From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #38 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 Thursday, February 6 2003 Volume 03 : Number 038 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] [loud-fans] 2002 poll results [Aaron Mandel ] RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system ["Keegstra, Russell" ] Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:43:43 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system http://tinyurl.com/5eua ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: As long as I don't sleep, he decided, I won't shave. :: That must mean...as soon as I fall asleep, I'll start shaving! :: --Thomas Pynchon, _Vineland_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:57:49 -0600 From: "Keegstra, Russell" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system >http://tinyurl.com/5eua Well, it's a federal charge in a federal court. All the state's rights people should be pissed off, though. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 14:28:36 +0000 From: "O Geier" Subject: [loud-fans] Aimee Show in Norfolk First time seeing her, long time listener. Duncan Shiek was a bore. Aimee is a great guitar player. With her, it's not a prop, she's actually driving the group. Set List I'ts Not Safe The Moth Calling It Quits Sugarcoated Humpty Dumpty Susan Amateur Wise Up Save Me You Could Make A Killing Wonderwall (w/ Duncan Shiek) That's Just What You Are This is How it Goes Pavlov's Bell Long Shot - --------------- Driving Sideways Invisible Ink - ----------------- Sweet Home Alabama Deathly _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:27:38 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: [loud-fans] 2002 poll results THE TOP FIVE (see below for the rest): 1/ Wilco - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot (60.16 points) 2/ Brendan Benson - Lapalco (29.12 points) 3/ Interpol - Turn On The Bright Lights (26.09 points) 3/ Aimee Mann - Lost In Space (26.09 points) 5/ Soft Boys - Nextdoorland (25.11 points) Wilco won, crushing its nearest competitor to a (slightly) larger degree than the Loud Family did in 2000 (YANKEE HOTEL FOXTROT got 2.07 times the score that LAPALCO did; ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE outscored BACHELOR #2 by a factor of 2.01) which is surprising, considering that one would expect the LF to have an irreproducible advantage in polls on this list. As always, the value of each vote has been increased by .01 as a tiebreaker, so a score of 21.05 means that five people voted for the album, giving it 21 points total. Special heavy-hitter commendations go to Tori Amos and Consonant, receiving an average of 4.2 points apiece from the people that voted from them at all, with Wilco and Statuesque (3.75 points per vote) close behind. This version of the results, where albums that only one person voted for are given less space, is available at http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~aaron/poll/lf02/results-summary.txt The full version, albeit without this preamble, is at http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~aaron/poll/lf02/results.txt A second version, in which I indulge my idiosyncracies further, is at http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~aaron/poll/lf02/results2.txt The differences in that second version: (1) people who emailed the list about their favorite albums but didn't vote online were added; (2) people who voted for fewer than 15 albums were given proportionately fewer points for each of their votes; (3) artists who released multiple things this year had them all combined into one, which mostly affected Stew/TNP. Anyway, the real results... ALBUMS 1/ Wilco - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot (60.16 points) 2/ Brendan Benson - Lapalco (29.12 points) 3/ Interpol - Turn On The Bright Lights (26.09 points) 3/ Aimee Mann - Lost In Space (26.09 points) 5/ Soft Boys - Nextdoorland (25.11 points) 6/ Elvis Costello - When I Was Cruel (24.09 points) 7/ Tori Amos - Scarlet's Walk (21.05 points) 7/ Consonant - Consonant (21.05 points) 9/ Pedro The Lion - Control (20.06 points) 10/ Loud Family - From Ritual To Romance (18.08 points) 11/ Low - Trust (16.05 points) 12/ Statuesque - Live From Lake Vostok (15.04 points) 13/ Guided By Voices - Universal Truths And Cycles (14.07 points) 14/ Sonic Youth - Murray Street (14.06 points) 15/ Rhett Miller - The Instigator (14.04 points) 16/ Beck - Sea Change (13.06 points) 17/ Sleater-Kinney - One Beat (13.04 points) 17/ Queens Of The Stone Age - Songs For The Deaf (13.04 points) 19/ Flaming Lips - Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots (12.04 points) 20/ Bruce Springsteen - The Rising (11.05 points) 20/ Apples In Stereo - Velocity Of Sound (11.05 points) 22/ Negro Problem - Welcome Black (10.05 points) 23/ Richard Buckner - Impasse (10.04 points) 24/ Stew - The Naked Dutch Painter (10.03 