2000 From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #623 Dead-Flames Digest #623, Volume #48 Thu, 20 Oct 05 17:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Carlisle") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (JC Martin) Re: Dead sighting ("Carlisle") Re: An update from college! (ndc) ("Dave Kelly") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Carlisle") Re: Robert Hunter Journal update, 10/14/05 ("DanPopp") Re: "Jerry and Friends" show ID help? ("Mizshely") Re: An update from college! (ndc) (JimK) The Best Hangover Movie ("Dave Kelly") Re: Robert Hunter Journal update, 10/14/05 ("RandyStoner") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Ray") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Carlisle") Re: Robert Hunter Journal update, 10/14/05 ("Sparky the Wonder Dog") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Ray") Re: 'Crony-ism' - is this a word ??? (kamchatka1@gmail.com) Re: An update from college! (ndc) ("Richard Morris") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 20 Oct 2005 11:56:16 -0700 Ray wrote: > JC Martin wrote: > > I hear ya. I still think however this is about Scooter and Rove. Very > > unlikely that Cheney falls on this one. It's doubtful IMO that Cheney > > even gave a direct order to reveal Plame's name > > I agree, although remember that this went down when BushCo was > seemingly invincible and the media were their lap dogs. It's possible > that Cheney might have become overconfident and slipped up here, as > Rove and Libby apparently did. > > > and even if he did, it > > would be hard to prove. > > Agreed. I doubt we'll see charges against Cheney. > > > But let's face it, they're gonna > > have 2 new Supreme Court justices before it's all said and done...quite > > an accomplishment for the Republican Party and conservatives in general. > > Agreed, although if Miers is confirmed many Republicans will disagree. > Including Robert Bork, who came to the opposite conclusion: > > "With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president > has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and > imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation > of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the > conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work--for liberals." > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007424 > > Ray Good link. Regardless of your political perspective, the Wall Street Journal is a great newspaper. The Weekend & Personal Journals are worth their weight in gold. Even the pro-business Opinion section offers differing and informative perspectives. I learned alot about economics from Robert Bartley himself. The WSJ makes a good counterbalance to most city papers. Although, it will probably dwarf most other news in the quality, intelligence and content departments. Food for thought anyway!! cheers, Carrie ps-Robert Bork is a reactionary grouch with a grudge. ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:02:14 GMT Ray wrote: > JC Martin wrote: > >>I hear ya. I still think however this is about Scooter and Rove. Very >>unlikely that Cheney falls on this one. It's doubtful IMO that Cheney >>even gave a direct order to reveal Plame's name > > > I agree, although remember that this went down when BushCo was > seemingly invincible and the media were their lap dogs. It's possible > that Cheney might have become overconfident and slipped up here, as > Rove and Libby apparently did. > > >>and even if he did, it >>would be hard to prove. > > > Agreed. I doubt we'll see charges against Cheney. > > >>But let's face it, they're gonna >>have 2 new Supreme Court justices before it's all said and done...quite >>an accomplishment for the Republican Party and conservatives in general. > > > Agreed, although if Miers is confirmed many Republicans will disagree. > Including Robert Bork, who came to the opposite conclusion: > > "With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president > has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and > imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation > of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the > conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work--for liberals." > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007424 Personally, I think she's the following type. I see her aligning with Roberts and Thomas on a variety of issues, possibly including abortion. One never knows however. But from what I've gathered she's a less independent thinker than O'Connor and tends to see life through the lens of her faith. She's also another corporate type...the true wet dream of the agnostic neo-con elite. -JC ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: Dead sighting Date: 20 Oct 2005 12:03:28 -0700 Yeah my mom had some "culture shock" when she went with me to a Jerry show in '89!! HA! She still talks about all the stoned people and the guys in skirts. What did she expect? She parked it at the very back of the lawn at Merriweather Post. That's where everyone goes to trip out. Right?! In all good time- cpc ------------------------------ From: "Dave Kelly" Subject: Re: An update from college! (ndc) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:35:23 GMT "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message news:1129816141.461274.214440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > My daughter sent me this short video, it looks like