From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #337 Dead-Flames Digest #337, Volume #48 Mon, 19 Sep 05 22:00:02 PDT Contents: Re: Neil Young Prarie Wind (Joe) Good music on TV tonight... (The Lord of Eltingville) Re: Clinton interviews.. (Joe) Re: Any Tour shirts you wish you still had? (Joe) Re: The REAL Disaster (NDC) ("Richard Morris") Re: 700 Dead in Chicago!...President/FEMA fail to act! ("pv34pv3p") Re: The REAL Disaster (NDC) ("Richard Morris") thank me later ("ck") Re: 700 Dead in Chicago!...President/FEMA fail to act! (Joe) Re: (NDC): Head for the mountains! Bush!! (Joe) Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! ("Ray") Re: thank me later ("ck") Re: Any Tour shirts you wish you still had? ("Rupert") Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! ("Ray") Re: 700 Dead in Chicago!...President/FEMA fail to act! ("pv34pv3p") Re: The REAL Disaster (NDC) (Tim Donohoe) Re: thank me later (Joe) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Subject: Re: Neil Young Prarie Wind Date: 20 Sep 2005 04:01:39 GMT I just spent the last 2 hours, listening to a 45 minute RealAudio interview from yesterday on NPR with Neil Young about Prairie Wind (note: it came in perfect on dial-up, not a single glitch) and the entire album at: Thank me later. Joe ------------------------------ From: The Lord of Eltingville Subject: Good music on TV tonight... Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:40:32 -0400 It looks like it might be worth heading into the other room and checking out the late nite talks shows. Jay Leno: B.B. King Jimmy Kimmel: Damian Marley David Letterman: Buckwheat Zydeco ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: Clinton interviews.. Date: 20 Sep 2005 04:19:00 GMT Hateful Matt chooses "Joe" for $200. He steps away from his genetically engineered fast food, up to the keybord, and spits out an inane, silly challenge of the feeblest kind: > Yo dummy, shall we tally the number of times in the past week that you > followed-up your own posts, in converstational style no less (unlike my > fair observational follow-up), like you're talking to yourself. Thanks for asking, Hateful Matt. Why, yes, please be my guest and re-read each and every one of my posts for the past week. Re-read and digest, and then re-read again. Until you finally get it. Class dismissed. Joe ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: Any Tour shirts you wish you still had? Date: 20 Sep 2005 04:23:43 GMT The Lord of Eltingville wrote: > I'm still not sure if he expected us to stand there and wait for him to > come back to claim his hash, but we hotfooted it back to our seats a > couple sections away and kept a low profile for the rest of the night. Ted's as honest as a Boston man can be. Joe ------------------------------ From: "Richard Morris" Subject: Re: The REAL Disaster (NDC) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:25:24 -0700 "king88uy7" wrote in message news:1127177833.825920.155480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Can any one of you explain why you have so much white guilt ? Can you explain why you cannot address your remarks to the individual that you would like to question? > Do you > own slaves ? Do you wish you could own slaves ? Did your family used > to own slaves ? You don't have to accept responsibility for something > that was done by people with your same skin color. We don't blame all > black people for the actons of a few, do you see how it goes both ways > ? Ahh, now without the white guilt, we can look at things a little > more objectively. I challenge you to point to one assertion that anyone has posted regarding the current collective responsibility of white people for black people's circumstances, and the concommitant blame. > About 50 years ago, the Japanese suffered horrible racial prejudice in > this country due to WW2. There was Pearl Harbor, detainment camps, > etc... Really horrible stuff. We also destroyed their country with > nuclear bombs. But look at the Japanese in Japan and in the US today. > They are doing fine. There is lots of racism that still exists today > against the Japanese and asians in general. But they succeed in the > states. (About 60 years ago) So, you would compare the short term ... about five or six years ... incarceration of previously free and educated people with the systematic enslavement of black people occuring over what ... a period of 150 years? During which time they were not educated, and deemed to be racially inferior. Murdered, raped ... owned as chattel. Do you really see the two circumstances as equivalent? And why does it really matter? Both situations are in the past. > Why is that ? Is it because they have a superior race ? Is it because > whitey gave them a "hand up" ? Because they were educated, their family structure was intact, and they had not had their values and culture taken from them, maybe? > Black people in the states will