From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #741 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 741 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: spousal references [2fs ] Re: Master Debaters [FSThomas ] Re: communication breakdown [Tom Clark ] Re: Master Debaters [2fs ] Re: spousal references ["Stewart Russell" ] Re: Master Debaters [Christopher Gross ] Re: Perspex Island, politics, and the wife ["C. Huff" ] my "reap" belated [2fs ] RE: Perspex Island, politics, and the wife ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: Perspex Island, politics, and the wife ["Jeremy Osner" ] Re: spousal references ["Jason Brown" ] Re: communication breakdown ["kevin studyvin" ] Re: Another econo-politicalish note [FSThomas ] Re: Another econo-politicalish note ["kevin studyvin" ] Re: Master Debaters [Capuchin ] Re: Robyn's Cape Farewell blog & flickr photostream [James Dignan ] Re: Master Debaters ["Miles Goosens" ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #738 [James Dignan ] Re: A couple of things about Eye [James Dignan ] Re:The EYE debate [James Dignan ] Re: The EYE debate ["kevin studyvin" ] Re: A couple of things about Eye ["kevin studyvin" ] Re: Master Debaters [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:57:23 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: spousal references On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > 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. This is distracting to others when your wife's name is "Sharona." - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:14:18 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Master Debaters Jeff Dwarf wrote: > 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. The catch is that there may be prominent Illinois Republicans on the same board, but they stayed Illinois Republicans. The GOP is smart enough not to elevate a modern-day Illinois politician to anything. The Daley political machine has been churning since 1953 and has yet to spit out a candidate for anything that you can't stick something to. Secondly Obama, too was sitting in the audience of his church. He wasn't listening to anti-Semite as far as I know but he *was* soaking up a lot of bigoted positions under the tutelage of Jeremiah Wright. Of course that's not news-worthy and to bring it up means you're racist. - -f ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:20:37 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: communication breakdown On Oct 8, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Bachman, Michael wrote: > Jill, don't you want a steady hand on the tiller rather then that > one? McCain was like a boiling teapot on the edge of the stove last > night. He's a fraction away from blowing up at Obama as the steam is > rising from his collar or falling over with some of the tentative > steps he was taking last night on the stage. It seemed like when McCain was talking, Obama sat on his chair and listened. But sometimes when Obama was talking you could see McCain wandering around in the background like he was lost or something. Weird. > > John and Cindy McCain sure didn't hang around long last night after > the debate, while the Obama's shook hands with the audience for a > good half hour or so afterwards. Q. Why did John McCain leave the stage so quickly after the debate? A. Depends - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:22:35 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Master Debaters On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM, FSThomas wrote: > > Secondly Obama, too was sitting in the audience of his church. He wasn't > listening to anti-Semite as far as I know but he *was* soaking up a lot of > bigoted positions under the tutelage of Jeremiah Wright. Of course that's > not news-worthy and to bring it up means you're racist. My psychic powers FTW! > > > -- > > ...Jeff Norman > > The Architectural Dance Society > http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:23:46 -0400 From: "Stewart Russell" Subject: Re: spousal references Or Mymydelilah, even. On 10/8/08, 2fs wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > >> 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. > > > This is distracting to others when your wife's name is "Sharona." > > -- > > ...Jeff Norman > > The Architectural Dance Society > http://spanghew.blogspot.com > - -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com http://scruss.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:26:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Master Debaters On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, FSThomas wrote: > Secondly Obama, too was sitting in the audience of his church. He wasn't > listening to anti-Semite as far as I know but he *was* soaking up a lot of > bigoted positions under the tutelage of Jeremiah Wright. Of course that's not > news-worthy and to bring it up means you're racist. Ummm, yeah, that's why the media has *totally ignored* the Wright issue, Republicans who try to bring up Obama's (ex-)pastor are gagged and ridden out of the country on a rail, and no CNN viewer has ever even heard Wright's name. Right. Jesus Christ, what next? Why not complain about the way the media TOTALLY IGNORES the recent stock market plunge? Or how about the total media silence about the Superbowl back in February? Getting a headache from all the eye-rolling I've had to do today, Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:27:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "C. Huff" Subject: Re: Perspex Island, politics, and the wife <> Oh, I definitely enjoyed that experience in 93 coming down off of some heavy window pane acid... just that I still think it sounds slightly dated now in 08 but here's how I order Egyptians albums (in order of awesomeness first to last): Globe of Frogs Fegmania Element of Light Perspex Island Queen Elvis Respect Feel free to discuss :-) <> I'm rooting for Phils/Rays myself...philly resident over here... <> I actually got it from Monty Python as in "Blimey...whatever did I give the wife?"