things are going > very well so far! Check is in the mail, honey. * Oh GREAT!...so we're gonna be subjected to this shtick for the next 4...er...I mean 5 years? ( Nantuckets kid graduating in 4 yrears?...My bad! LOL!) Sweet-Pants ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 20 Oct 2005 13:40:47 -0700 Carlisle wrote: > Ray wrote: > > JC Martin wrote: > > > I hear ya. I still think however this is about Scooter and Rove. Very > > > unlikely that Cheney falls on this one. It's doubtful IMO that Cheney > > > even gave a direct order to reveal Plame's name > > > > I agree, although remember that this went down when BushCo was > > seemingly invincible and the media were their lap dogs. It's possible > > that Cheney might have become overconfident and slipped up here, as > > Rove and Libby apparently did. > > > > > and even if he did, it > > > would be hard to prove. > > > > Agreed. I doubt we'll see charges against Cheney. > > > > > But let's face it, they're gonna > > > have 2 new Supreme Court justices before it's all said and done...quite > > > an accomplishment for the Republican Party and conservatives in general. > > > > Agreed, although if Miers is confirmed many Republicans will disagree. > > Including Robert Bork, who came to the opposite conclusion: > > > > "With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president > > has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and > > imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation > > of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the > > conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work--for liberals." > > > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007424 > > > > Ray > > Good link. Regardless of your political perspective, the Wall Street > Journal is a great newspaper. The Weekend & Personal Journals are worth > their weight in gold. Even the pro-business Opinion section offers > differing and informative perspectives. I learned alot about economics > from Robert Bartley himself. The WSJ makes a good co 2000 unterbalance to > most city papers. Although, it will probably dwarf most other news in > the quality, intelligence and content departments. Food for thought > anyway!! > cheers, > Carrie > > ps-Robert Bork is a reactionary grouch with a grudge. I'll let you in on another secret for good material- http://www.nationalreview.com/ NR is against the drug war and is not as pro-business as the WSJ. However, the magazine has a deep regard for the Roman Catholic traditions a la the Buckley family. Still it's very entertaining, erudite and suprisingly unorthodox in politics. cc ------------------------------ From: "DanPopp" Subject: Re: Robert Hunter Journal update, 10/14/05 Date: 20 Oct 2005 14:12:28 -0700 Don't forget Cole Porter ------------------------------ From: "Mizshely" Subject: Re: "Jerry and Friends" show ID help? Date: 20 Oct 2005 14:26:08 -0700 There's a lot of mislabeled tapes floating around out there. I remember Jerry's jam sessions at the Matrix were always on MONDAY nights. I was there for almost all of them. By virtue of this being called a Tuesday session it looks suspicious to me. ------------------------------ From: JimK Subject: Re: An update from college! (ndc) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:33:38 -0400 Reply-To: jkezwind@comcast.net On 20 Oct 2005 10:05:45 -0700, "Rogues Island's finest" wrote: > >k sturm wrote: >> "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message >> news:1129816141.461274.214440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > My daughter sent me this short video, it looks like things are going >> > very well so far! Check is in the mail, honey. >> > >> > http://www.collegehumor.com/movies/1616564 >> > >> > Mark >> > >> >> Ummm, what video?? > >Oh well, sorry 'bout that. For whatever reason it is gone now. Lets >just say that it was a fine example of the perils of overindulgence. > >Mark Okay. It was a fine example of the perils of overindulgence. JimK ------------------------------ From: "Dave Kelly" Subject: The Best Hangover Movie Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:48:00 GMT Road House (1989) Patrick Swayze at his peak...kickin' ass and taking names at the "Double Deuce"...that blind motherfucker, Jeff Healy, kicks out the jams in the house band...they also give him a few lines of dialogue.....fuckin' hysterical!....this dude acts as well as he sees...the blonde chick, Kelly Lynch, was a goddamn hottie...where is she now?...Ben Gazzara gives a master class on over acting...absolutely essential viewing after a night of heavy drinking. Runners Up: Smokey & the Bandit 1&2 Disorderlys ( The Fat Boys ) Caddyshack ------------------------------ From: "RandyStoner" Subject: Re: Robert Hunter Journal update, 10/14/05 Date: 20 Oct 2005 15:06:25 -0700 DanPopp wrote: > Don't forget Cole Porter Who? Randy Stoner Always true in my fashion. ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 20 Oct 2005 15:08:17 -0700 Carlisle wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > Ray wrote: > > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007424 > > > > > > Ray > > > > Good link. Regardless of your political perspective, the Wall Street > > Journal is a great newspaper. The Weekend & Personal Journals are worth > > their weight in gold. Even the pro-business Opinion section offers > > differing and informative perspectives. I learned alot about economics > > from Robert Bartley himself. The WSJ makes a good counterbalance to > > most city papers. Although, it will probably dwarf most other news in > > the quality, intelligence and content departments. Food for thought > > anyway!! The WSJ's regular coverage is generally great - a high quality paper. Their newspaper editorials are ridiculously conservatively biased however - to the point that they are often either willfully distort the truth or they don't know what they are talking about. Or, as the New Republic amusingly put it, WSJ editorials are so extreme that they have "the occasional capacity to rise above the routine moral callousness of hack conservative punditry and attain a level of exquisite depravity normally reserved for villains in James Bond movies." But again their general, non-editorial coverage is first-rate. > I'll let you in on another secret for good material- > http://www.nationalreview.com/ > NR is against the drug war and is not as pro-business as the WSJ. > However, the magazine has a deep regard for the Roman Catholic > traditions a la the Buckley family. Still it's very entertaining, > erudite and suprisingly unorthodox in politics. Sorry - can't go with you there. The National Review is a right-wing rag that routinely grossly distorts the truth, knowingly, because they don't know what they are talking about, and/or because they are so blinded by their ideology that they don't even realize how distorted their coverage is. It's like reading a collection of WSJ editorials. Ray ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 20 Oct 2005 15:25:20 -0700 Ray wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > Carlisle wrote: > > > Ray wrote: > > > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007424 > > > > > > > > Ray > > > > > > Good link. Regardless of your political perspective, the Wall Street > > > Journal is a great newspaper. The Weekend & Personal Journals are worth > > > their weight in gold. Even the pro-business Opinion section offers > > > differing and informative perspectives. I learned alot about economics > > > from Robert Bartley himself. The WSJ makes a good counterbalance to > > > most city papers. Although, it will probably dwarf most other news in > > > the quality, intelligence and content departments. Food for thought > > > anyway!! > > The WSJ's regular coverage is generally great - a high quality paper. > Their newspaper editorials are ridiculously conservatively biased > however - to the point that they are often either willfully distort the > truth or they don't know what they are talking about. Or, as the New > Republic amusingly put it, WSJ editorials are so extreme that they have > "the occasional capacity to rise above the routine moral callousness of > hack conservative punditry and attain a level of exquisite depravity > normally reserved for villains in James Bond movies." But again their > general, non-editorial coverage is first-rate. > > > I'll let you in on another secret for good material- > > http://www.nationalreview.com/ > > NR is against the drug war and is not as pro-business as the WSJ. > > However, the magazine has a deep regard for the Roman Catholic > > traditions a la the Buckley family. Still it's very entertaining, > > erudite and suprisingly unorthodox in politics. > > Sorry - can't go with you there. The National Review is a right-wing > rag that routinely grossly distorts the truth, knowingly, because they > don't know what they are talking about, and/or because they are so > blinded by their ideology that they don't even realize how distorted > their coverage is. It's like reading a collection of WSJ editorials. > > Ray You're obviously a very learned man, Ray. But to call NR a rag may be taking it a bit too far...You just don't happen to agree with most of what they are saying. Some people would claim that OpinionJournal.com is too biased conservative, but you've used them for quotes to further your arguments. You may get some good material from NR sometime. I'm not being factitious. Check this out-- http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html I'm just sayin'...;} peace, CC "Just Say Know"-Dr. Timothy Leary ------------------------------ From: "Sparky the Wonder Dog" Subject: Re: Robert Hunter Journal update, 10/14/05 Date: 2 1dfc 0 Oct 2005 16:00:04 -0700 Robert's lyrics have a big heart--he's a deeply moral individual--the songs he helped create in his youth helped many of us get our bearings over the years and prepare us for these trials that, in the end, cannot be beaten into submission or mastered. May he always walk on the sunny side of the street. ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 20 Oct 2005 16:07:01 -0700 Carlisle wrote: > Ray wrote: > > Carlisle wrote: > > > Carlisle wrote: > > > > Ray wrote: > > > > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007424 > > > > > > > > > > Ray > > > > > > > > Good link. Regardless of your political perspective, the Wall Street > > > > Journal is a great newspaper. The Weekend & Personal Journals are worth > > > > their weight in gold. Even the pro-business Opinion section offers > > > > differing and informative perspectives. I learned alot about economics > > > > from Robert Bartley himself. The WSJ makes a good counterbalance to > > > > most city papers. Although, it will probably dwarf most other news in > > > > the quality, intelligence and content departments. Food for thought > > > > anyway!! > > > > The WSJ's