From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #337 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Tuesday, December 18 2001 Volume 05 : Number 337 Today's Subjects: ----------------- OT: Timely Tune [Pluto ] Re: his point [Nancy Wood ] Re: his point [Vicki Cain ] Re: his point ["Chris K @*_*@" ] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point (oops, correction) [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@] Message to Lori! [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: Message to Lori! [Lori Martin ] Re: Message to Lori! ["Chris K @*_*@" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:34:16 GMT From: Pluto Subject: OT: Timely Tune Thought you fellow Fruvous fans would enjoy this funny, topical song about our current Christmas climate in the US (Anthrax and all) and our president who urges us to cure our woes by shopping. It's called: "America, It's Time To Shop" In the "spirit of giving" it's available free. Go to: www.plutosrepublic.com/mp3america.html - -- Cheers, Pluto www.plutosrepublic.com "Discover Pluto: Boston-based singer-songwriter Pluto combines rootsy, jazzy guitar and literate, often mordant songs on his terrific new CD "Par Avion." - - The Philadelphia Inquirer "Subtle, emotionally evocative songwriting" - - Stuff @ Night "With little more than voice, acoustic guitar, and the most rudimentary of recording settings, Pluto spit-polishes his unadorned observations on love, loss, and wonder - and puts them on simple but convincing display." - - The Boston Globe ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:24:30 -0500 From: Nancy Wood Subject: Re: his point "A.J. LoCicero" wrote: > But let me put this to you. You have a large number of hostile troops > barricaded in a basement (i.e. and underground bunker). They have an > unknown number of weapons and ammunition, but clearly a sufficiant > ammount for them to be shooting at and killing your troups. There are > only one or two ways into this place and they have them heavily > defended. Are you going to sacrifice the lives of your own troops in > a frontal assault on that position, or are you going to hit them with > heavy weapons and other means, like the flaming diesel fuel, which you > can use from a position of relative safety? There was only 1 way into the basement. The men had retreated down into the basement when chaos broke out. The Alliance troops on the ground notified the US and requested help. They also told them Swann was dead - the 1st US casualty in "combat". Our response was to begin bombing the shit out of the fortress, within hours. I question the judgement here because the accounts from journalists on the ground sound very much like we had a knee jerk reaction to the death of 1 CIA agent. First of all, they retreated into the basement. They were trapped. There were no hostages, nobody was in any immediate danger. They were holed up, and not actively on the offensive at the time we retaliated. What was the hurry? Why not wait them out? Bring in reinforcements on the ground? Attempt a negotiated surrender of those who wanted to try to come out (although I suspect anyone who tried to give himself up would have been killed by his zealot brothers in arms in the basement). We could have told them to strip and come out 1 at a time with arms on their heads thereby avoiding any hidden explosives. Why weren't they thoroughly checked in the first place? Hell, they weren't searched AT ALL. They voluntarily laid down their guns and got into line to be transported. What, we just assume because their commander surrendered them we should trust that nobody had a grenade up their sleeve? It just doesn't add up. > I know If I were the commander, which course of action I'd have to > follow. My first responsiblity would be to my own troops. Many of whom were severely injured when we started dropping bombs right next to them. ~N~ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:01:04 -0500 From: Vicki Cain Subject: Re: his point at Eric wrote: > Vicki Cain wrote in > <3C162C0D.55E83822@spamstop.com>: > >What's even more surprising is that Kenya is a relatively stable and > >democratic third world country. How could we even begin to tell people > >in Columbia or Rwanda that they just need to fend for themselves when > >they face the very real threat of being murdered on a daily basis? If we > >have the means to provide it, don't they deserve any kind of help or > >protection from us? > > See, I just don't think that it is the place of the United States to act as > a World Police. All governments arise out of chaos; a long, long time ago, > there were none at all. I don't even think that we would be a positive > catalyst in stimulating this process. > > The United States government can't protect its *own* citizens on its own > streets in its own cities... why would we think that it would do a better > job in Kenya? At least in the US, people have choices and options, and to some extent are protected by law--as are people in Kenya. I was only using Kenya as an example of a thriving democratic country that isn't nearly as "free" of a place as what we (US, Canada, Britain, etc.) take for granted. I was referring more to people of places such as Afghanistan, Rwanda, Columbia, the Phillippines--places where the