...but I am happy to refer to her as my better half if that makes you feel better Jill :-) She is a far better person than I will ever be.... Oh, and since we're all sharing...can we maybe mark the political posts OFF TOPIC or something? Or at least the Republican ones lol? Posting Republican garbage on here is, well, very un-Robyn. This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek in case I offend any of the crew who have been destroying our country for the last 8 years. :-) I see a flaming on its way... btw The 2000 election destroyed Bowienet...completely drove Bowie off the site once he realized that he had fans (and, I still suspect, paid Republican operatives) professing their loud love for George W. Bush. It'd be a shame to see this group of intelligent fegly folks get all Bushwhacked. My public service announcement. Thank you and please return to your squidly and segmented activities. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:42:40 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: my "reap" belated http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/arts/television/03peters.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1 Mr. Clean (okay: the guy who played him) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:45:22 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Perspex Island, politics, and the wife C,Huff wrote: >Oh, I definitely enjoyed that experience in 93 coming down off of some heavy window pane acid... >just that I still think it sounds slightly dated now in 08 but here's how I order Egyptians albums >(in order of awesomeness first to last): >Globe of Frogs >Fegmania >Element of Light >Perspex Island >Queen Elvis > >Feel free to discuss :-) Fegmania! (vaults to number 1 over EOL thanks to Luminous Groove, great remastered sound!) Element of Light Gotta Let This Hen Out! Globe Of Frogs Queen Elvis Perspex Island Respect Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:47:21 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Perspex Island, politics, and the wife On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM, C. Huff wrote: > > Oh, and since we're all > sharing...can we maybe mark the political posts OFF TOPIC or something? > Or > at least the Republican ones lol? This list has a long, time-honored tradition of political content...my guess is we end up blabbing politics nearly as often as we mention Robyn. Usually everyone's civil about it - only rarely does anyone go a bit off the rails. It'll pass, soon enough. Baby seal abortions! Gay immigrants bootlegging DVDs! - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:56:08 -0400 From: "Jeremy Osner" Subject: Re: Perspex Island, politics, and the wife >>Feel free to discuss :-) > Perspex Island Respect Element of Light Globe Of Frogs Fegmania! Gotta Let This Hen Out! Queen Elvis (Globe of Frogs might be above EoL but I haven't listened to it in a long time, not sure.) (Queen Elvis I don't think I've ever actually listened to but as I said before, I find the title track annoying.) (I debated putting Respect below EoL and GoF because of the presence of Wafflehead; but the combined power of Yip, Arms of Love, When I was Dead, & well really every other song on there...) - -- 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 16:57:25 -0400 From: "Jeremy Osner" Subject: Re: Perspex Island, politics, and the wife On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > (Queen Elvis I don't think I've ever actually listened to but as I > said before, I find the title track annoying.) Huh -- just went over to Asking Tree and realized that the title track does not even appear on the record. - -- 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 16:57:37 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Perspex Island, politics, and the wife - -----Original Message----- From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of 2fs Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:47 PM To: C. Huff Cc: fegmaniax@smoe.org Subject: Re: Perspex Island, politics, and the wife On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM, C. Huff wrote: >> >> Oh, and since we're all >> sharing...can we maybe mark the political posts OFF TOPIC or something? >> Or >> at least the Republican ones lol? >This list has a long, time-honored tradition of political content...my guess is we end up blabbing politics nearly >as often as we mention Robyn. >Usually everyone's civil about it - only rarely does anyone go a bit off the rails. >It'll pass, soon enough. I wonder how many dropped off the list during the 9/11 political postings? It got real testy there for some time with a lot of thought provoking e-mails. I never considered de-listing, but I understood why some did. Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:00:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Another econo-politicalish note SUBPRIME SUSPECTS The right blames the credit crisis on poor minority homeowners. This is not merely offensive, but entirely wrong. by Daniel Gross http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/ NB: Not written from a socialist perspective. - --Chris "no relation" the Grosster ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:15:54 -0700 From: "Jason Brown" Subject: Re: spousal references On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Jill Brand wrote: > There seems to be a group of menfolk on this list who refer to their wives > as "the wife." I 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." "the wife" = "the old ball and chain". Its often accompanied by "the kid" or "the boy" or "the girl" and later morphs into "the ex". - -- "IGNORE ME!!!!!!!" - The Grand Galactic Inquisitor ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:55:24 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: communication breakdown > Q. Why did John McCain leave the stage so quickly after the debate? >> A. Depends > > (Cue rimshot stage right) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:59:08 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Another econo-politicalish note Christopher Gross wrote: > SUBPRIME SUSPECTS > ... > http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/ > > NB: Not written from a socialist perspective. Reminds me of this from SNL: http://tinyurl.com/4q3pal The article raises some interesting arguments, but I think they're entirely skirting the responsibility of the CRA, Carter, Clinton, ACRORN, Christopher Todd and Barney Franks. Their efforts, combined with a slew of investors who severely over-extended themselves caused the problem. The investors (and the lenders) dropped the ball by assuming that the real estate market would only ever go up. They'll over-extend, sit-n-sell, and make a killing. The market stalled, the housing supply was glutted, and there wasn't anywhere to go but down as mortgage bills kept coming in but there weren't any buyers. The mention of microlending programs isn't really applicable because of the difference in scale present in the issue. Lending someone five grand for a few years is a lot different then spotting them seventy-five or five seventy-five for thirty. The lenders rightly ought to be investigated for their decisions as should the sellers and owners who refinanced. My zip code was the lucky winner of the Most Incidents of Mortgage Fraud award for the entire US a few years ago. Last year we were #2 in foreclosures (http://tinyurl.com/ypubg7). People who lied and said their homes were worth upwards of 50% more than their actual appraised values, and the appraisers who signed off on it, and the lender who utterly failed in their due diligence to check the actual condition of the property, all of them should face consequences for what they did. My zip code had a median household income in 1999 of $24,604 (US Census Bureau http://tinyurl.com/4baufv). Median home values averaged $69,700 in '99 (both stats were the most recent I could find). More recent data (not as reliable as the Census, but I'll run with it from http://tinyurl.com/4kf97e) for my zip puts the inflation-adjusted average Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) in 2005 at $21,620. We're in the bottom 6% for the entire country. So a zip code poorer than 94% of the rest of the U.S. simultaneously scores the second highest number of foreclosures. Can you make any inferences from that? Nah. Lending to the poor is good and stable. Thinking otherwise isn't merely offensive, but entirely wrong. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:19:27 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: Another econo-politicalish note > So a zip code poorer than 94% of the rest of the U.S. simultaneously scores > the second highest number of foreclosures. Can you make any inferences from > that? Nah. Lending to the poor is good and stable. Thinking otherwise isn't > merely offensive, but entirely wrong. > Bitter, bitter, bitter...I entirely agree that the lenders who wrote all that bad paper should face stout fines and/or jail time - as should the regulators who looked the other way while all this criminal foolishness was going on (if not actually encouraging it), and the individuals at Fannie & Freddie & the Fed and any other actors in high places who encouraged the mendacious climate in which this disaster took place. And speaking of actors in high places who despised regulation and encouraged recklessness, greed, and irresponsibility...I give you the former Governor of California who's regarded as semi-divine by the celebrants of the free-market cult. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:53:05 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: spousal references Well, not in the present instance - we just hit our 26th anniversary week before last, and I can assure you no disrespect for that woman is intended on my part, or tolerated neither. After recent events I literally wouldn't be walking around if not for her, and I'm not emotionally capable of forgetting that however cavalier my behavior might seem from time to time... np, not inappropriately, Blind Faith On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Jason Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Jill Brand wrote: > > There seems to be a group of menfolk on this list who refer to their > wives > > as "the wife." I 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." > > "the wife" = "the old ball and chain". Its often accompanied by "the > kid" or "the boy" or "the girl" and later morphs into "the ex". > > -- > "IGNORE ME!!!!!!!" - The Grand Galactic Inquisitor ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:46:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Master Debaters On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, kevin studyvin wrote: > I was conversing with an individual at work recently who opined that > while Jon Stewart is funny, he's "as far left as you can get." I was > tempted to ask how he felt about Trotsky but we're encouraged to avoid > political discussion in the workplace. Yeah, that's something that bugs the Hell out of me, too. Who's more right-wing than, say, Sarah Palin? There are maybe a small handful of notable figures that are arguable more pro-military, nationalistic, theocratic, and supportive of total wage-slavery for the masses than she appears to be. And who's more left-wing than, say, Dennis Kucinich? Um, I would guess about a third of the world. Dennis Kucinich argues that the excesses of capitalism should be mitigated by regulation and that we should take a measured approach to military use overseas while supporting civil rights for all people within our country and recognizing our social obligations. He's not arguing that we need to eliminate capitalism and dismantle the government. But lots of leftists do exactly that! To me, folks like Kucinich and Feingold and that lot sit just barely right of center -- supporting a mixed economy dominated by private ownership, but ultimately stewarded by public interest and regulation of social behavior to maintian a traditional sense of "law and order". If you're going to call those people "as far left as you can get", you WILL have to explain where Trotsky sits... and tell me who the fuck is to the right of Sarah Palin and what it means to be in the center. J. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:16:44 +1300 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: Robyn's Cape Farewell blog & flickr photostream > > The earred hat he is wearing on this trip absolutely slays me. > >Some commenter on capefarewell asked if he was "sleeping with your devil hat". oh, the rabbit train he rides... James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:21:19 +1300 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: The "Eye" debate... >Dear old Musician - I don't know which was more fun, Robert Fripp's columns >or the indignant letters in response to them, the most succinct of which >read simply, "What a pretentious asshole" - which I'm sure Fripp got a >chuckle out of. Reminds me of one of the few times the Fripp wrote to the King Crimson email list "Elephant Talk" (which several members of the band were lurkers on, in one case hilariously so, which I'll have to tell you about at some point if prodded). Someone had written in that he didn't like Fripp's latest solo album since" the level of mindless noodling on it is far too high". A reply came in along the lines of "This Fripp would be intrigued to know what level of mindless noodling would be acceptable." James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 18:22:32 -0500 From: "Miles Goosens" Subject: Re: Master Debaters On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Capuchin wrote: > On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, kevin studyvin wrote: >> >> I was conversing with an individual at work recently who opined that while >> Jon Stewart is funny, he's "as far left as you can get." I was tempted to >> ask how he felt about Trotsky but we're encouraged to avoid political >> discussion in the workplace. > > Yeah, that's something that bugs the Hell out of me, too.... > > To me, folks like Kucinich and Feingold and that lot sit just barely right > of center -- supporting a mixed economy dominated by private ownership, but > ultimately stewarded by public interest and regulation of social behavior to > maintian a traditional sense of "law and order". I know I'm paraphrasing whichever wag first came up with the bon mot I'm about to employ, but American politics runs the gamut of viewpoints from A to B. And it frustrates the hell out of me too. later, Miles - -- now with blogspot retsin! http://readingpronunciation.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:29:55 +1300 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #738 >speaking of feg DJs (and nice job on the retrospective, jonesie! -- >although you neglected to give the source for "Astronomy"): what was the >first song y'all ever played on the air? if ever i were to free up enough >time to be able to take to the airwaves, i think i'd have to go with "Lick >My Doberman's Dick". now THERE's a question. I'd have to think back obver 20 years for that one... I suspect it might have been "Photographs of naked ladies" by Toy Love. James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:34:53 +1300 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: A couple of things about Eye Jeff wrote: >The era whose production most frequently gets called "dated" seems to be the >'80s (I'll let Miles rant about how unfair this all is). Essentially, every >era has its sonic preferences and gimmicks, and when the Taste Police (who >are in an intense rivalry with the Thought Police, are oddly unaware of the >existence of the Dream Police, but who do not sing as they're well aware of >the poor quality of their vocal cords - also, Sting was booted out of the >Taste Police Academy at a very young age) decide that any of those are >somehow now the dreaded Last Year's Thing, well, there's your "dated >production." Some examples of era-appropriate sounds: the heavily gated >drums ('80s - think "In the Air Tonight" by Phil Collins...although arguably >the sound originated on Bowie's "Sound and Vision"), buckets of reverb on >the vocals (mid-sixties, as in the stereo mix of _Surrealistic Pillow_), >very dry & direct guitar ('70s), etc. etc. If you want a perfect example of how '80s production sounds of its time and doesn't really gel with today's music, listed to the "Brothers in Arms" album all the way through. Some