regular coverage is generally great - a high quality paper. > > Their newspaper editorials are ridiculously conservatively biased > > however - to the point that they are often either willfully distort the > > truth or they don't know what they are talking about. Or, as the New > > Republic amusingly put it, WSJ editorials are so extreme that they have > > "the occasional capacity to rise above the routine moral callousness of > > hack conservative punditry and attain a level of exquisite depravity > > normally reserved for villains in James Bond movies." But again their > > general, non-editorial coverage is first-rate. > > > > > I'll let you in on another secret for good material- > > > http://www.nationalreview.com/ > > > NR is against the drug war and is not as pro-business as the WSJ. > > > However, the magazine has a deep regard for the Roman Catholic > > > traditions a la the Buckley family. Still it's very entertaining, > > > erudite and suprisingly unorthodox in politics. > > > > Sorry - can't go with you there. The National Review is a right-wing > > rag that routinely grossly distorts the truth, knowingly, because they > > don't know what they are talking about, and/or because they are so > > blinded by their ideology that they don't even realize how distorted > > their coverage is. It's like reading a collection of WSJ editorials. > > > > Ray > > You're obviously a very learned man, Ray. But to call NR a rag may be > taking it a bit too far...You just don't happen to agree with most of > what they are saying. No, the National Review is a rag. And it's not because I don't usually agree with what they are saying, or just because they've declared Rush Limbaugh to be the 'leader' of the conservative cause. It's because, like Limbaugh, much of what they say is flat-out wrong or deceptive - they are not a reliable source of information. Here's an example: The National Review, in their ongoing effort to smear White House critic Joe Wilson, ran a 2004 article accusing Wilson of lying in his now-famous 2003 NYTimes article questioning the Administration's rational for going to war. Per the National Review: "But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV - he of the Hermes ties and Jaguar convertibles - has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies." http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp This declaration is itself a gross distorion - the "bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report" concluded no such thing. Only the Republicans on the committee declared as much - the Democrats on the committee refused to endorse that conclusion. The NR article continues: "In particular he [Wilson] said that President Bush was lying when, in his 2003 State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This too is false: in his 2003 NYTimes op-ed piece Wilson did not say that Bush was lying when he used those "16 words" in his 2003 SOTU address. The National Review is lying, and it's such a flagrant lie that even I am amazed at their audacity and blatent disregard for the truth here - especially given the irony that this article of theirs is an attempt at character assassination where they are trying to impugn someone else as a liar. But hey, all's fair in love and politics, right? ### Disgusting. The National Review is indeed a rag. > Some people would claim that OpinionJournal.com > is too biased conservative, but you've used them for quotes to further > your arguments. OpinionJournal.com is not the same thing as WJS editorials - OpinionJournal.com has a much wider range of voices than just the notoriously right-wing WSJ editors. > You may get some good material from NR sometime. I'm > not being factitious. Check this out-- > http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html *Sometimes* - sure. Even a clock is right twice a day, as they say. But in general they are unreliable as a source of information. Ray ------------------------------ From: kamchatka1@gmail.com Subject: Re: 'Crony-ism' - is this a word ??? Date: 20 Oct 2005 16:38:36 -0700 what i am more worried about is "Crosby-ism"... ------------------------------ From: "Richard Morris" Subject: Re: An update from college! (ndc) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:59:21 -0700 "k sturm" wrote in message news:6dQ5f.862$Lv.578@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net... > > "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message > news:1129827945.635070.29520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> k sturm wrote: >>> "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message >>> news:1129816141.461274.214440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> > My daughter sent me this short video, it looks like things are going >>> > very well so far! Check is in the mail, honey. >>> > >>> > http://www.collegehumor.com/movies/1616564 >>> > >>> > Mark >>> > >>> >>> Ummm, what video?? >> >> Oh well, sorry 'bout that. For whatever reason it is gone now. Lets >> just say that it was a fine example of the perils of overindulgence. >> >> Mark >> > > Oh, well since I have a kid in his second year of college, maybe it's > better that I don't see it anyway. I'd much rather delude myself that the > kid spends his free time studying. I am sure that they do ... studying *what* is the question! R. ------------------------------ ** 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 ****************************** . 0