Do any visitors to the site have plans to attend the anti war rally on 15th February??




Stop the War website (http://www.stopwar.org.uk)

I HAVE REALLY GOT TO BE THERE.WE ALL SHOULD.I DON'T LIKE TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO DO BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT.

>>>>> I HAVE REALLY GOT TO BE THERE.WE ALL SHOULD.I DON'T LIKE TELLING PEOPLE
> WHAT TO DO BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT.

Dear Smiths R Us,

One question: are you President Bush? You seem to share both his political views and his literacy "skills". Just wondering. Oh, and one more thing...could you possibly learn to spell before attempting to engage in political "debate"?
Those of us who can read and write properly would appreciate it enormously.

> If we're lucky,

> Saddam and Al Quieda will unleash a mustard gas bomb right where this
> piece of sh*t ralley takes place.

> Why not hold a "Hey Iraq, do what the UN Weapons inspectors
> say!" Ralley?

> I know, because you are all full of crap!

> Dear Smiths R Us,

> One question: are you President Bush? You seem to share both his political
> views and his literacy "skills". Just wondering. Oh, and one
> more thing...could you possibly learn to spell before attempting to engage
> in political "debate"?
> Those of us who can read and write properly would appreciate it
> enormously.

Bush's stupidity and this person's writing ability are not the same thing. Of all the things you could possibly say here, all you could come up with on your own were some cheap shots at Smiths R Us' English usage?

I don't agree with his/her/its politics anymore than you do, but I have to admit that when there is such a perfect window of opportunity to remain intelligent and make excellent points about the politics of this, it's sad that you pass it up for such sorry insults. Why not try again, and this time put some thought into it.

> Dear Smiths R Us,

> One question: are you President Bush? You seem to share both his political
> views and his literacy "skills". Just wondering. Oh, and one
> more thing...could you possibly learn to spell before attempting to engage
> in political "debate"?
> Those of us who can read and write properly would appreciate it
> enormously.

May I reply with a question,

Are you a liberal? Because you definitely seem to subscribe to the same ridiculous argumentative tactics that they do. That's what it all comes down to right, my spelling.

By the way, no, I'm not President Bush, nor am I Tony Blair. Though, I highly respect the both of them.

What really gets me about you tree humping liberals is that you will sit there and defend the a man who gases his own people, yet you claim that the UK/US are evil for going after the guy. Oh, but we're in it for the oil right?

Here's a question. If it was all for the oil, why didn't we take it in 91? We could have come up with plenty of excuses then, but we didn't.

Another question, why are Russia and France so worried about a war with Iraq? Oh, gee uhmmm, it wouldn't happen to be OIL would it? Oh no, just because the French and Nazis...err Germans have oil interests with the Iraqis doesn't mean THEY ARE IN IT FOR THE OIL does it?

Wake up! Sure, every countries got their B.S. problems. But, there is a difference in terms of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the hands of democracies like UK, US, and Isreal, as opposed to nations ran by tyrants.

And, please, if you are going to say, "Well, the US used nukes in Vietnam." Are we really going to have to debate this. I think it's reasonable to say that the use of the bomb in this instance was necessary. Such a massive attack would have occurred regardless (if the vietnamese continued to resist). Execpt, instead of using a bunch of resources and putting more American soldiers at risk, the bomb did the same amount of damage with much less resources disposed of.

Oh, but please, continue on with your making fun of my spelling and grammar. It's what you tree huggers are best at, you know, avoid the real issues at hand.

> Do any visitors to the site have plans to attend the anti war rally on
> 15th February??

Like it or not, war's on. Why waste your time?

Dude, if you are so conservative and patriotic, then stop liking the Smiths and Morrissey, a self-professed faggot who plays whiny jingly pop music that OBVIOUSLY appeals to Birkenstock-wearing lesbians and vegetarians.

Conservative and a Smiths fan? That doesn't mix!

Ted Nugent, that's your man!

Most excellent response, the truly intelligent creature seems to have come up with something very well thought out...despite earlier accusations of George W. Bush syndrome. I applaud you! Where are you from, Smiths R Us?

some of what you said has merit, although your defense of what happened in vietnam is bizarre. talk about a pointless war! (bla bla yes i know a lot of men died or were scarred for life because of the war and i feel bad for them -- but that doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid war).

>>>> Dude, if you are so conservative and patriotic, then stop liking the
Smiths and Morrissey, a self-professed faggot who plays whiny jingly pop
music that OBVIOUSLY appeals to Birkenstock-wearing lesbians and
vegetarians. > Conservative and a Smiths fan? That doesn't mix!> Ted Nugent, that's your man!

