved by the political process, or actually give enough of a damn to imagine that things might improve. But you know: bleeding hearts cry, right-wingers yell "terrorist! kill him!" Uh...someone not so long ago - who was it? I can't quite recall... - wrote that politicians can't control crowds' reactions. You're judging Obama based on his crowds' reaction while excusing Palin and McCain based on their crowds' reactions: why? > I don't recall people *fainting* at Reagan's speeches. Nor were there >> rock concerts focused around voting drives. > > Probably because if there'd been rock concerts focused on registering Reagan voters, the main reaction would have been "turn that goddam hippie shit down!" The reason rock concerts are used to register voters is *which* voters are being targeted: young people, in this case. And as you're well aware, it's a lot easier to put together a concert of liberal/left musicians than of right-wing ones. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:10:20 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Master Debaters Hey, check it out: instant Hollywood comedy movie treatment: On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Christopher Gross wrote: > On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, FSThomas wrote: > > speaks. I don't recall people *farting* at Reagan's speeches. Nor were >> > > I hate to nit-pick*, but this particular point has bugged me for a long > time now. People fart at large events all the time! I've seen lots of > people fart at concerts, for example, and on the Mall every Fourth of July. > Most likely a couple of people farted at an Obama rally in some hot, sunny > outdoor location over the summer, a reporter mentioned it, and it's been > blown out of proportion ever since. Unless someone comes up with some hard > figures that *more* people, proportionally, fart at Obama rallies than at > anyone else's rallies, I'm going to write this off as just another urban > legend. > -- > > ...Jeff Norman > > The Architectural Dance Society > http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:12:12 -0400 From: "Jeremy Osner" Subject: Re: Master Debaters On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:09 PM, 2fs wrote: > And as you're well aware, it's a lot easier to put together a concert of > liberal/left musicians than of right-wing ones. Free Bird! - -- If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the essential words. -- Josi Saramago http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:17:23 -0700 From: "Nectar At Any Cost!" Subject: Deninger Sez: Time Is Up . by the way, show of hands of those who predicted, on the day of the trade, that the sox and dodgers would be facing off in the series. (or, even that both would achieve their respective leagues' championship series.) personally, i'd love to see a sox/dodgers series. time was, the dodgers, royals, and sox were my fave teams; so this'd be kinda like re-living my youth (or what). although it appears that vegas slightly favours the phillies. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:17:05 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Master Debaters - -----Original Message----- From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Gross Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 1:53 PM To: Squidmaniax! Subject: Re: Master Debaters On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, FSThomas wrote: >> speaks. I don't recall people *fainting* at Reagan's speeches. Nor >> were >I hate to nit-pick*, but this particular point has bugged me for a long time now. People faint at large events >all the time! I've seen lots of people faint at concerts, for example, and on the Mall every Fourth of July. > Most likely a couple of people fainted at an Obama rally in some hot, sunny outdoor location over the summer, >a reporter mentioned it, and it's been blown out of proportion ever since. Unless someone comes up with some > hard figures that *more* people, proportionally, faint at Obama rallies than at anyone else's rallies, I'm going >to write this off as just another urban legend. Heat stroke could be another likely culprit. Speaking of Reagan, isn't the shine coming off him for a lot of people that still held him in high esteem (other then the diehard Republicans) now that his deregulating, anti-big government stance has back fired big time? Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:34:41 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: Master Debaters > Heat stroke could be another likely culprit. Speaking of Reagan, isn't the > shine coming off him for a lot of people that still held him in high esteem > (other then the diehard Republicans) now that his deregulating, anti-big > government stance has back fired big time? > What I said. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:41:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Master Debaters Jeremy Osner wrote: > Look, this is bugging me all day. Obama worked with Ayers on public > school issues in Chicago -- an area where Ayers is an acknowledged > expert, in the city where they both reside. It's so totally > unremarkable that the two would have been in contact. And there were also many prominant Illinois Republicans working on the same board. It's not like Obama sat in the audience at his church while a notorious anti-semite said that Israel deserved to be attacked by terrorists for rejecting Jesus with her thumbs up his ass. You now, like Sarah Palin did. "I love how (coffee) makes me feel. It's like my heart is trying to hug my brain!" -- Kenneth Parcell ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:44:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Brand Subject: spousal references Getting away from Comrade Obama (I mean, he is planning to socialize both medicine and Wall Street, no?) and the