points) 25/ Mekons - OOOH! (9.04 points) 26/ Gomez - In Our Gun (9.03 points) 26/ Steve Earle - Jerusalem (9.03 points) 26/ Tommy Keene - The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down (9.03 points) 29/ David Bowie - Heathen (8.04 points) 30/ Spoon - Kill The Moonlight (8.03 points) 30/ Superdrag - Last Call For Vitriol (8.03 points) 32/ K's Choice - Almost Happy (8.02 points) 33/ Paul Westerberg - Stereo/Mono (7.04 points) 34/ Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around (7.02 points) 34/ Hot Hot Heat - Make Up The Breakdown (7.02 points) 34/ Nerissa & Katrina Nields - Love And China (7.02 points) 34/ Garrison Starr - Songs From Take-Off To Landing (7.02 points) 34/ Linda Thompson - Fashionably Late (7.02 points) 39/ Hives - Veni Vidi Vicious (6.04 points) 40/ Neko Case - Blacklisted (6.03 points) 41/ Caitlin Cary - While You Weren't Looking (6.02 points) 41/ Of Montreal - Aldhils Arboretum (6.02 points) 43/ Erica Smith - Friend or Foe (5.02 points) 43/ Neil Halstead - Sleeping On Roads (5.02 points) 43/ Reputation - The Reputation (5.02 points) 43/ Idlewild - The Remote Part (5.02 points) 43/ Streets - Original Pirate Material (5.02 points) 43/ Bryan Ferry - Frantic (5.02 points) 43/ Pere Ubu - St. Arkansas (5.02 points) 43/ Christine Fellows - The Last One Standing (5.02 points) single-vote 5-point albums, tied for 51st place: Hot Hot Heat, Porcupine Tree, Sunshine Fix, Daryll-Ann, 1905, Ilkae 57/ Pearl Jam - Riot Act (4.03 points) 57/ Breeders - Title TK (4.03 points) 57/ Stretch Princess - Fun With Humans (4.03 points) 57/ Bigger Lovers - Honey In The Hive (4.03 points) 61/ Sigur Ros - () (4.02 points) 61/ Norah Jones - Come Away With Me (4.02 points) 61/ Warren Zevon - My Ride's Here (4.02 points) 61/ Shazam - Tomorrow The World (4.02 points) 61/ Coldplay - A Rush Of Blood To The Head (4.02 points) 61/ Cordelia's Dad - What It Is (4.02 points) 61/ White Stripes - White Blood Cells (4.02 points) 61/ Alanis Morissette - Under Rug Swept (4.02 points) 61/ Wondermints - Mind If We Make Love To You (4.02 points) single-vote 4-point albums; tied for 70th place: Elf Power, Custom, Notwist, Philip Price, David Kilgour, Wire, Richard Youngs, Flops, Wire, Tsukiko Amano, Mirah, Freelance Hellraiser, Ed Harcourt, Motorpsycho, Grand Drive, Bob Dylan, OK Go, Kevin Tihista's Red Terror, Scott Merritt, Migala, Jetplane Landing, Foo Fighters, Astrobotnia, Mountain Goats, Roger Wallace, Tom Petty, Frank Black & The Catholics 97/ Mary Timony - The Golden Dove (3.02 points) 97/ Luna - Romantica (3.02 points) 97/ Oasis - Heathen Chemistry (3.02 points) 97/ Nightwish - Century Child (3.02 points) 97/ Peter Gabriel - Up (3.02 points) 97/ Mates Of State - Our Constant Concern (3.02 points) 97/ Frou Frou - Details (3.02 points) 97/ Missy Roback - Just Like Breathing (3.02 points) 97/ Boards Of Canada - Geogaddi (3.02 points) single-vote 3-point albums, tied for 106th place: Sonna, Model Rockets, Mary Lorson & Saint Low, Deerhoof, Mike Johnson, Shins, Damn Personals, Laura Cantrell, eels, Xiu Xiu, Glay, Pipes You See, Pipes You Don't, Doug Martsch, Ryan Adams, Neil Finn And Friends, Club 8, Spock's Beard, Jay Farrar, Cornershop, Kinski, Mike Ireland And Holler, Franklin Bruno, Circulatory System, Astrobotnia, Pavement, Sugarplastic, Blackalicious, Doleful Lions, Lisa Loeb, Orgone Box, Ms. John Soda, Steve Earle, Deadweight, Glory Fountain, Larch, Roddy Frame, Electric Soft Parade, Biscuit Boy (a.k.a. Paul Heaton), Vitesse, Church, Figgs, Stew, 27 149/ Soundtrack Of Our Lives - Behind The Music (2.02 points) 149/ Supergrass - Life On Other Planets (2.02 points) single-vote 2-point albums, tied for 151st place: the brilliant green, Something Corporate, Drive-By Truckers, Atom & His Package, Seaworthy, ee, Weezer, Steve Morse Band, Death By Chocolate, Drexciya, Shimmer Kids Underpop Association, Shelleydevoto, Alice Project, Tift Merritt, Paul McCartney, Diane Cluck, Dream Theater, Emm Gryner, Neil Finn, Martin Newell, Doves, Audioslave, Broken Social Scene, Broken Spindles, Nada Surf, Warlocks, Jason Ringenberg, Rilo Kiley, Cotton Mather, Bevis Frond, Ida, Liars, Clinic, Shearwater, Dan Zanes And Friends, Grand Champeen, Aesop Rock, Ben Folds, Pele, Edwyn Collins, Dntel, Groundswell, Robert Plant, Goo Goo Dolls, Rebecca Hall, Morcheeba, Jerry Cantrell, Coral, Cerberus Shoal, Akufen, Chet Baker single-vote 1-point albums, tied for 202nd place: Mia Doi Todd, LCD Soundsystem, Swampbelly, Proswell, Julia Douglass, Sixteen Horsepower, Antipop Consortium, Guitar, Themselves, Julianna Hatfield, Badly Drawn Boy, Hot Snakes, Life In a Blender, Sarah Shannon, Scion, Green Pajamas, Lucky Bishops, Frank Black And The Catholics, ...And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Dead, Various Artists, Missy Elliot, Shania Twain, Polara, Velvet Crush, Belle & Sebastian, Electric Wizard, Major Organ And The Adding Machine, Various Artists, Pain Of Salvation, Jim