of the songs on there are classics - but it's now almost impossible to listen to the entire album wothout giving up part way through. James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:40:06 +1300 From: James Dignan Subject: Re:The EYE debate > > I love that! would love to see songs like "Tropical Flesh Mandala" or > > "Globe of Frogs" signed.... > > >i could explain that typo. i choose not to. I know I'm sending too many humorous anecdotes to the list at the moment, but I can't pass this one up. Many years ago, Peter Sellers got a fan letter asking for a singed photograph. So, he got a photograph and gently singed the edges of it with a cigarette lighter and sent it off. A week or so later he got another letter saying "Could I have another singed photo - the one you sent seems to be signed round the edges!" James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:50:55 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: The EYE debate > I know I'm sending too many humorous anecdotes to the list at the moment, > but I can't pass this one up. Many years ago, Peter Sellers got a fan > letter asking for a singed photograph. So, he got a photograph and gently > singed the edges of it with a cigarette lighter and sent it off. A week or > so later he got another letter saying "Could I have another singed photo - > the one you sent seems to be signed round the edges!" > (cymbal splash) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:55:19 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: A couple of things about Eye > If you want a perfect example of how '80s production sounds of its time and > doesn't really gel with today's music, listed to the "Brothers in Arms" > album all the way through. Some of the songs on there are classics - but > it's now almost impossible to listen to the entire album wothout giving up > part way through. > Then there's Neil Young's attempt at a synth-pop album, Landing On Water... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 18:55:25 -0500 (CDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Master Debaters On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, FSThomas wrote: > My only warning: Capitalism may very well be unevenly distributed > wealth, but socialism is always (always) evenly distributed poverty. Are you claiming that there's not enough pie to go around? That there simply must be some people living in poverty? There's something in mathematics called the Dirichlet Drawer Problem which leads us to a very simple concept called "The Pigeon-Hole Principle". It says that if you have more pigeons than holes and every pigeon is in a hole, then there must be at least one hole with more than one pigeon in it. By extension (replacing pigeons with holes and vice versa), if you have more holes than pigeons and every pigeon is in a hole, you must have at least one empty hole. So if sharing the wealth evenly means poverty for all, then there is no way of redistributing the wealth such that all are out of poverty. Now, we'd have to see exactly what kind of wealth trade-offs would have to be made to lift a single person out of poverty and then how many others would have to go without in order to raise that person up in order to determine what kind of optimization we might do. But I can assure you of this: One person holding controlling more resources than one thousand people need to be out of poverty is most assuredly not optimal. I suspect your argument is that there is a smaller pie when one does not have the coercive influence of the constant threat of starvation that comes with wage-slavery. But here's the trick: Even without wages, there is still a constant threat of starvation. People just get hungry again no matter how much they eat. So the coercive threat of doing without is present regardless of economic strategy. > 2fs wrote: >> But I fail to see the relevance - surely you're not imagining Obama is >> any sort of socialist? > > That's a joke, right? > > Setting his voting record aside and his desire to raise taxes, any > further expansion of the Federal Government is going to trend us toward > a socialist system. A person who works toward a mixed economy is simply not a socialist. Your hyperbole does not do you any favors here. Barack Obama is a profiteer. He believes in private property and the exploitatoin thereof for the further gain of property. He didn't write those books and publish them under Creative Commons. He does, however, note that those who benefit most from the existence of government are those with massive private holdings. In true capitalist fashion, he argues that this benefit of armed thugs roaming the streets should be paid for by the people who use the service most and those who are asked to suffer for the sake of that massive subsidy of the wealthy should be compensated for their time and energy. Capitalist economies require large numbers of unemployed people in order to drive up the perceived labor supply and drive down wages in order to increase profits for the wealthy; hence, the unemployed should be compensated for playing a vital role in the capitalist economy. This whole notion of quid pro quo is capitalist in nature and whenever someone argues that someone else "has earned" something or "deserves" something else, they are preaching the gospel of capitalist exploitation. > The mantra is "that which governs best, governs least", not "a chicken > in every pot, Government in every aspect of your lives". If we are to listen to the principle author of the US Constitution, James Madison, we would believe that "the purpose of government is to protect the opulent minority against the majority" -- that