From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #128 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Saturday, June 16 2001 Volume 01 : Number 128 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Moulin Rouge [loudfamily@hushmail.com] [loud-fans] Sparklehorse, Lucksmiths [GlenSarvad@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever [Dave Walker ] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Car] [loud-fans] Oleanna [GlenSarvad@aol.com] [loud-fans] fellow travellers (NS) [steve ] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Jef] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott hereeither...) [jenn] Re: Fw: [loud-fans] Ebertmania! ["Andrew Hamlin" ] RE: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Jon] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Aa] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Car] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Car] RE: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Jon] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Car] [loud-fans] APOLOGY [Cardinal007@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] APOLOGY [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Rog] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [JRT] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [ste] [loud-fans] Re: Funny Snarling Clowns (swap review) ["Brian Block" No, no, no - you don't take me seriously enough yet. I mount a subtle >yet virus-like attack on the whole Western ethos of personal identity, based >on questioning the ontological bases of its nomenclatural tradition >and including an indictment of its kinship structure, with side reference >to the insidious commodification of postmodern consumer culture, and you >think I'm just "ridiculing people"? > >Rush and I say, "what kind of a name is 'Stuart,' anyway?" (But hey when you're named after a Canadian prog-rock trio, what can ya do?) > Can't think...too.....many......big words............must grab.....dictionary....just..out.....of..............reach....Got it!.......no wait......it's a copy of I Was A Teen-Age Geneaologist!......all....is................lost.................................... Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 07:42:41 EDT From: GlenSarvad@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] Sparklehorse, Lucksmiths Some conversation of the new Sparklehorse album (prompted by a Rolling Stone piece) hit the list a few weeks ago. I stumbled on an advance copy this week- it's due in stores August 28, and I'm amazed to see he's still signed to Capitol. It sounds good- maybe a tad mellower than Good Morning Spider, a little like a recent Tom Waits album absent Waits' growl. Has anyone discussed the Lucksmiths on list? I've got a real soft spot for this Australian trio that on record sounds like an almost exact cross between Belle & Sebastian and Aztec Camera. Thery're barnstorming the US as I type, and when I saw them in Athens they proved to be a little more rough-hewn live, bringing early Billy Bragg to mind. Neat set-up, with a standing drummer/vocalist serving as frontman (although the other two share primary songwriting duties). Worth the trip if they pass through your town.... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 10:13:06 -0400 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever On Thursday, June 14, 2001, at 07:45 AM, Dana L Paoli wrote: > BTW, apparently "Matrix" is a verb. I was walking down the sidewalk the > other day and passed three ten-year olds playing what we used to call > "kung fu." One of them said to the other, "He just matrixed you!!" He > said it three times, so I know I heard it right. One cow-orker (jokingly) threatened another in my office the other day by saying he'd "get all bullet-time on his ass." -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 10:14:50 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) In a message dated 6/16/01 12:44:55 AM, jenor@csd.uwm.edu writes: >Well, let's see: First, of course, there's nothing in the Constitution >about Congress and birth control. Second, distributing condoms does not >endorse any particular opinion or practice concerning sexuality - whereas >unless a group is specifically ecumenical and is set up as a dialogue >amongs Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Satanists, say, the use by >Religion X of school facilities does implicitly endorse Religion X over >Religion Y (who are not granted use of those facilities). I'm not sure >that "evangelism" has anything to do with it: the idea seems to be that >the state and its agents should not favor any particular religion over >another, not that favoring a religion that doesn't proselytize is okay. * * *Ultimately, Dennis M's question is the best one: why don't the groups use their own facilities? <<<< I know what the *best* question is; I'm asking a lesser one. As I'd already noted the 1st amendment, I'll skip that. This is to look at the arguments centering on state imprimatur of approval, not whether something is constitutional in the U.S. Your response seems too facile to me; as I've chosen a somewhat ridiculous comparison, you seem not to bother with the logic. Distribution of condoms *is* at the expense of advocates of abstinence, it seems to me (if including religion X and excluding Y is at Y's expense). What if religion Y is granted access, provided they ask? Is X then at no one's expense? If not, what is state imprimatur? >>"Current...teen sexuality" too often doesn't include the use of birth control - so how is the state 'endorsing" that current sexuality by explaining and promoting the use of birth control? (Cue European statistics re birth control use vs. pctg. of unwanted pregnancies, etc. - compare to US)<< My question isn't endorsement, it's imprimatur of approval. My hypothetical is that the distributors recognize reality of US teen sex practices at expense of arguing against those practices. I'm not discussing the merits, which your above paragraph seems to address, but the logic of imprimatur. >>I suppose it goes without saying, also, that generally the aim of religious groups is to get people interested in their religion (otherwise, why publicize their meetings to anyone *not* already in the group?) - the interest of those distributing condoms is not usually getting people interested in sex (if only because that would be redundant). sorry, my hypo was intended to reject your supposition, and didn't do so explicitly enough. Assume they don't publicize, they just want the space. I made mine hypothetical and removed evangelism to hypothesize they just use the school to meet. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 10:26:27 EDT From: GlenSarvad@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] Oleanna Sorry, David. My wife and I saw Oleanna in NYC circa 1989 (Rebecca Pidgeon had cycled off by then) and both left with the strong reaction that the deck was stacked against the woman. The really interesting thing was, we both agreed that Mamet didn't appear to do this intentionally. As for Mamet's claim, I recall that the (admittedly knee-jerk) Village Voice was all over the misogny of the play. I'm a big Mamet fan, and I enjoyed Oleanna quite a bit. But that doesn't alter the fact that I believe the script was slanted, and there's a reasonable number of people that agree with me. An aside: is Janet Ingraham still on the list? Can someone please reply off-list with her email address? __________________________________________ In the interview I read, Mamet said the play never got that reaction, so something about it was different. If it's the same two actors, I doubt that the dialogue was changed in any important way. Perhaps the immediacy of watching a play creates a different audience perspective. From the movie, I got the sense that we were supposed to think she was wrong, and her assertions certainly did seem preposterous to me. Strangely enough, that year I saw no less than three films in which a woman sexually harrassed a man. Make of that what you will. Aaron, who slightly knew Debra Eisenstadt a few years before she acted in OLEANNA ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:48:16 -0500 From: steve Subject: [loud-fans] fellow travellers (NS) http://www.nobojo.com/cnp.html - - Steve __________ The president believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policymakers to protect the American way of life, the American way of life is a blessed one. - Ari Fleischer, when asked if Americans should use less energy ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:33:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 Cardinal007@aol.com wrote: > Your response seems too facile to me; as I've chosen a somewhat ridiculous > comparison, you seem not to bother with the logic. Distribution of condoms > *is* at the expense of advocates of abstinence, it seems to me (if including > religion X and excluding Y is at Y's expense). I don't think distributing condoms is necessarily at the expense of advocates of abstinence. There's always the old "Kids, don't have sex until you're married. But if you do, at least use these." That's saying "abstinence is best - condoms if abstinence isn't for you." Endorsing a position (abstinence) need not deny either the existence of other positions nor that humans are imperfect and sometimes mess up. After all, we have laws against murder (to choose another somewhat ridiculous comparison) - so is having jail cells for murderers or capital punishment somehow taking away from our stance against the legality of murder? No, it's saying "don't do this - and if you do, we have contingent plans, i.e., taking away your freedom or even your life." > What if religion Y is granted access, provided they ask? Is X then at no > one's expense? If not, what is state imprimatur? Sorry, I'm not sure what you're getting at here - specifically, what you mean by "Is X then at no one's expense?" > My question isn't endorsement, it's imprimatur of approval. My hypothetical > is that the distributors recognize reality of US teen sex practices at > expense of arguing against those practices. I'm not discussing the merits, > which your above paragraph seems to address, but the logic of imprimatur. As I said above, I don't really see the "imprimatur of approval" here. Let's say we want to discourage speeding. So we pass laws, we put up signs saying the speed limit is 65 mph, etc. etc. And yet, the state continues to register vehicles that are capable of driving faster than 65 mph. So is the state putting its "imprimatur of approval" on driving faster than the speed limit by so registering such vehicles? They're endorsing a means of circumventing the social ill which the law discourages - how is that different from the condom example? Given any social good, a government that encourages it must also acknowledge and deal with the inevitable fact that some will disobey. Also: I know this isn't your point, but: laws are statements of social policy, upon which there is presumed to be general agreement. Generally, laws are recognized as bad laws when they're widely ignored or unenforced, unless it's deemed that the alternative, of no law, would lead to worse consequences. (Think of debates concerning the elimination of certain laws - - drug laws, reducing drinking age, prostitution - and usually that's the argument: yeah, people will break the law anyway, but we need the *statement*, and things would be worse if there were no law. At least that's what proponents of such laws might argue.) But there is no general social agreement on the notion of government intervening in what are generally regarded as moral issues. Actually, I would imagine it would be a *conservative* position to say that the Federal govt should have no particular opinion: if a local school board wants to distribute condoms, let it - if another one does not, let it prohibit them. The reasoning is that there's too much disagreement, both in terms of policy and of outcomes, to have a blanket federal policy. I guess I just don't buy the whole "imprimatur of approval," since I think it's perfectly possible to list alternatives in order of preference; i.e., 1. abstinence 2. birth control, etc. > sorry, my hypo was intended to reject your supposition, and didn't do so > explicitly enough. Assume they don't publicize, they just want the space. > I made mine hypothetical and removed evangelism to hypothesize they just use > the school to meet. But in this case, your "imprimatur of approval" *does* work - because unless a school allows *every* religious group to meet, it's implicitly endorsing the one it does allow to meet - it's logistically impossible to say, well, here's the Baptists, here's the Catholics, here's the Jews, on down the line for every last religious group that exists. And again, hypothetical situation or not, we still run into the fact that the constitution explicitly takes a position on endorsement of religion - and it is silent on issues of sexuality. Hey! Wake up, the rest of you! Card and I are having a discussion here! Back to moving furniture around the house - we're having our floors refinished. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Being young, carefree, having your whole life ahead of you, ::dancing the night away to celebrate... ::oh, and the untimely death of Jackson Pollock. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:28:57 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott hereeither...) Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > Endorsing a position (abstinence) need not deny either the existence of > other positions nor that humans are imperfect and sometimes mess up. and how many positions do you know, Jeff? (wink wink) sorry, couldn't resist. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:53:40 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: Fw: [loud-fans] Ebertmania! >If I remember correctly, when Ebert saw I SPIT, some members of the audience >cheered during the rape scene. Having had a similar experience when I saw >WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE, I can testify that the distaste it gave me for the >film is very hard to shake, even though it's irrational. Yeah, my first go-round with NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD--first two go-rounds actually, since ERASERHEAD got lost on the way to the theater (it was Friday the 13th)--left me deeply twanged, theatergoers (both times) chanting "UH! UH! UH! UH!" as our hero bashes a ghoul's face in with a tire iron, and counting "ONE! TWO! THREE! FOUR! FIVE!" as the reanimated little girl stabs her mother with a trowel. I don't often think of the theater setting as a menacing one, but under these conditions my mind asked, "Who am I sitting with, here, in the darkness? Who?" Then ERASERHEAD came on, and I was never the same, Andy NEW YORK  It's been suggested that Kiss bass strangler Gene Simmons would do in his own family if enough hard cash was in it for him. If so, now he'll have something in which to bury them. As a farewell gesture to well-off fans, Simmons and bandmates will sell 2,500 Kiss Kaskets at $5,000 a pop on the band's Web site (www.kissonline.com) and, Simmons insisted, at funeral homes across the country. The entrepreneurial rocker attended Licensing 2001 International at Jacob K. Javits Convention Center to push the new product, which comes emblazoned with the Kiss logo and current bandmembers' images. Dearly departed members of the Kiss family  including guitarists Bruce Kulick, Mark St. John, Vinnie Vincent and the late drummer Eric Carr  are not depicted, however. Perhaps there wasn't room enough for them, since the slogan "Kiss Forever" appears on the coffin's side. Simmons stressed that a variety of items, apart from loved ones, could be stored in the coffins. "The idea was a little bit morbid," agreed Simmons Wednesday at the trade show. "Obviously, caskets are all about death, and they're not reusable. It's a no-deposit, no-return policy. So I came up with the bright notion that if death was so awful, why not celebrate life? In other words, why not have a daily use for the caskets? Why not watch your favorite ball game on TV, invite your friends over and open the Kasket to get a drink?" The consummate salesman slipped a scripted dirty joke into his pitch. "When I was growing up, I wanted to put frogs up girls' skirts. And I wanted to drive a hearse because then everybody would squeal and say, 'Look at that!' It's all about being alive and having fun, sometimes at the price of making your friends squeal  especially girls. But that's fun." [--from today's Music News Of The World at sonicnet.com, http://www.sonicnet.com/news/story.jhtml?id=1444529 ] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:39:03 -0500 From: Jon Tveite Subject: RE: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) ===== Original Message From Cardinal007@aol.com ===== >Your response seems too facile to me; as I've chosen a somewhat ridiculous >comparison, you seem not to bother with the logic. Distribution of condoms >*is* at the expense of advocates of abstinence, it seems to me (if including >religion X and excluding Y is at Y's expense). I don't think the state should be endorsing either abstinence or pre-marital sex. And I don't agree that offering condoms is endorsing pre-marital sex. Prevention of disease and unwanted pregnancies should be considered a health issue, from a school's standpoint -- not a moral one. I think it's unethical, in fact, to restrict the access of anyone to birth control, if they need it. People who believe in "abstinence only" are the ones trying to shut down dissent in the public discourse. I don't think that everything the state does is an endorsement for a particular behavior at the exclusion of all other possible behaviors. State-sponsored gambling doesn't suggest that it's wrong not to gamble (although some of the ads might lean that way). Jon ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:51:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > I guess I just don't buy the whole "imprimatur of approval," since I > think it's perfectly possible to list alternatives in order of > preference; i.e., 1. abstinence 2. birth control, etc. I'm following this discussion with interest, because I'm no fan of many Christian organizations AND leery of church/state problems right now -- but I originally thought the Supreme Court opinion was defensible. Schools that open their doors to public meetings should let anyone in (barring conspiracies to commit murder, etc.) and that includes Christians as well as Satanists. The usual "where do we draw the line?" thing doesn't apply here, because the answer is that whoever books the room gets to use it. My feelings got sharper when I heard the school wanted to ban all meetings to get rid of this one. Where have we heard that before? Didn't a few schools try to do that to keep gay/straight alliances from meeting? What's swayed me is that the head of this evangelical organization has *said* that they want to meet right after school because that's when the kids are there. This doesn't strike me as right. Groups *within* the school should meet right after school, but adults from the community that want to recruit new members shouldn't be meeting until after the kids are gone. Hell, nobody but schoolkids should be meeting in the school until after the kids have left; I think it's important to made kids feel at home in their building and not have quilting bees or book clubs tromping around, making the kids feel like temporary visitors in their own school. I'd have to read more about the specifics of the case. ANYway, getting back to the condom thing, the big reason for distributing condoms in schools is that kids may be unable to get them elsewhere (or might be afraid to, etc.). If kids were trying to find out more about Christianity but faced restrictions, censure and parental punishment for reading the Bible, damn straight I'd say it should be available from the school library. I mean, it is anyway in most schools. aaron ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:51:18 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) In a message dated 6/16/01 1:50:13 PM, jenor@csd.uwm.edu writes: >I don't think distributing condoms is necessarily at the expense of >advocates of abstinence. To draw short conclusions from your more detailed writings, it seems you and I have arrived at similar logic: access to the school as a site is not at the expense of other church groups if they have access. I extend that to assume that access itself does not equal imprimatur of state approval. But we would both find that access alone would violate the First Amendment, which -- last time I checked -- doesn't mention imprimatur or any equivalent. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:54:19 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) In a message dated 6/16/01 3:45:46 PM, jontv@ksu.edu writes: >I think it's unethical, > >in fact, to restrict the access of anyone to birth control, if they need >it. > >People who believe in "abstinence only" are the ones trying to shut down > > >dissent in the public discourse. > > > >I don't think that everything the state does is an endorsement for a > >particular behavior at the exclusion of all other possible behaviors. > > >State-sponsored gambling doesn't suggest that it's wrong not to gamble > > >(although some of the ads might lean that way). > > But (1) doesn't your argument about states and gambling end with "and state access to schools by church groups is not approval of their religion," and (2)isn't your discussion of condoms a merits dicsussion, which *does* conclude that the condom distribution is at the expense of "abstinence only" folks who you believe to be dangerous? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:23:00 -0500 From: Jon Tveite Subject: RE: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) ===== Original Message From Cardinal007@aol.com ===== >But (1) doesn't your argument about states and gambling end with "and state >access to schools by church groups is not approval of their religion," and Well, I haven't made any big separation arguments, so I haven't contradicted myself yet. I'm opposed to organized school prayer -- conducted by teachers, or over the intercom. I would also be opposed to passing condoms out in class and forcing every child to take one. But I'm not somebody who gets all up in arms about the idea of Bible study on school grounds before the school day. I'd sooner start a devil-worshipers club to meet in the classroom next to them than ban all religion. >(2)isn't your discussion of condoms a merits dicsussion, which *does* >conclude that the condom distribution is at the expense of "abstinence only" >folks who you believe to be dangerous? I don't think so. I'm saying the condoms should be available, because it's a health need for teenagers. I'm not saying that talk of abstinence should outlawed from school. As I said, it's the abstinence people who are saying "my way or the highway". It's better in a supposedly democratic society to offer people options and let them decide. As a test case, what if there were a predominance of 7th-Day Adventists in a school district, and they objected to the dispensation of medicine on school grounds. Would anybody seriously believe that their narrow, fanatical religious beliefs should apply to all children? That's similar to how I see the condom debate. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:38:04 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) In a message dated 6/16/01 4:27:55 PM, jontv@ksu.edu writes: >As a test case, what if there were a predominance of 7th-Day Adventists >in a > >school district, and they objected to the dispensation of medicine on school > > >grounds. Would anybody seriously believe that their narrow, fanatical > > >religious beliefs should apply to all children? That's similar to how >I see > >the condom debate. I agree, Jon. But dispensation of that medicine would be an "imprimatur of approval" of the view that those 7thDayAdventists were "narrow" and "fanatical," and ultimately full of manure, wouldn't it? It would certainly be a state rejection of their views..... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:42:15 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] APOLOGY I include no Scott Miller material. There IS NO Scott Miller material now. I wish there were; I'd silence m'self...... Just having fun @ your expense, C7 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:49:54 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] APOLOGY Cardinal007@aol.com wrote: > > I include no Scott Miller material. > > There IS NO Scott Miller material now. I wish there were; I'd silence > m'self...... > > Just having fun @ your expense, > C7 now that's what i call cheap and easy to amuse. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:18:27 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) For those of you who are not lawyers or English professors (or who, like me, are just plain stupid despite a 4-year college degree), I offer the following (from Merriam-Webster): - ---------------------- imprimatur im7pri7ma7tur Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, let it be printed, from imprimere to print, from Latin, to imprint, impress -- more at IMPRESS Date: 1640 1 a : a license to print or publish especially by Roman Catholic episcopal authority b : approval of a publication under circumstances of official censorship 2 a : SANCTION, APPROVAL b : IMPRINT c : a mark of approval or distinction - ---------------------- Hot damn! This List is better than those "word-a-day" desk calendars! So does "imprimatur of approval" mean "approval of approval"? Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:20:28 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) I'm pretty much outside of this debate, since I, like many reasonable folks, dispute the assumed belief here that the First Amendment demands a separation between church and state. The more immediate First Amendment concern, whether we're talking about condoms or Christianity, is the government imposing sanctioned views upon the individual. The most common concern about the recent Supreme Court ruling is that allowing a religious organization in a classroom implies a federal endorsement of religion. Consider that "religion" is the same as a "belief system," however, and the Supreme Court still made a fair and just decision. Organizations with a religious viewpoint deserve the same rights allowed other organizations, and we now allow all kinds of belief system advocates to operate from classrooms for immediate access to students. People often worry that a religious organization in a school might lead to teasing of children who don't share the same beliefs. In that spirit, let's immediately ban any PETA materials from all schools. Consider this e-mail that came in today from a gay activist whose views I occasionally share: "Jesse Helms pushed through the Senate a bill that attacks gay and lesbian people AND their friends who stand up to the bigotry of the Boy Scouts. Unless we begin to change how racial and sexual diversity is taught in the public schools, the cycle of bigotry is continues in the next generation of Americans." By any definition of existing law, the bill that Jesse Helms pushed through the Senate simply backed up the First Amendment. More tellingly, look at the activist's very common demand that the government start indoctrinating children in an official belief system. There's nothing wrong with banning the Ten Commandments from the classroom. There's something very wrong about a Catholic parent having his children being taught that the family religion is the wrong choice. (Sorry for stating the obvious, but it's probably a good idea to add here that when a government organization hands a kid a condom, then we're looking at a very clear case of implied endorsement of sexual activity, no matter how many endorsements of abstinence proceed the presentation.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:18:50 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) On Saturday, June 16, 2001, at 05:20 PM, JRT456@aol.com wrote: > I'm pretty much outside of this debate, since I, like many reasonable > folks, > dispute the assumed belief here that the First Amendment demands a > separation > between church and state. I guess you've thought of the continual shitstorm that would result if the various religious groups begin to struggle for dominance in our public institutions? > The most common concern about the recent Supreme Court ruling is > that allowing a religious organization in a classroom implies a federal > endorsement of religion. > Consider that "religion" is the same as a "belief system," however, and > the > Supreme Court still made a fair and just decision. Organizations with a > religious viewpoint deserve the same rights allowed other organizations, > and > we now allow all kinds of belief system advocates to operate from > classrooms > for immediate access to students. Would you please name some of these organizations. The big concern is that young children are unable to make the distinction between the school and outside organizations. This is exacerbated if, like in the case of the Good News Club, the adult sponsor of the organization is an employee of the school. That's why putting a "buffer time" between the end of school and the beginning of non-school related activities is a good idea. > People often worry that a religious organization in a school might > lead to teasing of children who don't share the same beliefs. > In that spirit, let's immediately ban any PETA materials from all schools. Where are there PETA materials in the schools? Are they making presentations during school hours? Maybe you're making the argument that outside organizations should not be allowed into public schools. > Consider this e-mail that came in today from a gay activist whose views I > occasionally share: "Jesse Helms pushed through the Senate a bill that > attacks gay and lesbian people AND their friends who stand up to the > bigotry > of the Boy Scouts. Unless we begin to change how racial and sexual > diversity > is taught in the public schools, the cycle of bigotry is