>>>>> Most excellent response, the truly intelligent creature seems to have come
up with something very well thought out...despite earlier accusations of
George W. Bush syndrome. I applaud you! Where are you from, Smiths R Us?

>>>>> some of what you said has merit, although your defense of what happened in
> vietnam is bizarre. talk about a pointless war! (bla bla yes i know a lot
> of men died or were scarred for life because of the war and i feel bad for
> them -- but that doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid war).

>>>> Like it or not, war's on. Why waste your time?

i disagree on the entire premise of the war. this is oversimplifying things a bit, i admit, but i think the whole united states obsession with containing and then eliminating communism was completely stupid and shortsighted.

what also annoys me is that i went to school with a lot of vietnamese kids and was friends with many of them, but they had this stupid habit of bitching to me that the u.s. government didn't do enough to help them. it's really irritating how some nations expect us to fight their wars for them and then complain that we aren't thorough enough. my friends used to shut right up when i said that i didn't think we should have gone over in the first place.

that being said, i feel bad for the vietnamese people's plight and all that, but as i've said before, there are two sides to every story. both sides were guilty of some pretty fucked up things -- not just the viet cong.

hey smiths r us,

just so you know, joe is a friend of mine. i've known for some time. he came to this board just to get some jabs in at me really -- i did not invite him. (he's mad because i've neglected him.) don't mind him. he just likes to rile people up.

the old hippy thing is admittedly ignorant. i think most intelligent people have moved beyond that and don't blame the servicemen who go to war for war. they're serving their country and i think most people respect that. just because we don't agree with the war doesn't mean we're trying to denigrate the men and women who fight and die. it's just important to ask why they're fighting and dying.

> And, please, if you are going to say, "Well, the US used nukes in
> Vietnam." Are we really going to have to debate this. I think it's
> reasonable to say that the use of the bomb in this instance was necessary.
> Such a massive attack would have occurred regardless (if the vietnamese
> continued to resist). Execpt, instead of using a bunch of resources and
> putting more American soldiers at risk, the bomb did the same amount of
> damage with much less resources disposed of.

Why would anyone ask about use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam??? Surely nuclear weapons have not been used (except for testing) since World War II..
You're not getting the conflict in Vietnam mixed up with World War II are you??

> Here's a question. If it was all for the oil, why didn't we take it in 91?
> We could have come up with plenty of excuses then, but we didn't.

Alright - here's a question for YOU - Why did the US not prevent all this contemporary anguish by supporting the Kurdish rebellion you encouraged post-Desert Storm? THAT was your best chance to resolve this issue for good, and yet Dubya senior faltered at the endgame (allowing Saddam to use the weapons you now so plaintively whinge about. "He has gassed his own people", Dubya whines, neglecting the next obvious sentence which would be "while we watched, and did nothing"). So instead of having the lives of US soldiers put on the line (as this option would have involved putting ground troops into Iraq) the US is now willing to put the lives of countless thousands of Iraqi citizens on the line by lobbing bombs from on high until they've bombed Iraq into submission.

So don't give me this crap about this war being about the interests of Iraqis. It's not about oil, per se, and it's not about international justice - it's about using September 11 as an excuse to pump up the military-industrial machine run by Bush and Cheney's mates and advance America's interests.

> Wake up! Sure, every countries got their B.S. problems. But, there is a
> difference in terms of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the
> hands of democracies like UK, US, and Isreal, as opposed to nations ran by
> tyrants.

And how do classify Pakistan?

> Oh, but please, continue on with your making fun of my spelling and
> grammar. It's what you tree huggers are best at, you know, avoid the real
> issues at hand.

Cool. The "Isreal" line was a real doozy!

> Why not make send packages to your countries troops that might be heading
> out, risking their lives to provide security for your country. Why not
> send them messages of hope and support.

Because there are greater security threats much closer to home, because the whole premise of this war-in-waiting is utterly debased. I "hope" they never need fire a single shot in anger and I "support" them coming home alive, without having shed blood (others' or their own) needlessly.

> Instead, lets pretty much go say, "F*ck you, you are all risking your
> lives for something that we don't want!"

No - it's "We understand you will do your duty, but F*ck those who decided to send you, when you could be providing meaningful security for our country in so many better ways. And when no-one in South-East Asia will stand beside you/us if that support were ever TRULY needed, f*ck those who ensured you/we would stand alone and undefended as a nation".

> Or how about the old hippie saying, "How many babies did you
> kill?"