succeed when they take responsibility > for themselves. There are plenty of opportunities in this country for > everyone of every color, but you have to be responsible for yourself. > The true racism is believing black people can't succeed without > whitey's help. You beg the question. The discussion here has been whether or not there exist barriers to black Americans that get in the way of their success. And why certain black people do not seem to be bought into the contemporary American society. It has been argued that some of barriers exist in society, and some of them exist within the culture of the larger black community as self-perception. All have agreed that responsibility and self-determination are key issues, and a necessary condition for black folks to be successful. Some would maintain that responsibility and self-determination alone are not, however, sufficient conditions for success in this culture. It has also been asserted that as the dominant culture, white people can be of assistance to the effort of black people to achieve success. No one has implied that such assistance need to be paternalistic or dependency-creating. So, in short ... you have created a straw man. And yer another one of those folks who believe that black folks just need to get up offa their lazy asses and get to work. Right? Isn't that really what you are saying? R. ------------------------------ From: "pv34pv3p" Subject: Re: 700 Dead in Chicago!...President/FEMA fail to act! Date: 19 Sep 2005 21:25:57 -0700 Sorry DG...Missed this one.. >What accomplishments give you the arrogance to say "most here don't >recognize there are limits to what any emergency plan can accomplish"? >How do you know what "most" know? The quote came from the author of the book... And I seen my share of EOPS as a Paramedic with Allied in Oakland for many years... Started just before the truck and bus boo booed in the Caldecott in 82... Spent several days without goin home, pullin' remains from the Cypress Structure in 89... Came close to bitin' it in the Caldecott/Berkeley conflageration of 91... Don't even get me goin' on the day to day shit in Oaktown... pv34pv3p(Nobody's rookie...) ------------------------------ From: "Richard Morris" Subject: Re: The REAL Disaster (NDC) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:29:30 -0700 "Tim Donohoe" wrote in message news:YRKXe.13416$x43.2774278@twister.nyc.rr.com... > Sherry wrote: > >>>I contend that black people can be plenty racist regardless of their >>>"position" >> >> >> They can be prejudiced, but racism is about who has power. >> >> Go here, learn: >> >> http://www.learntoquestion.com/class/log/archives/print/000442.html >> >> Sherry in Vermont >> > > When you are in the south bronx, you don't have "the power" > > The store owner in Harlem didn't have "the power" > > The business owners in LA didn't have much power either. Many of whom were > doing business in LA because they couldn't afford to open their shops on > Rodeo drive, some who could barely speak english and ended up in that > neighborhood because they couldn't afford to go anywhere else. When the > shit hit the fan though there were people who immediatly targeted the non > black businesses. That is a pure form of racism. > > 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or > ability and that a particular race is superior to others. > 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. > > No matter how you twist the meaning of the word to avoid hurting people's > feelings, it is still racism by both definitions of the word. > > If you want to get into generational or institutionalized racism that > might be a different story, but when you look at any of the examples I > provided and the definition of racism you can see that black people can be > racists. > > I would post a link to a Farrakhan speech but that might start a whole > week of racism posts. What the fuck is your point? That black people know how to hate? Duh. Thanks for pointing that out. Any other revelations that you care to share? R. ------------------------------ From: "ck" Subject: thank me later Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:31:26 -0400 http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=6947856&style=music&cart=27283 1723 ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: 700 Dead in Chicago!...President/FEMA fail to act! Date: 20 Sep 2005 04:33:05 GMT pv34pv3p wrote: > And I seen my share of EOPS as a Paramedic with Allied in Oakland for > many years... Wait a second, there... Are you saying you're a RWNDH from Oakland? As in Oakland, California? If so, I better re-think my theory that everyone in the SF Bay Area is much more evolved than those in Bush's Fascist States of America. It's back to the drawing board... Joe ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: (NDC): Head for the mountains! Bush!! Date: 20 Sep 2005 04:37:58 GMT Cassady Ginsberg wrote: > See what happens when you deal with a Republican? > First she claims the opposite of what happened is the > truth, then she threatens to send adulterated product > instead of simply paying up on the debt she owes. > Guess ol' Joe was right again.... :-) Aw, shucks. ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! Date: 19 Sep 2005 21:41:52 -0700 Carlisle wrote: > Of course we should act to protect the environment before "it's too > late". You bring up national security. I just don't want to see us > *overact* just like the Bush Administration did on the terror threat. > Follow me? Yes. At the same time, as with the terrorist threat failure to act on the global warming threat may well put us in harm's way. And in the same vein waiting until there is 100% certainty (and 100% agreement amongst scientists) on this issue will -- in reality -- constitute a failure to act. > Government power and largess has grown exponentially under the name of > *fighting terror*..We are now bogged down in Iraq and will need to do > extensive nation building half way around the world all in the name of > "national security"..I just don't want the USA over react regarding the > global warming/climate change matter either. Agreed. Acting, but not acting judiciously, will not make us any "safer" from the threat that we are supposedly addressing - one need only look at Iraq for proof of that. But that shouldn't stop us from acting altogether - we just need to make wise and judicious decisions before we act. > I was under the impression > steps were being taken to make emissions cleaner.. It seems there are > many things the US can do(to have a cleaner/cooler environment) before > accepting those unilateral sacrifices that Kyoto implementation would > call for. You seem knowledgeable enough Ray, what do you propose we do? Well, first of all we need to come to a consensus - or at least come to a committed democratic majority - that we need to actually DO something about this. Many ideologues -- most of whom have no scientific understanding of what they are talking about -- continue to assert that we need still more studying to resolve the 'global warming controversy' before we act (that is, if they even go so far as to recogonize that its a serious issue as opposed to knee-jerk rejection of it as a 'hoax' or a 'myth'). Sure we need plenty more research here, but as most climate scientists -- and moreover the 2003 Pentagon global warming report -- agree, the evidence is in enough so that its now time to act. This first step is huge - as long as we as a society are still spinning our wheels in the "we don't know enough to act" mode (remember: we may *never* know what's up with 100% certainty here) we're dead in the water (no pun originally intended). Once - and if - we get past that first road block, then we need to take a hard look at addressing the practical things that we can do to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is a BIG area, and it would take weeks if nt months to properly cover it all. In brief, however, this includes but is not limited to: increasing CAFE (gas mileage) standards for cars and trucks (including, notably, closing the 'SUV loophole'), modernizing our electricity system (away from coal and towards renewable energy), increasing energy efficiency in homes and businesses (way more energy gets wasted via poor weatherization and the like than most people realize), and vastly ramping up government funding for alternative energy and fuel research (e.g. hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear fusion). Much more info can be found, for example, at the Union of Concerned Scientists' websire, here: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/ That all said, you keep bringing up the Kyoto Accord, which you have repeatedly characterized as being "too radical," "too expensive," "unilateral," and the like. While I too have some problems with the Accord, in general I disagree with your sentiments there. But that's a long topic, and I've written enough on this for today. I'll try to address that issue tomorrow (and if not then then some time soon). > respect. peace, love, and understanding (what's so funny 'bout...), Ray ------------------------------ From: "ck" Subject: Re: thank me later Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:42:59 -0400 "ck" wrote in message news:K_6dncp8WvwKDbLeRVn-rA@adelphia.com... > http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=6947856&style=music&cart=27283 > 1723 > > no thanks due . i found a post from last month.same deal. ------------------------------ From: "Rupert" Subject: Re: Any Tour shirts you wish you still had? Date: 19 Sep 2005 21:47:15 -0700 Come to think of it, when we had the old '74 Volvo wagon/tour mobile, the ratty old tour shirts became really useful covers for the front seats! Hell, switch 'em around whenever you like. ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! Date: 19 Sep 2005 21:47:45 -0700 pv34pv3p wrote: > Hi Ray! Hi troll boy! Hey troll boy: Care to actually engage in real conversation instead of throwing mud and running away when called on it? If so, please directly and honestly answer these questions instead of continuing to throw mud at and/or run away from them: * Do you acknowledge that the Bush Adminstration's response during the first several days of the Katrina disaster was inexcusably poor? (Sorry troll boy - anything less than a "yes" to this question from someone like you who has repeatedly lambasted local and state authorities while leaving the feds of the hook will still leave you as a troll boy, and/or continue to demonstrate that you are such a partisan ideologue that your brain is warped beyond any reasonable understanding of reality.) * And since you brought up federal intervention re- controlling heat wave fatalities, do you agree that the Bush Adminstration shouldn't have rolled back the Clinton Administration standards re- air conditioning units? (And no troll boy - the "it's too expensive for the poor people" argument that you threw out last time around doesn't work. As you would know if you actually read up on the issue, it's more economical for everyone except for certain air conditioning manufacturers and their political beneficiaries to have the higher standards in place.) * Why did you write "Don't start with that global warming shit again either..."? Don't you think that the global warming is a relevent topic when discussing the hazards of heat waves? I look forward to a direct and honest response from you to each of these questions. No worries though troll boy - I'm not holding my breath. with all due respect, Ray ------------------------------ From: "pv34pv3p" Subject: Re: 700 Dead in Chicago!...President/FEMA fail to act! Date: 19 Sep 2005 21:48:09 -0700 >It's back to the drawing board... >Joe That's all anybody's really been askin' ya to do.. . pv34pv3p ------------------------------ From: Tim Donohoe Subject: Re: The REAL Disaster (NDC) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:48:44 GMT Richard Morris wrote: > "Tim Donohoe" wrote in message > news:YRKXe.13416$x43.2774278@twister.nyc.rr.com... > >>Sherry wrote: >> >> >>>>I contend that black people can be plenty racist regardless of their >>>>"position" >>> >>> >>>They can be prejudiced, but racism is about who has power. >>> >>>Go here, learn: >>> >>>http://www.learntoquestion.com/class/log/archives/print/000442.html >>> >>>Sherry in Vermont >>> >> >>When you are in the south bronx, you don't have "the power" >> >>The store owner in Harlem didn't have "the power" >> >>The business owners in LA didn't have much power either. Many of whom were >>doing business in LA because they couldn't afford to open their shops on >>Rodeo drive, some who could barely speak english and ended up in that >>neighborhood because they couldn't afford to go anywhere else. When the >>shit hit the fan though there were people who immediatly targeted the non >>black businesses. That is a pure form of racism. >> >>1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or >>ability and that a particular race is superior to others. >>2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. >> >>No matter how you twist the meaning of the word to avoid hurting people's >>feelings, it is still racism by both definitions of the word. >> >>If you want to get into generational or institutionalized racism that >>might be a different story, but when you look at any of the examples I >>provided and the definition of racism you can see that black people can be >>racists. >> >>I would post a link to a Farrakhan speech but that might start a whole >>week of racism posts. > > > What the fuck is your point? That black people know how to hate? Duh. > Thanks for pointing that out. Any other revelations that you care to share? > > R. > > > Rather than respond like an asshole maybe you should read the short discussion between Roxanne and me. SOP for you to change the subject in the middle of a conversation though, but you are extending that tactic to discussions you aren't involved in now. here is the jist of it: Me: I contend that black people can be plenty racist regardless of their "position" Roxanne: They can be prejudiced, but racism is about who has power. ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: thank me later Date: 20 Sep 2005 04:57:17 GMT ck wrote: > "ck" wrote in message > news:K_6dncp8WvwKDbLeRVn-rA@adelphia.com... > > > http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=6947856&style=music&cart=27283 > > 1723 > > > > > no thanks due . i found a post from last month.same deal. Calling Hateful Matt, calling Hateful Hate. In your hatred, you mistook me for Chris Heresy, a guy who does indeed type to himself. Now, Hateful Matt, make nice or be further ridiculed and verbally slapped around; your choice. Joe ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .