From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #393 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 Monday, November 11 2002 Volume 02 : Number 393 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Soft Boys Question [boyof100lists@juno.com] Re: [loud-fans] Soft Boys Question [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries [steve ] Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries ["Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries ["Joseph M. Mallon" Also, I'm quite aware that a post regarding Jesus or Christianity or Christians in any kind of positive light on a list like this is like confessing you only have one testicle, but hey, at least my boxers aren't tight (this IS a joke btw...the good Lord gave me two healthy little guys) - -Mark Staples, wondering, if a Loudfan sends an e-mail to the list, but nobody has received it due to filtering, did they make a post? np: The Sounds of Silence ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:38:01 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Soft Boys Question Quoting b*yof10*l*sts@j*no.com: > the ins and outs (do dashes go here? I suck at dash placement) No. And they wouldn't be dashes (two hyphens in e-mail), they'd be hyphens--and they'd be there if you were using the phrase "ins and outs" adjectivally. > Also, I'm quite aware that a post regarding Jesus or Christianity or > Christians in any kind of positive light on a list like this is like > confessing you only have one testicle, but hey, at least my boxers aren't > tight (this IS a joke btw...the good Lord gave me two healthy little > guys) I didn't notice a shitstorm on that one...and I know at least four or five other Christians on this list. I'm not one - but in fact, I was considering a post agreeing with your idea that most "Christians" in the U.S. are so only gesturally, but I didn't because when I do the list gets back posts enumerating your testes. And it's that "everyone's gonna disagree with me" followed by way more personal info, even if as a joke, that irks many, Mark. (glenn, just testing your filtering system...) ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: [clever or pithy quote] :: :: --[source of quote] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:55:15 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Low / Brendan Benson gigs On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 10:18 PM, Michael Zwirn wrote: > Right, a friend mentioned the Labradford connection. I had their first > album, and thought it was kinda ok, but not my thing. Gave it away in > the > Great CD Giveaway of 2001. I actually did see Labradford play live once. They were opening for Stereolab. This was early in their existence, before they started showing their Ennio Morricone & dub influences. At this point, they were basically doing Eno / Namlook style beatless ambient. What set them apart from everyone else working that territory at the time is that they were doing it with guitars and effects, rather than keyboards. They played for a little over a half an hour, and the sheer novelty of a band with their instrumentation doing the music that they were making was enough to hold my interest (though there was some restless shuffling in the crowd.) I'm curious, was PanAmerican a laptop show? Those are notoriously difficult to make interesting. -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:18:44 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: [loud-fans] cryptic, self-indulgent and possibly boring but at least it's not about who is or isn't in my .kill file. on irc last week i described a performance i'd recorded for an artist earlier that day; a few people (brianna? + i forget who else, i'm very sorry) expressed interest in hearing it. i recorded another performance for the same artist yesterday and i have the artist's blessing to share a handful of CDRs of last week's event. if you were interested, drop me a line w/yer mailing particulars. note that the source material is really not identifiable in the performance. - -- d. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 13:53:33 -0500 From: Carolyn Dorsey Subject: [loud-fans] Bowling for Columbine I saw that movie last night. For the most part I thought it raised some interesting ideas and was entertaining. I'm glad I saw it. The point of the movie to me is that Americans live with alot of fear and that we're faster to react with violence, and don't have the same sense of civic responsibility towards the less advantaged as other western countries do. Possible reasons for the violence of children are suggested by different sources-Marilyn Manson, violent video games, the history of violence in our culture. Other countries kids have the same fascination with violence and death as we do, have a similar ethnic mix, but their murder rates are much lower. He raised the point that the percentage of people who own guns in Canada is pretty high, but the general murder rate by shootings there is very low compared to the USA. I think if the gun control was enacted now there would be mayhem by many of those who would refuse to turn in their registered weapons. How would the weapons be seized? I can imagine all those people holed up in their houses refusing to give up their registered assault weapons. I guess very steep fines would just be imposed for those with registered guns who didn't turn them in. Gun ownership is a huge part of our culture now. I can't imagine how gun control could be effectively enforced. I'm in favor of it but would need to know how it could be implemented, because things could get dangerous if the law was enforced in a haphazard way. A relative of mine is a strong defender of gun ownership. He and so many of his gun owning friends all use the same line--"I need it to protect my family." So righteous! But I think the title of that movie is just too cute. Something about Michael Moore bothers me - the editing is a little too manipulative. For instance he compared the number of murders in Japan, Germany, and France to the USA-without comparing the size of the country or its population. And his point gets a muddled-it becomes a much broader topic than just columbine-but it's a good movie and is worth