upstanding do-right-by-the-taxpayer John McCain, I have another question along the lines of "passed" vs. "passed away." There seems to be a group of menfolk on this list who refer to their wives as "the wife." I believe it is said in jest, but where is the dwelling place of this expression? It sounds very Archie Bunker to me. We had a plumber once who always referred to his wife as "the wife," and it rarely sounded full of love and admiration. I appreciate that it sounds better than "the bitch" or "she who must be obeyed." I'm left now to contemplate an almost-naked Kevin Barnes in Rolling Stone. If I were a car mechanic, I could hang that pic up in my office. Jill, not trying to be scary ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:52:21 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: spousal references On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Jill Brand wrote: > > > There seems to be a group of menfolk on this list who refer to their wives > as "the wife." I call mine "Comrade." - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:52:38 -0400 From: "Jeremy Osner" Subject: Re: spousal references On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Jill Brand wrote: > I appreciate that it sounds better > than "the bitch" or "she who must be obeyed." What's wrong with "Cheryl"? (My favorite jokily chauvenistic mode of wife-reference might be mimicking the narrator of Tristram Shandy by using "my" before my wife's first name. I've probably used "the wife" in a similarly jokey manner; I'm having trouble picturing what it sounds like when your plumber says it -- maybe you could post an audio file?) J - -- If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the essential words. -- Josi Saramago http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 21:56:16 +1030 From: great white shark Subject: new yorker editorial No one in his right mind would vote republican in this climate anyway but there are plenty of stupid fuckers out there ready to do so ( although hopefully their numbers are dwindling ) however, from an outsiders viewpoint this editorial makes a compelling case to consign mcain and palin to the wastebasket of history . oh and btw, we ozzies fucking hate Palin ( or at least all the ones I know do anyway ....) der commander down under http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/ 2008/10/13/081013taco_talk_editors?yrail a snippet The Republican disaster begins at home. Even before taking into account whatever fantastically expensive plan eventually emerges to help rescue the financial system from Wall Streets long-running pyramid schemes, the economic and fiscal picture is bleak. During the Bush Administration, the national debt, now approaching ten trillion dollars, has nearly doubled. Next years federal budget is projected to run a half-trillion-dollar deficit, a precipitous fall from the seven-hundred-billion-dollar surplus that was projected when Bill Clinton left office. Private-sector job creation has been a sixth of what it was under President Clinton. Five million people have fallen into poverty. The number of Americans without health insurance has grown by seven million, while average premiums have nearly doubled. Meanwhile, the principal domestic achievement of the Bush Administration has been to shift the relative burden of taxation from the rich to the rest. For the top one per cent of us, the Bush tax cuts are worth, on average, about a thousand dollars a week; for the bottom fifth, about a dollar and a half. The unfairness will only increase if the painful, yet necessary, effort to rescue the credit markets ends up preventing the rescue of our health-care system, our environment, and our physical, educational, and industrial infrastructure. At the same time, a hundred and fifty thousand American troops are in Iraq and thirty-three thousand are in Afghanistan. There is still disagreement about the wisdom of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and his horrific regime, but there is no longer the slightest doubt that the Bush Administration manipulated, bullied, and lied the American public into this war and then mismanaged its prosecution in nearly every aspect. The direct costs, besides an expenditure of more than six hundred billion dollars, have included the loss of more than four thousand Americans, the wounding of thirty thousand, the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and the displacement of four and a half million men, women, and children. Only now, after American forces have been fighting for a year longer than they did in the Second World War, is there a glimmer of hope that the conflict in Iraq has entered a stage of fragile stability. The indirect costs, both of the war in particular and of the Administrations unilateralist approach to foreign policy in general, have also been immense. The torture of prisoners, authorized at the highest level, has been an ethical and a public-diplomacy catastrophe. At a moment when the global environment, the global economy, and global stability all demand a transition to new sources of energy, the United States has been a global retrograde, wasteful in its consumption and heedless in its policy. Strategically and morally, the Bush Administration has squandered the American capacity to counter the example and the swagger of its rivals. China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other illiberal states have concluded, each in its own way, that democratic principles and human rights need not be components of a stable, prosperous future. At recent meetings of the United Nations, emboldened despots like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran came to town sneering at our predicament and hailing the end of the American era. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #740 ********************************