Lauderdale, David Cross, fablefactory, Elbow, McClusky, Chevelles, Slow Jets, Cinerama, Patty Griffin, Chris de Luca & Peabird, Tub Ring, Beth Gibbons And Rustin Man, Kleenex Girl Wonder, Tender Trap, Imperial Teen, Delgados, Rush MOST NORMAL LOUDFANS (raw) This is the sum of the total scores of all albums a person voted for, divided by the number of points they cast. 1/ Steve Holtebeck (6.63 points) 2/ David Seldin (6.48 points) 3/ Jeff Norman (6.14 points) 4/ Jim Robson (5.51 points) 5/ Michael Mitton (5.4 points) 6/ Doug Stanley (5.33 points) 7/ R. Kevin Doyle (5.25 points) 8/ Jeff Downing (5.19 points) 9/ John Cooper (4.67 points) 10/ CJ Camp (4.31 points) 11/ dmw (4.16 points) 12/ Stewart Mason (4.1 points) 13/ Brian Block (3.99 points) 14/ Mike Bollman (3.93 points) 15/ Bradley (3.82 points) 16/ Richard (3.42 points) 17/ Miles Goosens (3.33 points) 18/ Andrea Weiss (3.1 points) 19/ jer fairall (2.75 points) 20/ Michael Zwirn (2.44 points) 21/ Dan Sallitt (2.24 points) 22/ Larry Tucker (2.21 points) 23/ glenn mcdonald (2.17 points) 24/ Paula Carino (2.13 points) 25/ Jen Grover (1.84 points) 26/ Dave Walker (1.81 points) 27/ big bad cyndy (1.78 points) 28/ Steven Matrick (1.7 points) 29/ Chris Prew (1.68 points) 30/ Jack Lippold (1.55 points) 30/ Aaron Mandel (1.55 points) 32/ Bill Silvers (1.1 points) 33/ Russ Keegstra (0.89 points) 34/ Andrew Hamlin (0.47 points) 34/ George M (0.47 points) MOST NORMAL LOUDFANS (weighted) This is the sum of [points cast by voter * total score of album] for all albums a voter chose, divided by the total number of points that voter cast. 1/ David Seldin (26.55 points) 2/ Doug Stanley (21.89 points) 3/ Michael Mitton (17.75 points) 4/ John Cooper (16.93 points) 5/ Jim Robson (16.84 points) 6/ R. Kevin Doyle (16.61 points) 7/ Jeff Norman (16.26 points) 8/ Jeff Downing (15.53 points) 9/ Mike Bollman (12.88 points) 10/ Steve Holtebeck (12.79 points) 11/ Brian Block (11.87 points) 12/ CJ Camp (11.8 points) 13/ Miles Goosens (11.73 points) 14/ Stewart Mason (10.99 points) 15/ Richard (9.64 points) 16/ Bradley (9.04 points) 17/ Michael Zwirn (8.6 points) 18/ dmw (8.29 points) 19/ jer fairall (8.17 points) 20/ Chris Prew (7 points) 21/ Andrea Weiss (6.92 points) 22/ Paula Carino (6.9 points) 23/ Jen Grover (6.17 points) 24/ glenn mcdonald (6.09 points) 25/ Larry Tucker (5.52 points) 26/ Steven Matrick (5.03 points) 27/ big bad cyndy (4.16 points) 28/ Dave Walker (4.08 points) 29/ Dan Sallitt (4 points) 30/ Bill Silvers (3.71 points) 31/ Aaron Mandel (3.65 points) 32/ Jack Lippold (3.6 points) 33/ Russ Keegstra (2.3 points) 34/ George M (1.55 points) 35/ Andrew Hamlin (1.45 points) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:22:54 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system Quoting "Keegstra, Russell" : > >http://tinyurl.com/5eua > > Well, it's a federal charge in a federal court. All the state's > rights people should be pissed off, though. I think that's an oversimplification. First, the whole "states' rights" vs. ...what, federalists? argument oversimplies: no one argues that states and other, lower-level government should not set some things for themselves (I don't believe anyone has proposed that local public libraries should be federalized), and no one argues that states should control absolutely everything ("Sorry, this is Illinois - we don't accept that damned Wisconsin money here"). No one sane, anyway. (If this were Fegmaniax...oh, never mind.) But drug and alcohol policy has historically been set locally - dry counties, bar closing times, etc. - and even with supposedly illicit drugs, local governments have been given leeway in terms of things like what sort of punishment possession of small amounts of marijuana should have (in the heyday of the late seventies and early eighties in places like the Peoples' Republics of Ann Arbor and Madison, it was essentially about as serious as a parking ticket). It's only in times of national panic (the current "war on drugs"; Prohibition) that the federal government feels compelled to set policy in these arenas. More important, though, I think the argument that Rosenthal's status as state-authorized provider was not even admissible, because it was a federal court and drugs are illegal under federal law, makes as much sense as a murder trial in which a police officer accused of murder is not allowed to be identified as such, and the fact that the man he killed had shot at him first is not admissable, on the grounds that murder is always illegal. That fact re Rosenthal is clearly relevant to the situation under which he was convicted, and that the jury felt abused and misled afterwards when they found out suggests as much. To make a policy of this sort of thing undermines the whole concept of jury trials, which explicitly move law away from a strictly definitional arena and into a realm of situational judgment. Of course, even if I'm wrong on legal