From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #308 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 Friday, November 16 2001 Volume 01 : Number 308 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] coen bros, w/spoiler space [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] coen bros, w/spoiler space [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney, the other Dick (fwd) [dc ] Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney, the other Dick (fwd) [JRT456@aol.com] [loud-fans] Last Night's Letterman ["O Geier" ] Re: [loud-fans] Last Night's Letterman ["Pete O." ] [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness ["Keegstra, Ru] RE: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness ["R. Kevin] Re: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness ["Pete O."] Re: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness ["Aaron Mi] RE: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness ["Keegstra] Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney, the other Dick (fwd) [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jef] Re: [loud-fans] Three questions [Jer Fairall ] RE: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness [John Coop] Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney, the other Dick (fwd) [Dennis_McGreevy@praxa] Re: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness [Jeffrey w] RE: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness [Jeffrey w] [loud-fans] Hornby Article [Jer Fairall ] Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney, the other Dick (fwd) [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jef] Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney/Political Correctness [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney, the other Dick (fwd) [Matthew Weber ] Re: [loud-fans] Hornby Article [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] coen bros, w/spoiler space On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: dum de dum la la la da doo doo dah all we know is all we are umble umble de abba dabba dabba dabba dab ok. > Has anyone posted a warning about the new Coen bros. movie "The Plot That > Wasn't There"? I was hoping that the genre exercise might recapture the > magic of their best movie, The Hudsucker Proxy, but man was I wrong. > Instead you get a bunch of decent actors playing a bunch of interesting > characters, filmed nicely, with a handful of clever scenes, and in the > end it's just a great big nothing. So that was $9.50 down the tubes. > Wait for the video (although that means missing the cinemetography) or go > see it in a city that charges reasonable prices for movie tickets. IMHO, > of course. a) hudsucker proxy the best? surely you jest? (me, i pick blood simple & raising arizona) b) interesting characters? plural? okay, there was the lawyer... and...? c) why do all the critics i've read to date think it's _the postman always rings twice_, a film with passion, a quality which _man who wasn't..._ is almost completely lacking in? it seems far more camus' _the stranger_ than anything else. the highschool interpretation everyman=noman, not the sisyphus/existentialist interpretation. d) as with 'o brother,' which i thought was a muddled mess in completely different ways, i thought the cinematography was completely worth the price of admission (well it might have been a matinee) -- good thing, too, because there were long streteches where all i had to do was sit and murmur 'what a beautiful shot' to myself -- it only rarely fell into noir parody. d) much as i didn't think it succeeded, kudos to the bros. coen for not making _fargo iii_; i hugely respect that they're striving to grow, even if i think their ambition outstrips their ability about half the time. - -- d. - ------------------------------------------------- Mayo-Wells Media Workshop dmw@ http://www.mwmw.com mwmw.com Web Development * Multimedia Consulting * Hosting ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:23:55 -0500 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] coen bros, w/spoiler space a) hudsucker proxy the best? surely you jest? (me, i pick blood simple & raising arizona) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. I think that Hudsucker's reputation has been improving steadily as time goes by, and that'll probably continue. I've never quite understood the negative reaction to that movie, and especially to Jennifer Jason Leigh's performance. I think it's their best looking, funniest, and tightest film, and wouldn't be surprised to find in 10-20 years that it's aged the best. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:17:48 -0500 From: "Max Germer" Subject: [loud-fans] SST night For anyone in the Massachusetts area, Sonic Youth are playing their only New England gig tonight in Northampton at the Calvin Theatre. J Mascis opens, and a group called Corsano/Flaherty - anybody have info on them? Max ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 07:03:10 -0800 From: dc Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney, the other Dick (fwd) Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > It seems to me that if asking difficult questions at a difficult time > about our nation's past and present actions, in the face of those who > would call such questioning disloyal, weakening, even treasonous, has as > its goal the prevention of such a catastrophe, and seeks to try to cut off > terrorism at its roots, such questioning has everything to do with "moral > purpose and high resolve." i think this is very well argued, and i'm going to refer to it when i address a group of local students next month. although, life must be so much simpler as a "conservative intellectual," when you can just find two examples of something you don't like, declare them a "trend," condemn the trend as un-American, and then not give the issues any more thought. dc vicinity of seattle ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:29:04 -0500 From: "Brett Milano" Subject: [loud-fans] RE: Favorite Spam My favorite was always "add 3 inches to your penis naturally!!" My guess would be that they send you a stack of porn. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:49:54 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney, the other Dick (fwd) In a message dated 11/16/01 7:05:25 AM, dc@bainbridge.net writes of a description of college professors against the war: << i think this is very well argued, and i'm going to refer to it when i address a group of local students next month. >> Those poor kids. They're going to think that "asking difficult questions at a difficult time" is akin to continuing "usual habits of analysis, criticism, and scorn"...which, of course, is how the American Association of University Professors describe their mission while denouncing criticism of professors who oppose the war on terrorism. Any habits involving actual instruction must come in at a distant fourth. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 18:16:39 +0000 From: "O Geier" Subject: [loud-fans] Last Night's Letterman Steve Martin was pretty funny. Earl Scruggs was scheduled, and throughout Steve's segments, I kept waiting for them to discuss Earl, and his influence on Steve, the banjo player. When they didn't bring it up, I was disappointed, until Earl came out with an all star band including: Albert Lee, Vince Gill, Marty Stuart, some others, and Steve himself on banjo. They played Foggy Mountain Breakdown, real fast, and everybody took a solo. Steve seemed a bit nervous, but gave a good showing for himself (he probably had some time to practice--hell he brought his banjo, but he might take it everywhere. Pete Townshend does). Paul Shaffer actually took a ripping piano solo, which surprised me, as did Marty Stuart's mandolin playing. Anybody else see it, and find it remarkably entertaining?? Support anti-Spam legislation. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:32:33 -0800 (PST) From: "Pete O." Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Last Night's Letterman - --- O Geier wrote: > Steve Martin was pretty funny. Earl Scruggs was scheduled, and > throughout Steve's segments, I kept waiting for them to discuss Earl, and > his influence on Steve, the banjo player. When they didn't bring it up, I > was disappointed, until Earl came out with an all star band including: Albert > Lee, Vince Gill, Marty Stuart, some others, and Steve himself on banjo. They > played Foggy Mountain Breakdown, real fast, and everybody took a solo. > Steve seemed a bit nervous, but gave a good showing for himself (he > probably had some time to practice--hell he brought his banjo, but he > might take it everywhere. Pete Townshend does). Paul Shaffer actually > took a ripping piano solo, which surprised me, as did Marty Stuart's > mandolin playing. Anybody else see it, and find it remarkably > entertaining?? Can wait to watch my tape tonight. I didn't know Townshend played banjo! - - Anthrax-free e-mail for _10_ days. Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:36:15 -0600 From: "Keegstra, Russell" Subject: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness Okay, help me out here, because I'm just a simple guy who obviously can't cut through the cynicism and the clever rhetoric. "Political Correctness" or "multiculturalism" or whatever: you can't say bad things about some culture or some people or some person (even if it's true) because you might offend them. What we will call for the moment "Patriotic Correctness": you can't say bad things about America or the American government (even if it's true) becuase it's not patriotic. What's the difference? The Wall Street Journal editorial that Mr. Taylor points us to says pretty much right away: "The struggle against our ivory-tower naysayers is surely winnable, and it has never been easier to see them clearly for what they are. But we should not underestimate their power. For our adversaries surely understand what many Americans do not: that the resolve to maintain our common purpose is our greatest vulnerability." So let me get this straight - the problem here is that they might convince people that what we're doing is wrong, and we'll stop doing it? Isn't that the inherent danger of a democracy? Freedom of speech means the freedom to say stupid things. If 90 percent of Americans strongly support a strong military response, do we think that this poses any real threat? If this goes on for ten years with no visible results (ie terrorism still happens) and people begin to wonder about maybe rethinking the whole strategy, will it be because some academics have been saying all along it's our own fault? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:52:50 -1000 From: "R. Kevin Doyle" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness This made me think of yesterday's Cal Thomas column: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20011115.shtml For those of you who don't know Mr. Thomas' work, he is a fairly well respected conservative columnist. He flummoxes many liberals because his opinions don't fit usually conform to the stereotype. Anyhow, curious what you think of the column... - -----Original Message----- From: owner-loud-fans@smoe.org [mailto:owner-loud-fans@smoe.org]On Behalf Of Keegstra, Russell Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 8:36 AM To: 'loud-fans@smoe.org' Subject: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness Okay, help me out here, because I'm just a simple guy who obviously can't cut through the cynicism and the clever rhetoric. "Political Correctness" or "multiculturalism" or whatever: you can't say bad things about some culture or some people or some person (even if it's true) because you might offend them. What we will call for the moment "Patriotic Correctness": you can't say bad things about America or the American government (even if it's true) becuase it's not patriotic. What's the difference? The Wall Street Journal editorial that Mr. Taylor points us to says pretty much right away: "The struggle against our ivory-tower naysayers is surely winnable, and it has never been easier to see them clearly for what they are. But we should not underestimate their power. For our adversaries surely understand what many Americans do not: that the resolve to maintain our common purpose is our greatest vulnerability." So let me get this straight - the problem here is that they might convince people that what we're doing is wrong, and we'll stop doing it? Isn't that the inherent danger of a democracy? Freedom of speech means the freedom to say stupid things. If 90 percent of Americans strongly support a strong military response, do we think that this poses any real threat? If this goes on for ten years with no visible results (ie terrorism still happens) and people begin to wonder about maybe rethinking the whole strategy, will it be because some academics have been saying all along it's our own fault? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:55:13 -0800 (PST) From: "Pete O." Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness - --- "Keegstra, Russell" wrote: > Okay, help me out here, because I'm just a simple guy who obviously can't > cut through the cynicism and the clever rhetoric. > > "Political Correctness" or "multiculturalism" or whatever: you can't say > bad things about some culture or some people or some person (even if it's > true) because you might offend them. > > What we will call for the moment "Patriotic Correctness": you can't say bad > things about America or the American government (even if it's true) becuase > it's not patriotic. > Conclusion: White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are the only available target of humor and/or levity, but not during times of war. - - Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:58:52 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness Russell defines: >"Political Correctness" or "multiculturalism" or whatever: you can't say >bad things about some culture or some people or some person (even if it's >true) because you might offend them. This is the right wing's definition of "PC." As is usually the case, the left wing refuses to stand up for their ideals when the right wing defines their terms (which is why "liberal" and "feminism" are words people shy away from and why even the left calls anti-abortion people "pro-life") and the right-wing defnition becomes the commonly accepted definition. Working for several years with college students and soon-to-be college students I experienced that anti-PC backlash in every way, shape and form. The original intent of such things was not simply "not to offend," but rather to show respect for people. The two are not necessarily the same. I would suggest that saying something potentially offensive can, at times, be more respectful than patronizing someone. One the term "political correctness" was coined (I don't know by whom, but I'm willing to guess it was a liberal who pretty much undermined his/her own cause), it became a way of describing these issues only when they become ridiculous and out of hand, and now has become a way to dismiss them when there actually is some merit to them, which is more often than not. And, the majority of people who stand up for these principles do not reach the extreme at all. Sorry, I just had to say that. >What we will call for the moment "Patriotic Correctness": you can't say >bad >things about America or the American government (even if it's true) becuase >it's not patriotic. > >What's the difference? Now, here's a great point. If the liberals have allowed their own concept and term to be turned against them, why not for once point out the same kind of behavior on the other side? I find nothing more ridiculous than the concept that if you criticize your country you're not a patriot. If you really do love your country, wouldn't you want it to be, er, sorry to use this military phrase, the best that it can be? And wouldn't that mean creating debate and allowing voices from the crowd to be heard? >and people begin to wonder about maybe rethinking the whole strategy, will >it be because some academics have been saying all along it's our own fault? > It certainly will not, and the likelihood is that it will take longer than it should to rethink simply because the opposing voices have been so ignored and ridiculed all along. One example of this is our country's foolish attitude that we can never admit to having done anything wrong. I think that the Taliban and the Al Queda must be wiped out and have no problem with us doing so. I also believe that