government does NOT protect its citizens. Human rights are human rights, and why shouldn't the US supply as much assistance as possible to help people who are being oppressed against inhumane control? We have the money and the means. I happen to believe that human beings deserve to be treated as human beings--no matter where they happen to have been born. Of course, I do agree with your comment about how we don't care for our own. That's been one thorn in my side since this whole administration took office. Then, when Ms. Bush appealed to our sympathies about all the children in Afghanistan without proper health care, I was fuming! There are currently *millions* of children in this country who have no health insurance, and her husband is doing absolutely nothing about that. Also, if he had his way, I'm sure he'd cut back the funds that are currently allowed even more. Dang it! There goes my blood pressure again. > > >What the heck is *this* all about? Britian vs America? Criminy, I think > >we already have enough battles going on these days to start turning on > >each other. > > As a side note, my British friends call the 4th of July, "the day we finally > got rid of you." =) Wow. I'm sorry. I sincerely hope they're joking. Otherwise, you should probably maybe think about getting better friends. The old "with friends like that..." saga. Actually, I've never gotten that kind of an attitude from any Brits. Even when I traveled in England, I only met very friendly and warm people. In fact, one night in Exeter, my sister and I were exhausted, and had originally planned on grabbing dinner in a pub, then going to bed early. However, the folks in the pub found out we were from the US, and wouldn't let us leave until we'd answered all their questions (and vice versa) about differences/similarities about life in America/Britain. We spent the next four hours discussing things like cost of living vs. average salaries, drunk driving laws, even insurance and health care. It was very informative and fun, and we all realized there are a lot more differences than we all thought. For example, they thought every American is armed at all times, and were shocked to find out that not only did we not even own handguns, but that we didn't know anyone else who did. Conversely, we were shocked to find that a new bottom-of-the-line Honda started at around $13,000 compared with the $5,000 in the US (this was in 1990), and that minimum wages in England were approximately half of the US. No wonder they all thought we were rich. One woman at a petrol station in Liverpool said, "You know what? You're probably going to see more of England in one week than most of us will in our lives." She then invited us down to join her and her friends at a pub that night. Nope. I certainly don't share your unpleasant opinions of folks in the British Isles. From London to Liverpool to Glastonbury to Hay-on-Wye to Exeter, they all treated us very well. > > >You know, even though I think the system could use some overhauling > >(maybe eliminating the electoral college altogether), I basically have > >to agree here. How many other countries could have had the election that > >we just did, and yet still see a peaceful transition of power? I can't > >think of many. There would have been assassinations and revolutions. I > >think we can be proud of the fact that for the most part, Americans do > >respect the laws regarding their governmental policies. Although it > >ain't a perfect set-up, I think one of the main reasons that our > >government is as strong as it is, is the fact that it was set up to be a > >continual work in progress. It evolves as we do. (Oh yeah, that checks > >and balances thing was a good idea, too.) > > I don't think that it needs to be overhauled at all. I am continually > amazed by the foresight that our founding fathers had in crafting our > government (well, their second attempt, at least). The day the electoral > college is replaced will be the day that all of the sudden no presidential > candidates cares about the interests of citizens living in Alaska, Delaware, > Rhode Island, etc. I've got news for you...they don't care now. The problem I have with the system is that it's a weighted system. A vote in California (55 electoral votes) doesn't have the same amount of weight as the weight of someone in, say, Wyoming (3 electoral votes). A single vote in Wyoming has much more power to turn the state over to one candidate or the other than a single vote in California. And that's wrong. In fact, I'd be willing to think that if we eliminated the electoral system, that the candidates would actually be *more* concerned with the votes in the less-populated states because single votes do add up. For example: Rudy Perpich was the governor of Minnesota for 3 terms and he was elected without ever carrying the Twin Cities. That was because he campaigned nearly exclusively in the Iron Range and rural Minnesota. The same thing could be true if the electoral college was eliminated. Someone could actually become President without carrying the larger states, and the way it's currently set up, that's almost impossible to accomplish. Doesn't that sound even more fair? Cookie ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:27:05 GMT From: "Chris K @*_*@" Subject: Re: his point at Eric wrote: > Love it. I wouldn't give up states' rights for the world. wouldn't you rather have your vote count directly in the election? Christine. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 2001 00:36:45 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) wrote in <20011211192202.15602.00001757@mb-mp.aol.com>: > So if it happens here too, what's the problem? (Kidding, kidding..) No, but you really have a good point. My friend told me the other day that he's going to sell his car to pay off his $2000 credit card bill (among other debts). I wouldn't think of blaming Visa, though -- he is an adult capable of making his own personal decisions, and it's his own dumb fault for trying to spend what he didn't have! - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 2001 00:37:48 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point "Chris K @*_*@" wrote in <3C16EA24.6076B67C@ehmail.com>: > You *like* the Electoral College when voting for > our president? Love it. I wouldn't give up states' rights for the world. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 2001 23:15:22 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point (oops, correction) "A.J. LoCicero" wrote in <3C1639DB.54C89164@locicero.org>: >You are missing his point Eric. You're right, I totally did miss his point. Thanks for clearing this up -- I think that everyone is on the same page on this one. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 2001 23:22:44 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Message to Lori! Lori, _Please_ see if you can find a option or preference in your newsreader that makes it not post in HTML... I really want to read your responses, but the HTML tags are making me go dizzy! Relieved that exams are over and about to read a week's worth of Usenet, Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 2001 00:08:32 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point Vicki Cain wrote in <3C162C0D.55E83822@spamstop.com>: >What's even more surprising is that Kenya is a relatively stable and >democratic third world country. How could we even begin to tell people >in Columbia or Rwanda that they just need to fend for themselves when >they face the very real threat of being murdered on a daily basis? If we >have the means to provide it, don't they deserve any kind of help or >protection from us? See, I just don't think that it is the place of the United States to act as a World Police. All governments arise out of chaos; a long, long time ago, there were none at all. I don't even think that we would be a positive catalyst in stimulating this process. The United States government can't protect its *own* citizens on its own streets in its own cities... why would we think that it would do a better job in Kenya? >What the heck is *this* all about? Britian vs America? Criminy, I think >we already have enough battles going on these days to start turning on >each other. As a side note, my British friends call the 4th of July, "the day we finally got rid of you." =) >You know, even though I think the system could use some overhauling >(maybe eliminating the electoral college altogether), I basically have >to agree here. How many other countries could have had the election that >we just did, and yet still see a peaceful transition of power? I can't >think of many. There would have been assassinations and revolutions. I >think we can be proud of the fact that for the most part, Americans do >respect the laws regarding their governmental policies. Although it >ain't a perfect set-up, I think one of the main reasons that our >government is as strong as it is, is the fact that it was set up to be a >continual work in progress. It evolves as we do. (Oh yeah, that checks >and balances thing was a good idea, too.) I don't think that it needs to be overhauled at all. I am continually amazed by the foresight that our founding fathers had in crafting our government (well, their second attempt, at least). The day the electoral college is replaced will be the day that all of the sudden no presidential candidates cares about the interests of citizens living in Alaska, Delaware, Rhode Island, etc. But I agree that we should be proud that our election was peaceful and fair. I'm proud to be an American. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 2001 00:33:59 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point "A.J. LoCicero" wrote in <3C163794.AC593C45@locicero.org>: >You and I more or less agree on the necessary response to >Sept. 11th, but I have to say that Richard is correct when he says that >it is ultimately not in our best interest (as slavery was not) to >continue exploiting 3rd world countries in a colonial fashion. We DO >need to fix that. I just don't think that it is a panacea for our >terrorist problem. But unfortunately, the United States does not run the IMF. Regardless, I don't see how you can put legal contracts (IMF) and slavery on the same level. >> Likewise, you could say that countries like the United States who, out >> of the goodness of their hearts, offer aid to struggling countries >> have two options: provide aid to countries while assuring that their >> interests remain secure, or provide blind aid with no assurance of >> retribution. > >You are confusing trade and aid here. They are separate concepts. I'm not following here. >Of course it is, but it is also ridiculous to make other countries take >loans that they desperately need only under conditions that will ensure >that they will NOT be able to pay them back. That is what Richard is >saying. It is like the way credit card companies ensnare people in this >country. Get them in your debt and keep them there. And what I'm saying is, who is _making_ them take loans? To follow-up on your credit card example, I get offered tons of credit cards all the time, usually enticed by free t-shirts or fake Oakley sunglasses for signing up. However, I never fill out the paperwork because I know that I would run up a huge balance I couldn't pay off and be indebted to them. But I wouldn't dare recommend that the credit card companies shut down. >There was no IMF 200 years ago. (And BTW, most of those countries were >self-sufficient 200 years ago. It wasn't until the west came in and >colonized that the economic problems began) There was a good amount of trade 200 years ago. But regardless, just like you said, there was no IMF 200 years ago... and yet the United States did just fine. >No, they are not, but you've put spin on the discussion and you don't >even realize it. It isn't "British coercion" and "American reasonable >outreach". In 1776 the king didn't see himself as being coercive. From >his perspective he was putting down a rebellion against his lawful >government. He was protecting the interests (both economic and social) >of his loyal subjects. He was, in short looking out for the interests >of his country. That was his job. We didn't see it like that, but the >British view is no less accurate. It is all spin. I don't see where the spin is. In 1776, the king said, "Do this and do that, or I'll send troops to live in your house, at which time you must feed them and give them whiskey." Is this what the US is now doing? >In the same way Western economic policies (again we are talking trade, >not aid here) can seem at once reasonable from our perspective and >totally onerous from theirs. Of course they won't like our trade policies, because we have absolute advantages in the production of almost everything. Is that our fault? >He means The West more than you personally. I'm sure Richard is happy >for you to give money to whomever you want to (except the IRA). But his >point is that the developed countries have a responsibility to the >emerging ones. As a Libertarian, you probably won't agree with that, so >I'd say the two of you are at an impasse there. Pretty much. >> It tells me that foreigners ignorant to American election policy (and, >> for that matter, ignorant American citizens) see it as an easy way to >> insult my country because they don't understand it. My grandparents, >> aggravated with the election results, tried to use the same argument >> as you, but after I explained to them why it was necessary, they >> understood completely. > >Necessary??? It was a botched election! The whole fucking state should >have revoted. It was a travesty against democracy. Not to mention that >there is NO good argument that I've ever heard that can excuse the >dinosaur that is the electoral college. Don't get me started. Grrrr. At first, I may have agreed with you. But when I looked at both sides, I realized that the election was 100% legal. A good argument for the electoral college? Our forefathers realized the need for power to reside in the states, which is why states and not individuals cast votes for the president. Unfortunately, we have steadily moved away from this model in the past 100 years, and the result has been outrageous federal taxes (OK, maybe not when compared to Europe, but still), a dispicable federal bureaucracy, and the federal government bullying the states (for instance, threatening to withold federal highway funding if states didn't raise the legal drinking age to 21). - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:55:28 -0500 From: Lori Martin Subject: Re: Message to Lori! at Eric wrote: > > Lori, > > _Please_ see if you can find a option or preference in your newsreader that > makes it not post in HTML... whooops! Very very sorry about that -- I didn't realise it was doing that; it didn't show up as html tags in my inbox. Hopefully I've corrected that situation now. Someone please let me know if my posts are still full of offensive tags. I *still* wish the mail gateway was functioning properly, though. Cos? Anyone? - -- Lori ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 03:56:11 GMT From: "Chris K @*_*@" Subject: Re: Message to Lori! Lori Martin wrote: > at Eric wrote: > > > > Lori, > > > > _Please_ see if you can find a option or > > preference in your newsreader that > > makes it not post in HTML... > > whooops! Very very sorry about that -- I didn't realise it was > doing that; it didn't show up as html tags in my inbox. > > Hopefully I've corrected that situation now. Someone please let > me know if my posts are still full of offensive tags. Yes Lori...your tags are very offensive! I mean, you weren't up all night wondering if Eric could read your posts or not? SHAME ON YOU! Christine. ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #337 ********************************************