grounds (quite possible, of course, since I'm not a lawyer), I think the case shows that on policy grounds alone, the federal govt.'s approach to drug cases is (to use the technical term) completely fucked up. Rosenthal is being made an example of, not because anyone feels his actions are going to harm anyone (quite the opposite: many people will experience excruciating pain because of this and any other cases decided similarly), but because the feds have a paranoid bug up their ass about drug policy specifically, and about the notion that where it comes to "moral" issues, no one but the gang of right-wing Bibliolaters can have any standing. More important than any legalistic questions is the sheer barbarism of this and much of Bush's policy, which places the US at odds against most of the rest of humanity, not to mention against decency (truly defined, not the bible-beaters' definition). Jeff Ceci n'est pas une .sig np: XTC _Nonsuch_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:46:57 -0600 From: "Keegstra, Russell" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system > > >http://tinyurl.com/5eua > > > > Well, it's a federal charge in a federal court. All the state's > > rights people should be pissed off, though. > > I think that's an oversimplification. True enough, I was being both cynical and brief. I agree with your arguments. The question that this brings up for me, though, is what happens when local and federal laws conflict? What Rosenthal did was competely legal in the state of California, and completely against the law in the US. Who wins? Russ .sigless in Tucson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:47:02 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system In a message dated 2/6/03 10:23:31 AM, jenor@uwm.edu writes: << ....but because the feds have a paranoid bug up their ass about drug policy specifically, and about the notion that where it comes to "moral" issues, no one but the gang of right-wing Bibliolaters can have any standing. >> As usual on this list, some intelligent points get undermined by lame assumptions. I was at a fairly notable right-wing gathering on Tuesday (with even a few bible-beaters, if you'll indulge that quaint term, in the crowd) where Rosenthal's case was discussed by several people as a topic of concern. Do some people just prefer to pretend that this kind of "sheer barbarism" only happens under a Republican administration? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 10:53:32 -0800 From: Matthew Weber Subject: RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system At 12:46 PM 2/6/03 -0600, Keegstra, Russell wrote: > > > >http://tinyurl.com/5eua > > > > > > Well, it's a federal charge in a federal court. All the state's > > > rights people should be pissed off, though. > > > > I think that's an oversimplification. > >True enough, I was being both cynical and brief. I agree with your >arguments. > >The question that this brings up for me, though, is what happens >when local and federal laws conflict? What Rosenthal did was >competely legal in the state of California, and completely against >the law in the US. Who wins? > >Russ Federal law always takes precedence. Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley Though wickedness be sweet in his mouth, though he hide it under his tongue. The Holy Bible (The Old Testament): _The Book of Job_, chapter 20, verse 12 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:45:16 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system - --- JRT456@aol.com wrote: > Do some people just prefer to pretend that this kind > of "sheer barbarism" > only happens under a Republican administration? God I hate saying this....but yeah, I seem to remember Clinton's position on this was no different than W's. Ouch.:) Gil Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:19:12 -0600 From: "Keegstra, Russell" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system Me: >>Who wins? Matthew Weber: >Federal law always takes precedence. If Federal law trumps local law then this case could have had no other outcome. That seems counter-intuitive to me, though, basing my assumptions on the 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. What is the foundation of federal law always taking precedence? I get the impression that the Constitution assumed the feds were going to legislate in a fairly narrow area, and that all other legislation would be done by the states. I don't think they ever expected a conflict. Russ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:24:34 -0800 From: Matthew Weber Subject: RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system At 02:19 PM 2/6/03 -0600, Keegstra, Russell wrote: >Me: > >>Who wins? >Matthew Weber: > >Federal law always takes precedence. > >If Federal law trumps local law then this case could have had no >other outcome. > >That seems counter-intuitive to me, though, basing my