while it seems absurd for us to give in to any of their demands, it's absolutely ridiculous that we're unwilling to rethink at least some of our policies in the Middle East (yes, I know we're discussing a Palestinian state, but I mean issues like us maintaining a military presence in Saudi Arabia.) We're so afraid to give in to anything the terrorists blame us for that we'd rather suffer in the long run than appear "soft." We can't think about the idea of attempting to create a friendly situation for the future with a few acts to show a willingness to give to the Muslim people around the world. At the same time, we not only are unwilling to admit what a huge mistake the Gulf War was (and I'm willing to accept either argument: that it was a mistake to begin with, or that it was the right thing to do but we blew it and completely wasted our efforts by leaving Hussein in power knowing he'd come back to haunt us, and that leaving him in power forced us to continue enacting sanctions that hurt not Hussein, but the people of Iraq), but we have a president who still stands up and publicly says "we trounced" them. And, of course, since it's his father who made the blunder to begin with, there's no way he'd ever consider admitting that we probably didn't do it right. I think the American way is that we'd rather act like we're "right" than go about things in the more sensible way. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:11:45 -0600 From: "Keegstra, Russell" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness Aaron asks: >One the term "political correctness" was coined (I >don't know by whom, but I'm willing to guess it was a >liberal who pretty much undermined his/her own cause) I'm pretty sure it was Dinesh D'Souza's book "Illiberal Education" (a Coors product, I mean Heritage Foundation) which pretty much just trots out stories and anecdotes proving that liberals in education were against free speech. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:41:49 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney, the other Dick (fwd) On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 JRT456@aol.com wrote: > Those poor kids. They're going to think that "asking difficult questions at a > difficult time" is akin to continuing "usual habits of analysis, criticism, > and scorn"...which, of course, is how the American Association of University > Professors describe their mission while denouncing criticism of professors > who oppose the war on terrorism. Any habits involving actual instruction must > come in at a distant fourth. Where's the quote about "scorn" from? Also: it is true that the way the academy is currently organized, "actual instruction" is indeed underplayed. Then again, the majority of undergrads at all but a few small, private, very expensive schools are actually taught by grossly underpaid adjuncts, TAs, and lecturers (raises hand) who do in fact value teaching for the most part (otherwise, they might use their skills to get a "real job"). And having suffered the instruction of a few famous professors, this situation is (with the exception of the low pay) all to the good. Sorry: Harvard isn't Harvard, and never was, because of the astonishing quality of teaching found in first-year psychology. And frankly, you don't *need* an Einstein to teach first-year physics: such would be a waste of talent. Parents who think famous faculty are going to teaching their newly minted college-student offspring in small, intimate classrooms are either deluding themselves or able to afford the tuition at those very exclusive, very small private colleges where this might be the case. Otherwise, these students' only exposure to the Great Names of academia *might* be in a 1,000-seat lecture hall, as G.N. babbles forth and parents sit at home and bask in the distant glow of greatness. (Lectures are a grossly inefficient way to teach.) (BTW: "lecturer" is a title for a position, and quite often lecturers do no lecturing per se at all) - --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: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:42:22 -0800 (PST) From: Jer Fairall Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Three questions > c) Anyone heard the new Dan Bern? I found it to be a pretty big let down. I don't mind him writing serious lyrics (FIFTY EGGS and SMARTIE MINE both had several not-at-all-comedic songs that I loved) or playing with a full band (the one here is just fine) but I thought his songwriting was pretty weak and to me the whole thing came out sounding, as a result, like a fairly generic, mainstream rock record that could have been made by anyone. Oddly enough, though, I'm really liking the new Melissa Etheridge album. Jer np: Amanda Kravat, WRONG ALL DAY (six months on and I'm still trying to make up my mind on this one, but I haven't given up yet) ===== Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:53:05 -0800 From: John Cooper Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness Russell Keegstra wrote: >Aaron asks: > >>Once the term "political correctness" was coined (I don't know by >>whom, but I'm willing to guess it was a liberal who pretty much >>undermined his/her own cause) > >I'm pretty sure it was Dinesh D'Souza's book "Illiberal Education" >(a Coors product, I mean Heritage Foundation) which pretty much just >trots out stories and anecdotes proving that liberals in education >were against free speech. Actually, I heard the term "political correctness" before D'Souza published his book in 1992. It was used