seeing. Carolyn ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:13:25 -0800 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Bowling for Columbine At 1:53 PM -0500 11/10/02, Carolyn Dorsey wrote: > >And his point gets a muddled-it becomes a much broader topic than just >columbine-but it's a good movie and is worth seeing. > I'm starting to feel like Michael Moore is the Rush Limbaugh of the left. He shows the same fearless willingness to play fast and loose with facts, and the same muddled thinking. All very entertaining, to be sure, but I'm not thrilled with the idea that people are going to take everything he says at face value as information. *spoiler* | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | V There were two things about the film that really bugged me. Number one: the montage of Bad Things that the USA has done; documentary footage of wartime atrocity, etc. to the accompaniment of Satchmo's "What a Wonderful World." Aside from the fact that it was a direct steal from GOOD MORNING VIETNAM, the use of any saccharine melody as an "ironic" comment on what we're seeing needs to stop for at least the next 20 years. Second, and most heinous: he confronts Charlton Heston at his Beverly Hills home to put the screws to him regarding the Flint Incident (a 6-year-old kid brought his uncle's handgun to school and shot another child with it; two days later, Heston shows up in Flint at an NRA rally). He accuses Heston of having been insensitive, and Heston replies that at the time of the rally he hadn't known that the slaying had occurred. Moore asks him whether he would have cancelled his appearance had he known. Heston doesn't want to answer the question, sees where this is going, bids Moore good day and starts to walk off, at which point Moore pulls out the picture of the slain child and tries to get Heston to acknowledge it. Big moment of pathos. I wonder why Moore didn't just exhume her body and carry it along. At the beginning of this sequence, I was cheering Moore on, but I began to realize that Charlton Heston is not responsible for that murdered child: he's an idiot, yes, and a cheerleader for some amazingly irresponsible people, but he's not responsible. Moore would have done better to have browbeaten the man who kept an unsecured, loaded firearm in his house, but I doubt that putting a low-income African-American on the spot would have gotten as many "Right on"s as attacking a well-known right-wing celebrity. Pfui! Matt Love me little, love me long, Is the burden of my song. Love me Little, Love me Long (1569-70) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 19:32:19 GMT From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: [loud-fans] BSC on eBay There's a copy of BSC on eBay right now w/Buy It Now for $14.99. I'm not clear if it has the artwork though, as the description is ambiguous. Still, seems like a good opportunity for someone. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 13:52:02 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Bowling for Columbine Quoting Carolyn Dorsey : > I saw that movie last night. For the most part I thought it raised some > interesting ideas and was entertaining. I'm glad I saw it. The point of > the movie to me is that Americans live with alot of fear and that we're > faster to react with violence, and don't have the same sense of civic > responsibility towards the less advantaged as other western countries do. > Possible reasons for the violence of children are suggested by different > sources-Marilyn Manson, violent video games, the history of violence in our > culture. Other countries kids have the same fascination with violence and > death as we do, have a similar ethnic mix, but their murder rates are much > lower. He raised the point that the percentage of people who own guns in > Canada is pretty high, but the general murder rate by shootings there is > very low compared to the USA. I think it's important to note that the movie pretty clearly denies that those "possible reasons for violence" you list have much to do with it. I thought his main point was the way media, particularly broadcast news, pushes fear as its main selling point, and how that climate of fear translates into a population with trigger-happy fingers. He's certainly right about the media - without even trying, I saw promos for three or four news stories that could have been *parodies* of the "be afraid! be very afraid!" ethos that Moore says drives TV news. Oh - and somehow (not clear) racism and our violent racial history ties in with that. I'm not so sure on whether there's a causal relationship between that phenomenon and our very high levels of gun violence - but in the absence of a more compelling argument, it's worth looking into. > A relative of mine is a strong defender of gun ownership. He and so many of > his gun owning friends all use the same line--"I need it to protect my > family." So righteous! So, he thinks that if he's awakened at 3:00 am, groggy and confused and fearful, *he's* going to be the one who's able to aim and successfully operate the gun against a wide-awake, very aware intruder? And if he's not...will his widow feel happy? "He died to save our DVD player" - what a glorious death. Whose property is worth anyone's life? And if it's his teenage son, sneaking late into the house after breaking curfew? > But I think the title of that movie is just too cute. Something about > Michael Moore bothers me - the editing is a little too manipulative. For > instance he compared the number of murders in Japan, Germany, and France to > the USA-without comparing the size of the country or its population. Yep. I agree with Matt's points along these lines. Usually, when Moore does his "confront the power" thing, he picks a reasonable target - and his point is for people to take responsibility for the effects of their decisions. Too often, people use corporations, governments, and other organizations as ways of evading responsibility for their actions. I'm not sure that your comments about the size of the country or its population are all that relevant - if only because the disproportion between US gun deaths and those elsewhere is *so* huge, and because the size and density of a country (Japan would be the best example among those you list) would seem likely to *increase* the number of gun deaths: crowding, tension, more people within range of that gun. Then again, I think it's important to recognize the movie as a movie, not as a reasoned argument. The responsible approach (as I said) would be to say, okay, here's a proposal on why America has so much gun violence: let's research it to see if it stands up to the facts. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: Californians invented the concept of the life-style. :: This alone warrants their doom. :: --Don DeLillo, _White Noise_ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 17:42:03 -0500 From: Carolyn Dorsey Subject: [loud-fans] she needs to get out more This is cute. A girl made this to memorialize her cat. http://www.amyhughes.org/lego/church/index.html Carolyn ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 23:44:48 -0000 From: "Phil Gerrard" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Bowling for Columbine Moore's 'Downsize This' contained a chapter which I found rather chilling, in which he took the starting point as the murder of a couple of German tourists in Florida, proceeded to enumerate Nazi crimes and the currently successful German businesses whose conduct during the Nazi era was somewhat less than honourable, and then suggested that the former (ie the murders) didn't matter so much in the light of the latter, and that sufficient reparations had not been made for Nazi war crimes that we should give a shit about the murders of a couple of Krauts on holiday. There isn't a URL for this piece that I know of which I could post, but maybe a few folks on this list might have read the book and could correct me if I'm misinterpreting - but I don't think I am. To me, this ties in with his push-button sentimentality in 'Bowling for Columbine', where the confrontation with Charlton Heston struck me as being slightly unfair in terms of some of what we now know about Heston's recent state of mind, although that may be doing both of them a disservice. I get the feeling that Moore is, unfortunately, somebody who believes that simplifying issues is a necessary part of informing people what's going on, and that sometimes he resorts to the crudest methods in doing so, and as a result picks on some damned easy targets, and actively damages any serious debate by doing so. peace & love phil ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:50:31 -0500 From: "Vallor" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries > Try looking into which party brought about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. > Here's a clue: Al Gore lied about how his father voted. You can complain > about right-wing federal nominees (or right-wingers in general) being > inherently racist, but there's simply no basis in reality. Being opposed to > affirmative action or the welfare state doesn't make anybody racist. Assume > the worst about me, but my own concerns on those matters are based on how > those policies are doing harm to Americans of all colors. I struggle with some of the dogma from both side of our political spectrum. What Belafonte said was an inappropriate and nasty snipe directed at Colin Powell regarding his increasingly silent discontent with the Bush administration's foreign policy. Certainly, I'm concerned that our Secretary Of State's opinions regarding foreign policy don't seems to mean much to this administration, but most of us lefties would never use such cruel personal insults to express our opinions; and I don't think the words of a single entertainer could fairly be construed to represent the voice of the left. Also, I don't think anyone here would deny that Rice is a hard-line pro-Business republican and seemingly totally in line with Bush politics without compromising her personal beliefs, if you don't think this, you need to read up on Rice. Also, while I don't agree with conservative politics, I also don't believe that it's the black man's/woman's responsibility to tow the liberal line and they should not be maligned for being black and conservative. I also don't think that fundamental conservative and liberal ideologies are not about race so much as about the left's dissent to class division and the right's belief that it's not the government's job to tell people what to do. Certainly the right's position attracts a lot of people who associate the party specifically with issues like opposition to civil rights, gay rights, women's rights whilst ironically being pro prayer in school, pro school uniforms, anti choice. I don't think any fundamentally true conservative would deny that it is these people (regardless of how misguided they are as to the fundamental ideological principles of fathers of the Republican party) who keep the Republican party powerful and who have taken a great deal of power in the party. We have the crackpots on the left too. I also think that a big chunk of the left is caught up in equating African American's solely in terms of poverty and that a big chunk of the right is caught up in equating African American's solely in terms of welfare. Either way you cut it, I think it's pretty respectful. My problems with this thread is that the blathering of some people on the left often seem to be taken by the right to represent the majority voice. I know there are plenty of people on the right denying the Holocaust, saying attacks on NYC are God's way of punishing the city for it's immoral ways; hopefully most of us lefties know this is not what most Republicans are thinking. It may be that the right doesn't take the words of people like Belafonte to represent the Democratic Party line, I really don't know what it's like to be a republican in the post Reagan years (my late father was a pre-Reagan Republican, but started to pull back after trickle down economics), the modern Republican seems much more aggressive, competitive and caustic to me. As for the Civil Rights Act Of 1964, here are some excerpts from a pretty accurate essay on the subject. I certainly don't think, JR, that you could reasonably infer that this was a Republican initiated issue. However, we on the left need to accept that many southern Democrats