assumptions >on the 10th amendment: > >The powers not delegated to the United States by the >Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are >reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. > >What is the foundation of federal law always taking precedence? I >get the impression that the Constitution assumed the feds were going >to legislate in a fairly narrow area, and that all other legislation >would be done by the states. I don't think they ever expected a >conflict. I'm no legal scholar, but I would imagine it goes back to the Civil War and its outcome; some of the States asserting their rights to secede from the Union, and the government dissenting with the imposition of deadly force. Interpreting the Constitution according to the intentions of the founding fathers is a dangerous (and I would add, pointless) game: go too far down that road and you wind up denying the vote to anyone who isn't a white male property owner. And I doubt that any of the drafters of the Constitution imagined the First Amendment would be invoked to defend Larry Flynt's right to publish beaver shots (not that there's anything wrong with that...). Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley Though wickedness be sweet in his mouth, though he hide it under his tongue. The Holy Bible (The Old Testament): _The Book of Job_, chapter 20, verse 12 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:35:56 -0600 From: "Keegstra, Russell" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system Mr. Weber: >Interpreting the Constitution according to the intentions of >the founding fathers is a dangerous (and I would add, pointless) >game I agree completely. Mostly I was trying to determine whether the issue of jurisdictional conflicts had any Constitutional basis. Since it doesn't, maybe we should try to change it. Which is pretty funny coming from me, because I'm hardly a states' rights advocate. Hardly a strict constructionist either. Russ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:46:57 -0500 From: "Paul Seeman" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system Russ wrote: > What is the foundation of federal law always taking > precedence? I get the impression that the Constitution > assumed the feds were going to legislate in a fairly narrow > area, and that all other legislation would be done by the > states. I don't think they ever expected a conflict. The Supremacy Clause in Article 6: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. From where I'm sitting, that's a pretty clear indication that conflicts weighed heavily on the Framers' minds. Not that it eliminates wriggle room altogether (is there, for instance, such a thing as implied preemption of state laws?). I've even seen the argument advanced that, taking the 10th Amendment together with Article 6, federal laws only take precedence on federal land and Washington, DC (which I've always thought would mean that they effectively never take precedence, but there you go). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:59:50 -0600 From: "Keegstra, Russell" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system Paul Seeman: >The Supremacy Clause in Article 6: > >This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be >made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be >made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme >law of the land; Ah. I missed that bit about laws and only registered the bit about treaties when I skimmed through it. Now - what gives the feds the right to make drug laws under the Constitution? Alcohol prohibition had to be done with an amendment. I'm just saying. Russ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:02:46 -0500 From: "Paul Seeman" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system Russ: > Now - what gives the feds the right to make drug laws under > the Constitution? Alcohol prohibition had to be done with an > amendment. I'm just saying. Yep, I agree with yer rhetorical point. As for the underlying question, I'm guessing that Congress presumes to make drug laws based on the ever-expanding powers it's been granted under the Commerce Clause; I'm not a lawyer, but I know that by the 1930s the feds only had to show a *relationship* between a given activity and interstate commerce to earn the USSC's seal of approval. And since that's exactly the point, however non sequitur, that every other PSA seems to be making these days--smoke a joint and the blood of Columbian orphans is on your hands--I'm guessing that it's the tack the feds take on constitutional challenges to drug policy. Paul ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:24:06 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 2002 poll results Thanks to Aaron for his work on this poll, and all the others too. Aside from DAYS FOR DAYS, which almost doesn't count, I don't think I've had the list's #1 as my #1 before, so I feel all normal-Loud-Fan-y for once in my life. All you folks who disqualify EPs -- which apparently must have included everyone besides me who bought Wire's READ AND BURN 01 and 02 -- will get a shot to vote for an album-length amalgamation of Wire's READ AND BURN material in 2003, as SEND will be ready to go sometime in March. Orders direct from http://www.posteverything.com will get a bonus live disc drawn from Wire's spectacular 2002 show at the Metro in Chicago, a show that Ms. Trowbridge and I were lucky enough to attend. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 17:38:51 -0500 From: Cardinal007 Subject: Re: RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system - ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Seeman Date: Thursday, February 6, 2003 5:02 pm Subject: RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system > Russ: > > Now - what gives the feds the right to make drug laws under > > the Constitution? Alcohol prohibition had to be done with an > > amendment. I'm just saying. > > Yep, I agree with yer rhetorical point. As for the underlying > question,I'm guessing that Congress presumes to make drug laws > based on the > ever-expanding powers it's been granted under the Commerce Clause; I'm > not a lawyer, but I know that by the 1930s the feds only had to > show a > *relationship* between a given activity and interstate commerce to > earnthe USSC's seal of approval. And since that's exactly the point, > however non sequitur, that every other PSA seems to be making these > days--smoke a joint and the blood of Columbian orphans is on your > hands--I'm guessing that it's the tack the feds take on constitutional > challenges to drug policy. > > Paul > The principles that govern our unique federal system tend to fuck things up royally for unprincipled folk who just want to get things the way that they want them. I'm sure that quite a few people decrying the federal intrusion into traditional state "police" powers regarding drug use were all for that intrusion when the "Violence Against Women" Act attempted to override state law. And I'm sure that many folks who applauded the Supreme Court when it found that federal law regarding guns near schoolyards was an unconstitutional step by Congress beyond its enumerated powers would be quite pissed off to have that principle used to overturn a federal law banning the consumption of wicked good reefer. That expansion of the reach of the Commerce Clause, emerging from the New Deal and infusing right up to the '80s, was a great "liberal" thing that, of course, can come back to bite'cha in the bong. . . I respect and admire folks who have strong principles about the respective roles of federal v. state government, and then comfortably live with the consequences. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 14:45:10 -0800 From: Matthew Weber Subject: RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system At 02:59 PM 2/6/03 -0600, Keegstra, Russell wrote: >Paul Seeman: > >The Supremacy Clause in Article 6: > > > >This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be > >made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be > >made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme > >law of the land; > >Ah. I missed that bit about laws and only registered the bit about >treaties when I skimmed through it. > >Now - what gives the feds the right to make drug laws under the >Constitution? Alcohol prohibition had to be done with an amendment. >I'm just saying. I don't think it *had* to. A Federal law would have done the job, but it could have been struck down by the SCotUS. An amendment, on the other hand, has to be ratified by the states, and the Supreme Court has to deal with it somehow--which can lead to some strange interpretations when they really want to contravene it--but they can't get rid of it. Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley Though wickedness be sweet in his mouth, though he hide it under his tongue. The Holy Bible (The Old Testament): _The Book of Job_, chapter 20, verse 12 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:51:50 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 2002 poll results On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Miles Goosens wrote: > All you folks who disqualify EPs -- which apparently must have included > everyone besides me who bought Wire's READ AND BURN 01 and 02 -- Hey! I just didn't like them that much. As reunion, mail-order-only releases go they're very good, but they made me anticipate Send more than they made me want to listen to them themselves. The all-R&B live show definitely beat the Boston leg of the 2000 reunion tour, though. (I saw them twice in 2000, and the NYC show the next night was very good, but I was primed with lower expectations, so I feel like it's not a fair comparison.) a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 19:14:25 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system Quoting JRT456@aol.com: > In a message dated 2/6/03 10:23:31 AM, jenor@uwm.edu writes: > > << ....but because the feds have a paranoid > > bug up their ass about drug policy specifically, and about the notion > that > where it comes to "moral" issues, no one but the gang of right-wing > Bibliolaters can have any standing. >> > > As usual on this list, some intelligent points get undermined by lame > assumptions. This counts as playing nice for you, JRT. Thank you! I was at a fairly notable right-wing gathering on Tuesday > (with > even a few bible-beaters, if you'll indulge that quaint term, in the > crowd) > where Rosenthal's case was discussed by several people as a topic of > concern. > Do some people just prefer to pretend that this kind of "sheer barbarism" > only happens under a Republican administration? I don't believe anything in my original post limits its application to a Republican administration. I was talking about this Republican administration, yes - but I do recognize that not *only* right-wingers, nor *all* right-wingers, would agree with the results of the Rosenthal case. I'm glad to know that some notable right-wingers are concerned about those results. And some of them (Buckley leaps to mind) have been quite consistently so concerned. The more socially-libertarian -leaning right-wing is usually pretty good on social issues - it's the raw-meat fundamentalist crowd that really frightens me. While I'm at it: I could point to any number of my posts over the last few years in which I distinguish between Christians generally and fundamentalists (which, had I not had the rhetorical flame-thrower on, would have been the word I used rather than "bible beaters"). Personally, I believe such fundamentalists have very little of the Christian about them. Also: while I'd certainly defer to Card on any specifically legal questions (hell, he's a lawyer), I'm not sure (as my earlier post noted) that "consistency" is necessarily a virtue in determining when state, when federal should take precedence. Some situations should be led by states, others by feds, and determining which is tricky, subject to debate, etc. (And the Constitutional clause Card cited certainly does leave a bit of wiggle room...) ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: I suspect that the first dictator of this country will be called "Coach" :: --William Gass ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 20:51:21 -0500 From: "Paul Seeman" Subject: RE: RE: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system Cardinal: > The principles that govern our unique federal system tend to fuck > things up royally for unprincipled folk who just want to get things > the way that they want them. You cribbed that from the first draft of the Preamble, didn't you? "We the people, in order to fuck things up royally for those who deserve it...." > I'm sure that quite a few people decrying the federal intrusion into > traditional state "police" powers regarding drug use were all for that > intrusion when the "Violence Against Women" Act attempted to override > state law. And I'm sure that many folks who applauded the Supreme > Court when it found that federal law regarding guns near schoolyards > was an unconstitutional step by Congress beyond its enumerated powers > would be quite pissed off to have that principle used to overturn a > federal law banning the consumption of wicked good reefer. Two sides to every coin, double-edged sword, be careful what you wish for...yep. > That expansion of the reach of the Commerce Clause, emerging from the > New Deal and infusing right up to the '80s, was a great "liberal" > thing that, of course, can come back to bite'cha in the bong. . . Well, that expansion started with U.S. v. Marigold in 1850, with a majority opinion written by Roger Taney--you could even say it had its origins in Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824, when John Marshall was still around. No discernable liberal pedigree there. But yeah, the NLRB case brought us a lot closer to where we are today, although I'm not sure that Hughes was thinking seventy years down the line to the possible limitations placed on the delivery of a cheap palliative to seriously ill folks; he was probably more focused on the rights and responsibilities of workers seeking to unionize. Kind of interesting when you consider the fact that jurists of such varied inclinations contributed to the development of a legal concept that's been such a mixed blessing to folks across the cultural and political spectra. That said, there's a distinction to be made between the powers granted to Congress by judicial precedent and the decisions Congress makes as a result of increased license. It's hardly unprincipled, whatever your ideological bent, to disagree with those decisions...unless you're caterwauling out of self-interest. I learned long ago that