continues in the > next generation of Americans." > By any definition of existing law, the bill that Jesse Helms pushed > through > the Senate simply backed up the First Amendment. More tellingly, look at > the > activist's very common demand that the government start indoctrinating > children in an official belief system. There's nothing wrong with banning > the > Ten Commandments from the classroom. There's something very wrong about a > Catholic parent having his children being taught that the family religion > is > the wrong choice. According to the Supreme Court, private organizations have the right to discriminate against certain classes of people. What the amendment that Helms sponsored does is threaten school districts that don't want to be associated with such organizations. In effect, the US Senate just endorsed bigotry and discrimination. Just like the gay activist, it is common for Christian groups to demand that their doctrines be taught in public schools. Both are wrong. Parents ought to have a reasonable expectation that their children go to public school to be educated, not indoctrinated. - - Steve __________ No previous administration has tried to sell its economic plans on such false pretenses. And this from a man who ran for president on a promise to restore honor and integrity to our nation's public life. - Paul Krugman, on Bush, from his book Fuzzy Math. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:40:33 From: "Brian Block" Subject: [loud-fans] Re: Funny Snarling Clowns (swap review) In belated response to Jenny's review of my "Funny Snarling Clowns" swap tape: >2- Stratotanker- Armour of Gusto- One of my two favorite tracks on this >mix. Decidedly lo-fi and spare Stooges meets Fleshtones style. Made me >shimmy. Who are these guys? Cleveland-area band, stylishly sloppy. The rest of their work might be more difficult: a lot has the same sound but less direct melodies (Jon Spencer might be a good comparison), and there are odd woozy bits where they work out on flute or sax. Interesting lyricists... "Armour" rates for me with "Senses Working Overtime" and "Feelin' Groovy" for best evocation of happiness, while "Slide" offers the political commentary "All i wanted was a pint of ice cream. But everyone else, they wanted the same. They got in line in front of me, and that's why we gotta let that mortality rate slide". >3- Poster Children- Junior Citizens- Sounds like a lot of late 80's >college radio rock I've heard, with elements of U2 and the Three Johns >mixed in. Not bad, but something about it misses the mark. Everyone's definition of "elemental" is gonna vary -- for me the sound is pretty much the perfect rock'n'roll anthem. I remmeber being disappointed by the lyrics, though, because when i read them i realized it's a straight-up youth revolution anthem, adequate but average. I had always heard the "junior citizens on satellite!" chorus as "junior citizens ARE satellites", so I'd combined that with the presence of lines taken from other songs ("Kenneth what's the frequency?", "A E I O U sometimes Y"), assumed that the other chorus lyrics were also lifts i didn't recognize, and figured that the "dial 1-900-ANARCHY!" was using 1-900 as a cynical reflection on the profiteering involved in third-hand battle-cries. Nope. >4- Brian Stevens- The Piper- Beatley 60's stylings. Bright. The >Harmonica solo brings to mind the Fleshtones, once again, but the >overall sound is "Baby You Can Drive My Car." Perky drumming. So, who >is this guy? Was in a well-liked Boston power-pop trio called the Cavedogs; his solo album PRETTIER THAN YOU, made with help from two XTC members, is likeably rococo pop which "the Piper" represents quite fairly. Should be easy to find cheap copies around here, i'd be happy to try. >6- Babylon Zoo- Spaceman- Starts out with a twisted, psychedelic beat >box intro, then quickly changes to dark-tinged rock. Changeable and >interesting. Info about this band, please? British band led by Jas Mann, who claims to be an alien. They released "Spaceman" as a single in '95 or '96, and it surpassed "Can't Buy Me Love" to become the best-selling U.K. single ever (since surpassed by the Spice Girls). Their album THE BOY WITH THE X-RAY EYES, a strong and reasonably varied album centered around the single's style, didn't sell much -- again, it shows up used here -- and their second album was never released by the record company. To my knowledge they've not done a third; i should check. >7- Chevy Heston- Baby You're a Rich Freak- I like the way the band >sounds, but the song itself promises more than it delivers. It needs a >bridge or something. Boston band that's pretty much allergic to bridges. On the one hand it's frustrating, since their rhythm section is obviously more than strong enough to keep in time for four minutes; on the other hand it's nice to have 1:28 songs to serve as transitions or space fillers on mixes. >8- Skyclad- Just What Nobody Wanted- That name sounds familiar. Is this >a 70's band, or does it just sound like one? Indie hard rock with a >sort of