were at the front lines of the fight against civil rights. from ... http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html "The executive branch of government conducted a lobbying campaign of its own. Both President John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson had worked out legislative strategy with; a view toward persuading Congress to accept civil rights legislation. President Johnson even assigned two members of his White House staff to cultivate Dirksen's commitment to H. R. 7152 . Conferences between the executive and Congress abounded. lt was very clear to contemporary observers that the administration had brought its full persuasive powers to bear on the civil rights legislation." ... As the civil rights debate unfolded, it became increasingly clear that the southern bloc objected most strongly to two sections of the bill, the cut-off of federal funds to projects that discriminated against African Americans and the provision for fair employment practices enforcement. Many Republicans, including the "swing" senators, joined the southerners in their concern about the impact of fair employment provisions on business, particularly small businesses. Even in states with no racial problem, the prospect of making employers comply with the law seemed to many Republican to be an unwarranted expansion of federal power. Early in April 1964, Everett Dirksen, who had expressed reservations about the bill, indicated to the press that he might offer amendments to the fair employment practices title. Although President Johnson had made it clear that the administration wanted the Senate to accept the House bill without change, the Republicans met in study groups throughout April in an effort to make the bill more acceptable through modification. ... Meanwhile, the filibuster continued throughout the entire month of April into May. Two- hour speeches were common, but occasionally a senator would speak without interruption for eight hours. Senator Dirksen remembered that one of his colleagues brought a 1,500 page speech to deliver on the Senate floor. The filibuster virtually immobilized the Senate in all its other activities. The Johnson administration realized that it would have to fashion some kind of compromise with the Republicans and Everett Dirksen in order to persuade the "swing" votes under Dirksen's influence to favor cloture. ... During the first week in May, Dirksen began talks in his office with Senate Democratic and Republican civil rights advocates and with Justice Department officials to achieve an acceptable package of civil rights legislation. On May 13, after 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions, Dirksen, Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a "clean bill" as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey, and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute. This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure which was crucial to obtain the support of the "swing" Republicans. ... The compromise civil rights bill worked out in Dirksen's office did not seriously weaken the original H. R. 7152 . The bargainers were careful not to include any changes that might cause the House to reconsider the entire bill once the Senate had finished its work. The "clean bill" made somewhat over seventy changes in H. R. 7152 , most of them concerning wording and punctuation and most of them designed to win over reluctant Republicans and to allow cloture. The major change in what was called the Dirksen-Mansfield substitute was to lessen the emphasis on federal enforcement in cases of fair employment and public accommodations violations. The substitute gave higher priority to voluntary compliance than the House bill. It encouraged more private, rather than official, legal initiatives. The compromise also reserved a period for voluntary compliance before the U.S. Attorney General could act in discrimination suits." - - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:59:25 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] she needs to get out more Quoting Carolyn Dorsey : > This is cute. A girl made this to memorialize her cat. > > http://www.amyhughes.org/lego/church/index.html As far as the subject line: maybe...but as she says, it took her less time than a lot of people spend vegetating in front of the TV. Speaking of which, Simpsons is on... ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: "In two thousand years, they'll still be looking for Elvis - :: this is nothing new," said the priest. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 17:22:40 -0800 From: Michael Zwirn Subject: [loud-fans] chat? irc.eskimo.com #loudfans - -------------------------------------- Michael J. Zwirn http://zwirn.com michael@zwirn.com Home: 503/232-8919 Cell: 503/887-9800 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 19:23:47 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 03:50 PM, Vallor wrote: > However, we on the left need to accept that many southern > Democrats were at the front lines of the fight against civil rights. Yep, and now all their descendants are Republicans. - - Steve __________ It's something new to see crises  especially a crisis as shocking as the terrorist attack  consistently addressed with legislation that does almost nothing to address the actual problem, and is almost entirely aimed at advancing a pre-existing agenda. - Paul Krugman, on Republican strategy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 19:49:12 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries Quoting Vallor : > Also, while I don't agree with conservative politics, I also don't believe > that it's the black man's/woman's responsibility to tow the liberal line and > they should not be maligned for being black and conservative. The black conservative Shelby Steele has an interesting article in the latest _Harper's_ about a related point: the situation whereby blacks are called to represent their race (and benefit from white guilt), as opposed to being individuals. I don't agree with all of it - I think his views on affirmative action are simplistic, and his claims that most blacks no longer actively experience racism is true only if "racism" is redefined very narrowly - but even where I don't agree, Steele is thoughtful and interesting. (He never does really answer the question he raises early on: if not racism, why the lower levels of achievement generally among blacks - although implicitly, he suggests it's because they're too busy trying to conform to the "victim of racism" mold to accomplish what they otherwise could.) Certainly those of us who are more conservative and tending to favor individualism over collective interests will find this one to their taste (despite the generally liberal tilt of Harper's). ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: "In two thousand years, they'll still be looking for Elvis - :: this is nothing new," said the priest. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:03:45 -0800 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] chat? Michael's gone, but I'm around, for an hour or so anyway. I'll play the rest of the Berlin and maybe pop the Marzette Watts in. A message across that good ol' horrible immeasurable abyss, Andy "almost works" - --written on the Post-It stuck to the top of a small red television set, sitting on 12th Avenue N.E. this morning ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:34:32 -0800 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries >I also don't >think that fundamental conservative and liberal ideologies are not about >race so much as about the left's dissent to class division and the right's >belief that it's not the government's job to tell people what to do. Anyone wishing to bridge that seemingly impassable chasm between a right believing "that it's not the government's job to tell people what to do" and the right's long record of attempting (often succeeding) the forceful governmental dictation of what people should, or should not: read, view, hear, compute, think, have done to their own bodies... ...let's just say I'm all eyes. Andy "Most men live like raisins in a cake of custom." - --Brand Blanshard ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:13:14 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] chat? Hmph. Eskimo keeps booting me with rude messages. I'll try again in a bit. -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 20:46:31 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > The black conservative Shelby Steele has an interesting article in the latest > _Harper's_ about a related point: the situation whereby blacks are called to > represent their race (and benefit from white guilt), as opposed to being > individuals. To that end: http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/ Note: irony/sarcasm approaching... Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 21:08:38 -0500 From: "Vallor" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries > Anyone wishing to bridge that seemingly impassable chasm between a right > believing "that it's not the government's job to tell people what to do" and > the right's long record of attempting (often succeeding) the forceful > governmental dictation of what people should, or should not: read, view, > hear, compute, think, have done to their own bodies... > > ...let's just say I'm all eyes. Honestly, the fact that it's impassable now doesn't negate the fact that it was the original intention of the Party. Lincoln was a Republican, as I recall he was old school almost across the board. Still, it was never an ideology I could relate to nor do I think it's plausable that it could work at all in modern morally complex times, nor could a purely Democratic ideology. That's why we have checks and balances. As far as bridging that seemingly impassable chasm, I expect it's as impassable as getting all Christians and Muslims on the same page. - - D ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 02:04:35 -0500 From: boyof100lists@juno.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries > However, we on the left need to accept that many southern > Democrats were at the front lines of the fight against civil rights. Yep, and now all their descendants are Republicans. Exactly, and I simply don't get it. Nothing to me is more of a mystery than driving through a working class neighborhood and seeing Republican political signs in yards around election time. I live across the street from ultra conservative Bob Jones University (Jesus votes Republican you know), and my laid back California transplant next door neighbors used to put Democratic canididates' signs in their yard at election time, and our conservative neighbors would steal them. My neighborhood's karma has finally come though. Two gay guys moved in directly across the street, and three houses up are two more that just moved in. Scary thing: Tonight I delivered to this sagging trailer, and this man who looked like an extra on the Dukes of Hazzard came out and greeted me, where I got an eyeful of the huge KKK flag adorning his living room wall. NEAT-O. That was a little to real for me. How comforting to know that he accepted me because I was a white male. - -Mark S. ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 02:41:13 -0500 From: boyof100lists@juno.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries > However, we on the left need to accept that many southern > Democrats were at the front lines of the fight against civil rights. Yep, and now all their descendants are Republicans. The thing I have a hard time with and is the mystery is not the civil rights issue and southern Democrats. In fact, I was once a library archivist in a college work-study job, and I came across a rather nasty letter from Strom Thurmond addressed to the President of the school dated 1965. I gave a promise not to disclose anything I came across in my work, but let's just say I find it ironic that the Strom Thurmond Student Center on campus was where all the black kids hung out. The mystery to me is that the southern Democrats had the vote of the "common" Southerner. Now that has gone to the Republicans in the South, whereas in other places it goes to the Democrats. It can't be about civil rights in this day and age. So why? Sorry about the inappropriate joke in an earlier post, - -Mark S. ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #393 *******************************