is, the government is there to keep the poor from taking all that stuff the rich have sequestered away from public use. In this respect (private property), government is already very much in every aspect of our lives. The very least we could do for all those folks that have wealth kept from them by the goverment is maintain, in parallel with the government, a set of public agencies that provide the bare necessities so that those people will have the opportunity to make informed, ethical choices rather than desperately selling themselves for survival. > The current economic slump ... happened in no small part to Senator > Obama's ... party's stalwart resistance to reform in regard to housing > and lending practices. The federally owned lending and lending insurance corporations (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) did, in fact, have their standards lowered and that allowed for many people to receive mortgages that they very likely could never pay. However, these changes in regulation did not require private organizations to make risky loans. The vast majority of this bad debt was incurred by private companies hoping make some high-risk/high-yield investments and then attempted to separate themselves from this risk by shielding the loans behind securities and mutual funds. This was clearly a matter of greed-gone-wild (an inevitable effect in free market capitalism) and the dependence of these large financial institutions on opaque (or at least obscured) practices and deep dependence on the public (through federal insurance programs and corporations) to socialize debt while privatizing profits. > Now, because everyone fought so hard to instill a sense of fairness -- > that everyone (even the unqualified) should own homes Who is "unqualified" to own a home? Please don't confuse home ownership with debt ownership. There are people who cannot support the debt of a home loan, but, had they a home without the encumberance of debt, would be perfectly capable of managing that responsibility. These programs were implemented with the rhetoric of "fairness" (which, in my reading, is just a word people use to feel good about hurting others), but with the real intent of providing more customers for the mortgage industry, propping up the housing market, and indenturing a larger percentage of the population into credit servitude. > the US Government has a, what? 80% stake in some banks? And is going > into the mortgage business due to the recent "rescue" package? > Government-run banks and having to pay your mortgage to the Government > sounds more like socialization to me. No, if it were socialist, there wouldn't be all of this bullshit about "paying back" the public for the mortgages. We would just forgive the debt outright on our way to removing the finance industry completely. [On a side note, I think that the capitalists absolutely should support the forgiveness of all of this bad debt for the simple and clear reason that freeing all of these families from this massive debt will give them 1/4-1/2 of their income back as discretionary funds and improve the real economy by diverting that money into the consumer economy. But all those capitalist folks are too hung up on entitlement and brutal Puritan ethics to do anything but spiral deeper into crises and confusion.] > During the debate last night Senator Obama said he felt health care was > a right. I hate to break it to him, but it's not a right. I agree with that completely. It's a disappointing state of affairs in our culture (and that probably means Western Culture, if not worldwide culutre) when we confuse the rights of one with the obligations of others. Health care is not like the air and information that surrounds us and that can be spread freely with no meaningful incremental cost to each individual; it is a service that requires some people to put in enormous amounts of time and energy to provide. And no person has the right to the labor of another (due to indebtedness or any other reason), and so no person has the right to any service that must be provided by another -- including healthcare. We do have a moral and ethical obligation to ensure that all people, everywhere, are as happy and healthy as possible in exactly the way that we have a moral and ethical obligation to ensure that people, everywhere, may live free from tyranny. The call for universal healthcare is not the establishment of a new entitlement and right of any person, but a referendum on the gross negligence and excesses of those who control wealth that have, for decades, failed in their obligations to the very society that allows their opulence. With the exception of a few extremely unfortunate souls, every one of us has power over some resources (at least our labor) and for that we have a commensurate obligation to ensure first that people are not oppressed by the economic tyranny of debt and wage-slavery before we turn that wealth toward more frivolous ends. > Your rights as I understand them are laid out in the Constitution and > not so much to detail what the Government needs to protect, but rather > what the Government need not infringe upon. (Next thing someone will > pipe up about your supposed "right to *vote*" for Christ's sake.) Your assertion that the US Constitution is the sole source of your rights is at best foolish, hasty, short-sighted ignorance and at worst blatant, misleading dishonesty. For instance, you believe in your right to, say, walk down the street without getting shot. The Constitution does not "lay out" that right or anything like it. J. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #741 ********************************