prog overtone. I don't care much for this one. I think it's >the vocals that I don't like. Present-day band, Norwegian?, associated with the death-metal scene (hence the vocals) but fond of folk influences, including violin hooks and a certain jauntiness. >11- Super Junky Monkey- See Me Feel Me- Guitar noise laden pre-techno >industrial that becomes like early Soundgarden fast metal. One of the >stranger covers I've heard. Tell me about this band. Four weird Japanese women who play their instruments brilliantly (extraordinarily fast yet very co-ordinated). They seem to have great fun. The lead singer, who hear sounds like an angry sewer monster, a drill sergeant, and later like a Bangle, can also sound like a bored phone operator, a Beastie Girl, or an operetta being strangled. >13- Favorite Color- Valis- My other favorite off this tape. Dark indie >pop that reminds me of the Loud Family, Game Theory, and For Against. I >like this a lot. Tell me about this band. A project of Scott Miller's friend Tris McCall. See http://lightning.prohosting.com/~tris >17- Uz Jsme Doma- Blind Man's Curve- A strange, Teutonic sounding prog >song with piano and horns. Where are these guys from? The Czech Republic. Four art students, which means not only that the CD covers are all gorgeous, but that they have a $35-ish children's book, band-illustrated, that comes with their latest CD at no extra charge. See http://www.cuneiformrecords.com/ if you decide to take further interest. >18- Thought Industry- Soot on the Radio- Nothing like being lulled and >then yelled at! repeatedly. I'm guessing Jenny didn't like this one. Having been exposed repeatedly to Modern Rock radio over the last couple of months, i'm here to insist that both the lulling AND the "yelling" are as much art forms (potentially) as anything else in music, for example power pop, and that Tool, Linkin Park, Korn, and even (to my shock) Limp Bizkit can make real music out of it. "Soot On The Radio" is only slightly too weird to have been a radio hit, but the slight excess weirdness is, to me, part of its charm. >22- Carter USM- The Only Looney Left in Town- The song from which the >mix tape name comes. Almost Magazine in overall feel, but drags on just >a little long at the end. I didn't much like this at first, but it's >growing on me. Magazine, huh? Perhaps i should check them out? cheers, -Brian _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 02:03:33 +0100 From: "md.robbins" Subject: [loud-fans] Tape swap: George Mastialir's cd Thanks to George M. for this grooveful cd and apologies for the lateness of the hour. Particularly enjoyed finally hearing the Rain Parade's stark original version of 'What She's Done To Your Mind' with a delightfully plinky Leavesian 12 string and had I not already known and once loved all things Verlaine [Tom, that is..] I would've been a convert after G.M.'s inspired inclusion of the original Johnny Jewel Pt.1. For my money the Roir tape live version is guitar heaven. Well, it was once.... Previously unknown highlights of melodic guitar crashing were 'Hello Tiger' c/o Slain by Urusei Yasura, Spoon's 'Take a Walk', Superchunk's '1,000,000 Fireflies' and the neat jazz Baroquialisms of Jimmy Little's 'Cattle and Cane.' Margo Guryan's 'Sunday Morning' is like a pleasant breeze out of a mythical 60s reverie and The Maggies' 'Long Dark See You' is an exemplary exercise in considered melodic rock: neat tune and clever dynamics. All of these on the 'check out more' list. I included the Clique's 'Superman' on a recent tape swap myself: shame that, to my knowledge, nothing else they did is half as good. God, I'd forgotten Devo: their 'Space Junk' sounds pretty good now and hardly self consciously 'wacky' at all. Similarly the Feelies, although their cover of 'Sedan Delivery' seemed a little surprisingly bland compared to the crazed orig.....maybe I'm missing the point though. Beulah, The Negro Prob, GBV and The Apples In Stereo deliver the goods as consistently as ever on the tracks George included. The Pixies' 'Where is my Mind' kinda lost on me, as always, along with certain 'punkier' things like The Avengers' 'The American in Me', The Gun Club's 'My Cousin Kim' [with both of whom I was already familiar] and Sleater Kinney's 'I Wanna Be Your Joey Ramone' not really connecting either. [Best live gtr sound I ever heard was delivered by Johnny...R.I.P. brother Joey..really, really, really...a seminal band/phenomenon in how many lives..] Err, Ida's cover of Eitzel's 'What Holds The World Together': hearing 'San Francisco' almost immediately made the AMC one of my all time favourite bands and for me this version really doesn't do sufficient justice to the majesty of the original musical structure or, ahem, emotional profundity of this song at all. But then for me I suspect nothing could except the unique chemistry of the AMC in their prime. Many thanks to G.M.again. I enjoyed most of this cd a lot. md. "Rhodedendron is a nice flower"...... ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #128 *******************************