in a self-mocking way by political liberals and usually accompanied by finger-quotes and wry looks; it was meant to convey awareness that the excesses of the far left (say, in China and Soviet Russia) historically have included the suppression of speech, and that progressives in this country would be wise not to let themselves go that far. I was appalled when the term was apparently appropriated by the right with the irony stripped away. I'm not aware of political conservatives similarly acknowledging that excesses of the right have historically included fascism and enforced groupthink. Aaron again: >I find nothing more ridiculous than the concept that if you >criticize your country you're not a patriot. "'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" - G. K. Chesterton, "A Defence of Patriotism" (1901) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:00:51 -0600 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney, the other Dick (fwd) Jeff forwards: Anne Neal, an author of the report and council official, said that while she is sure many professors and students support the US government, they are afraid that if they speak out, liberal colleagues might shout them down. ''For the most part, public comments in academia were equivocal and often pointing the finger at America rather than the terrorists,'' Neal said. ''It's hard for non-tenured professors to speak up when there's such a chorus on the other side.'' <><><><><><><><><> This is beautiful. The helping verb in the conditional clause of the first paragraph is "might". That disappears in the second paragraph. I reread it twice, watching their hands the whole time, and I still can't figure out how they did that. David Copperfield would be proud. Whenever politically influential, monied conservatives attempt to portray their perspective as that of the underdog, I am coerced to laugh. These alleged underdogs are so far up in the ear of the people who run the United States that the dry cleaning bills for getting wax off their Brooks Brothers have to be itemized on their tax return forms. How very powerless they must feel. - --Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:59:32 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Keegstra, Russell wrote: > The Wall Street Journal editorial that Mr. Taylor points us to says pretty > much right away: > > "The struggle against our ivory-tower naysayers is surely winnable, and it > has never been easier to see them clearly for what they are. But we should > not underestimate their power. For our adversaries surely understand what > many Americans do not: that the resolve to maintain our common purpose is > our greatest vulnerability." > > So let me get this straight - the problem here is that they might convince > people that what we're doing is wrong, and we'll stop doing it? Isn't that > the inherent danger of a democracy? Freedom of speech means the freedom to > say stupid things. If 90 percent of Americans strongly support a strong > military response, do we think that this poses any real threat? If this > goes on for ten years with no visible results (ie terrorism still happens) > and people begin to wonder about maybe rethinking the whole strategy, will > it be because some academics have been saying all along it's our own fault? You forget: academics are harmless fools who influence no one, have no use whatseover, and therefore deserve not even a fraction of the meager pay most of them receive - except when they express politics anywhere to the left of Jesse Helms, in which case they magically transform into potent demogogues and corrupters of youth. Which reminds me: Young people will listen to no one, are completely pigheaded, irresponsible, sex-obsessed, and violence-prone - except when Prof. Left begins speaking, at which point they instantly become completely docile and start bleating left-wing slogans in a sheeplike manner. On "political correctness": the term is older than Dinesh D'Souza or the right-wing backlash of the late '80s. While it may at one time have had non-ironic currency, I can only speak to its usage in that hotbed of radicalism, the housing co-ops of the early '80s in the People's Republic of Madison. Between watching women apply Rogaine to their legs and armpits and spiking tofu with acid, we occasionally indulged in pitched rhetorical battles over the important political issues of the day - such as whether it was okay to spend people's (I'm sorry, The People's) money on Captain Crunch and what exactly counted as meat - during which one of the most devastating names you could call anyone was "politically correct." It meant "inflexible, doctrinaire, obsessed with form rather than substance" and was a serious insult if applied without a generous coating of irony. My theory is that the tin ears of the right heard lefties using the term in this way and assumed they were *seriously* using the term to criticize (or, the right heard the small, but media-popular, bunch of inflexible etc. lefties using it seriously). In the '90s, it became an all-purpose bludgeon, usually used in the negative by someone, say, parking his car in directly in front of a fire hydrant while a nursery burned nearby, then proceeded inside to light up a cigar in the neonatal wing of a hospital who, when asked to please move his car and extinguish his cigar, fulminated about how all these people were "politically correct" and wanted to take away his Charlton Heston-given right to be an asshole. Note to Aaron Milenski: I hear lefties use the term "anti-choice" all the time, rather than "pro-life." - --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 ::Drive ten thousand miles across America and you will know more about ::the country than all the institutes of sociology and political science ::put together. __Jean Baudrillard__ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:04:59 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Political Correctness vs Patriotic Correctness On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, R. Kevin Doyle wrote: > This made me think of yesterday's Cal Thomas column: > > http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20011115.shtml What the hell? For the second time in the last year, I agree with Cal Thomas. (I don't recall what the first time was - i know I posted about it here...I believe it was a freedom of speech or privacy issue, however.) Lord help us all. His mustache still scares me, though. - --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 ::a squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous...got me? __Captain Beefheart__ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:16:00 -0800 (PST) From: Jer Fairall Subject: [loud-fans] Hornby Article Does anyone know where I can find that much-debated Nick Hornby New Yorker article from a few months ago? I looked through the New Yorker's site (Critic At Large, Archives) and couldn't find any trace of it. Thanks. Jer Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:16:11 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney, the other Dick (fwd) On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com wrote: > Whenever politically influential, monied conservatives attempt to > portray their perspective as that of the underdog, I am coerced to > laugh. These alleged underdogs are so far up in the ear of the people > who run the United States that the dry cleaning bills for getting wax > off their Brooks Brothers have to be itemized on their tax return forms. > How very powerless they must feel. I agree. But the truly persecuted, powerless minority in this country is Christians. I mean, you have no idea how hard you have to look in any city in this country to find a Christian church - sometimes, you might even have to walk a block or swivel your head in your car. And once in a great while, newspapers have the gall to print an article which whingeingly suggests the possibility that, although they are greatly evil, will blacken your eyelids with mere looks, and probably devour babies for snacks, there might be a few people in America who are atheists. But for the most part, it's Buddhist that, Zoroastrian this, Church of John Coltrane the other thing, all the way through the media. Want further proof? In America, the intersection of roadways and railroads is referred to as a "railroad *cross*ing." That's right: the language practically *forces* you to envision innocent Christians being run over by the Satanic trains of industry, as the multitudes in their Mazdas and Zeusmobiles salivate and cheer. It's all the fault of the Harry Potter books. (Although I am looking forward to the next few books in the series, which outline how Potter joined the Army, became a Colonel, and served in a M*A*S*H unit during the Korean War.) - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::This is America. People do whatever the fuck they feel like doing.... ::As a result, this country has one of the worst economies in the world. __Neal Stephenson, SNOW CRASH__ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:21:12 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney/Political Correctness In a message dated 11/16/01 11:43:37 AM, jenor@csd.uwm.edu asks: << Where's the quote about "scorn" from? >> Here's the statement from Mary Burgan, the General Secretary of the AAUP: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,9828,587981,00.html This also provides a nice setup for the political correctness controversy, since Burgan's statement reveals the hypocrisy on campus. When she says that University Professors thrive on a habit of scorn, she doesn't include a professor's right to scorn Islamic terrorists. We could spend many hours looking at URL's concerning unthinking academics who've been censured by students and college boards for expressing patriotic thoughts in class. (FrontPageMag.com is always a good source.) Meanwhile, academics who express admiration for the terrorists--for example, honoring them as freedom fighters--don't have to fear any response. Harry Stein found one disapproving professor at the Wesleyan University rally, but the guy told Stein he couldn't risk being quoted. The good news, of course, is that professors keep complaining about disinterested students, while the common knowledge on campus is to nod your head, go along with the professor's delusions, get the passing grade, and then go see what the real world is like. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:21:40 -0800 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney, the other Dick (fwd) At 02:16 PM 11/16/01 -0600, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >But the truly persecuted, powerless minority in this country is >Christians. I mean, you have no idea how hard you have to look in any city >in this country to find a Christian church - sometimes, you might even >have to walk a block or swivel your head in your car. And once in a great >while, newspapers have the gall to print an article which whingeingly >suggests the possibility that, although they are greatly evil, will >blacken your eyelids with mere looks, and probably devour babies for >snacks, there might be a few people in America who are atheists. But for >the most part, it's Buddhist that, Zoroastrian this, Church of John >Coltrane the other thing, The Church of John Coltrane is Christian, actually; it's in the diocese of the African Orthodox Church, which was established through the apostolic succession via some Old Catholic jurisdiction or other. >all the way through the media. > >Want further proof? In America, the intersection of roadways and railroads >is referred to as a "railroad *cross*ing." That's right: the language >practically *forces* you to envision innocent Christians being run over by >the Satanic trains of industry, as the multitudes in their Mazdas Ahura-Mazdas? >and >Zeusmobiles salivate and cheer. Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau. _The Holy Bible: The Old Testament_, The First Book of Moses, Called Genesis, chapter 27, verses 22 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:27:21 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: [loud-fans] stone coyotes Shifting topics a bit here (although if you push me you can get me into a rant against both corporate major record labels AND corporate stores like Amazon that sell "exclusives"), but has anyone here heard the Stone Coyotes? Are they up to the hype or were all of theose raves on the internet planted just to help Amazon sell their CDs? I have one of the Barbara Keith solo albums, and it's absolutely wonderful. One of its songs, "Detroit or Buffalo," has been redone by the Stone Coyotes, though I'm sure the musical context is significantly different. And here's a shot in the dark: has anyone heard the first Barbara Keith album, which was released on Verve/Forecast in 1969 and appears to have never been rereleased on CD? _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:27:37 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hornby Article On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Jer Fairall wrote: > Does anyone know where I can find that much-debated > Nick Hornby New Yorker article from a few months ago? > I looked through the New Yorker's site (Critic At > Large, Archives) and couldn't find any trace of it. There's an excerpt at: http://home.primus.ca/~farahlayton/readings_hornby.html Unfortunately, this site omits the first part, where Hornby is at his most beefheaded. You could always go to a library: it's from the 10/30/00 issue. - -j ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:28:23 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney/Political Correctness I passed the boredom threshold on these threads somewhere around mid-morning. Keep it up guys, and I'll start talking about celery again. Or I'll ask Mark to post book recommendations. (Yes, people who don't much care about politics can be cranky too.) Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:34:21 -0800 (PST) From: "Pete O." Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney, the other Dick (fwd) - --- Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > It's all the fault of the Harry Potter books. (Although I am looking > forward to the next few books in the series, which outline how Potter > joined the Army, became a Colonel, and served in a M*A*S*H unit during the > Korean War.) Not to go onto too much of a tangent (too late), Col. Potter (Sherman, that is) was Harry's uncle. Come to think of it, Radar bears a striking resemblance to Harry Potter... Set the wayback machine for the Korean war... er, police action, Mr. Peabody. And don't pick up any hitchhiking Taliban members on the way. - - Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:43:25 -0600 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Lynne Cheney, the other Dick (fwd) Jeff sez: But the truly persecuted, powerless minority in this country is Christians. <><><><><><> At least when politically influential Christians attempt to portray their views as those of the underdog, there's some sort of historical justification. After all, up until Constantine's consolidation of Roman Imperial power by adopting Christianity as a Sol Invictus for the proles (a scant few centuries ago), Christians were actually persecuted. - --D ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:40:50 EST From: AWeiss4338@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] stone coyotes In a message dated 11/16/2001 3:28:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, amilenski@hotmail.com writes: > but has anyone here heard the Stone Coyotes? > Are they up to the hype or were all of theose raves on the internet > planted just to help Amazon sell their CDs? I have one of the Barbara > Keith solo albums, and it's absolutely wonderful. One of its songs, > "Detroit or Buffalo," has been redone by the Stone Coyotes, though I'm sure > the musical context is significantly different. > And here's a shot in the dark: has anyone heard the first Barbara Keith > album, which was released on Verve/Forecast in 1969 and appears to have > never been rereleased on CD? > I have Church Of The Poison Rain by them and it's very good, and lives up to the hype. Don't have any others yet but at some point I will. I wish Barbrara Keith's solo albums were re realeased, I'd love to hear them. Actually Elmore Lenord (sp?) got the ball rolling on the hype around SC. He featured them in his book Be Cool, and they did a book tour with him. Andrea ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #308 *******************************