pot simply makes me sleepy and bored, qualities for which I can get paid just by staying late at work, so I'm not pushing a personal agenda when I say that there ought to be room in our federal code for the legal, state-endorsed delivery to sick people of an effective pain-killer (even one that, like so many other drugs, is illegal in other circumstances). But as of now there isn't room for that sort of thing, and I'm not crying for Rosenthal: he knew the risk and took it (and let's face it, his prosecution was probably inspired more by his outspoken, generalized and reckless advocacy of the stuff than by the crimes with which he was actually charged). > I respect and admire folks who have strong principles about the > respective roles of federal v. state government, and then comfortably > live with the consequences. I respect and admire principled grown-ups, too. Rosenthal, from what I've read, is guy we'd both respect and admire...on that count, at least. Paul ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 21:18:32 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system In a message dated 2/6/03 5:15:00 PM, jenor@uwm.edu writes: << I'm glad to know that some notable right-wingers are concerned about those results. And some of them (Buckley leaps to mind) have been quite consistently so concerned. The more socially-libertarian -leaning right-wing is usually pretty good on social issues - it's the raw-meat fundamentalist crowd that really frightens me. >> Then you'll be happy to know that that the Republican raw-meat fundamentalist crowd has been made increasingly irrelevant under the leadership of George W. Bush. (Yes, I know that's contrary to what the Left keeps telling us about how Republicans will soon be banning little girls from attending schools.) The people I was with the other night include the kind of folks who actually set the party's policies, and they're certainly pleased to be in their position while working with this administration. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 22:12:21 EST From: LeftyZ@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system In a message dated 2/6/03 5:52:12 PM, paul.seeman@yale.edu writes: << I'm not pushing a personal agenda when I say that there ought to be room in our federal code for the legal, state-endorsed delivery to sick people of an effective pain-killer (even one that, like so many other drugs, is illegal in other circumstances). >> God I hate medical marijuana laws.....they're just weak, incremental bullshit that makes apologists out of legitimate partiers. Shouldn't there be room in our society for the outright legalization of a substance that, for many of us, enhances a few of the activities that we enjoy, and does essentially no harm at all (certainly way less harm than a couple substances that are legal in all 50 states)? I frankly thought last week's Doonesbury cartoon -- discussion between a cigarette and a joint -- said it all. Neither the state or federal government has any business controlling what we do to our brains, as long as we don't drive under the influence. Left ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 21:35:29 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system On Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 08:18 PM, JRT456@aol.com wrote: > Then you'll be happy to know that that the Republican raw-meat > fundamentalist > crowd has been made increasingly irrelevant under the leadership of > George W. > Bush. (Yes, I know that's contrary to what the Left keeps telling us > about > how Republicans will soon be banning little girls from attending > schools.) > The people I was with the other night include the kind of folks who > actually > set the party's policies, and they're certainly pleased to be in their > position while working with this administration. Increasingly irrelevant than under Reagan or Bush I, who both gave them next to nothing? And who is it that's making them increasingly irrelevant? I doubt you or Cardinal are going to drop names on this list, but you keep making assertions like the above and expect them to be accepted on nothing more than your word. This looks to me to be the most right wing administration in my lifetime, and I just turned 50. And it is ruling based on principals that were rejected by the people who voted in 2000. And, day after day, I see nothing that would indicate an ounce of good will, but only the will to power. - - Steve p.s. If the jury in California didn't know that the guy was growing pot under sanction from the state and local governments, then he had a really poor lawyer. __________ I for one, am convinced: I am switching my laptop to Mac OS X. And best of all, you don't have to be ashamed to go to a Linux guru meeting with Mac OS X, because it's just a UNIX with a very nice GUI." - Moshe Bar ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #38 ******************************