Innocents die in war, f*ckstick - that's why it is to be avoided at ALL reasonable costs, but no-one should blame soldiers for doing what's asked of them - we should blame the leaders who ask those things of others from the comfort of Parliament.

i hadn't read the post of smiths r us to which lucky responded to and got shit for. i just did, and, although lucky focused on his spelling and stuff (which i admit isn't the most sophisticated response), smiths did deserve to be taken down a notch or two. his post was inflammatory and just plain childish. why then are people who gave him much deserved shit getting shit?

i'm not flaming smiths r us, but his post really was out of line.

Um, sorry to break up the lovefest, but do either of you realize that the United States did not drop nuclear bombs on Vietnam?

In this entire thread, only Neal has pointed out this fact. Shame on all of you. Reading all this I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Only one other poster in this entire thread has bothered to mention that you meant Japan, not Vietnam.

Your credibility is officially destroyed, as is the credibility of anyone who failed to call you on your unbelievable mistake. Both of you should cease talking about these issues altogether. Talk about music. Talk about your love life. Talk about anything else.

And this is not an issue of "liberal versus conservative" or nitpicking about typos. Any decent conservative would howl with laughter at your blunder and skewer you without breaking a sweat. If you can't even get your countries right, how can you possibly expect to think clearly about any of these important problems?

The Emperor of Vietnam. Really.

i'm sorry. i didn't even realize he said nukes until i looked at it again. i paid enough attention in 11th grade u.s. history to know we didn't nuke vietnam. if we had, i bet the outcome would have been a lot different. my only defense is that i had insomnia last night and wasn't thinking straight. anyway, i never mentioned nukes in any of my posts and instead talked about my opposition to the vietnam war in general.

> Um, sorry to break up the lovefest, but do either of you realize that the
> United States did not drop nuclear bombs on Vietnam?

> In this entire thread, only Neal has pointed out this fact. Shame on all
> of you. Reading all this I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Only one
> other poster in this entire thread has bothered to mention that you meant
> Japan, not Vietnam.

> Your credibility is officially destroyed, as is the credibility of anyone
> who failed to call you on your unbelievable mistake. Both of you should
> cease talking about these issues altogether. Talk about music. Talk about
> your love life. Talk about anything else.

> And this is not an issue of "liberal versus conservative" or
> nitpicking about typos. Any decent conservative would howl with laughter
> at your blunder and skewer you without breaking a sweat. If you can't even
> get your countries right, how can you possibly expect to think clearly
> about any of these important problems?

> The Emperor of Vietnam. Really.

I stand corrected. I will sh*t the f*ck up.

For what it's worth, I wrote that message at 2am, half asleep.

ME TOO!!!

There are Stop the War events taking place in cities all over the UK... (and I believe in other countries too). You don't need to be in London to show your opposition. If you are against this war, attend one of the events, write to your MP, visit the Stop the War website. I know that there are lots of people out there who are against the war but can't be arsed/ think they won't make a difference but to those people (in the UK) I'd say: remember the Poll Tax, remember the sustained and well organised popular opposition to it. It was effective. It did make a difference. It led to its removal and may have contributed to Thatcher's political demise.

I've read some of the posts above, including the one which asked me to use my posts to outline my reasons for opposing the war rather than to draw attention to Smiths R Us' abysmal literacy skills. I suppose that's fair enough. It was a cheap shot. So here goes...

I'm not politically active and I don't have a particular philosophy... but this is my gut reaction and these are my own personal reasons for opposing the war. I am a working class British person, a public service worker and a taxpayer. I believe in the importance of state education and the NHS. I think that our government's priority should be to improve public services and to create a society with less social inequalities. This may be totally unrealistic but it's what I believe. It's also what millions of trade union members and Labour voters believe. The Labour Government was elected to improve public services, not to get involved in a US led war which will do nothing but line the pockets of oil company shareholders. I have nothing but sympathy for the young lads and girls in the Army who are going to lose their lives. Incidentally, I wonder how many will die as a result of "friendly fire"? Their lives are worth more than that, as are the lives of the Iraqis who are going to be murdered in this war. I am disgusted that as a taxpayer contributing hundreds of pounds a month to the Treasury I am part of this. I want no part of it. My tax contributions should be used to improve the NHS, not to murder people.

This may not be relevant to you, particularly if you are from the US. You may have your own reasons for opposing or being in favour of this war; these are my reasons.

I'm going, I think we should all wear our Smiths/Moz t-shirts then we'll be making 2 statements, obviously No To War comes first, but then we'd know each other too.
We've got a train chartered by the F.B.U. from up here (Bolton/Manchester) it's only £25 return. We've got our Union to pay for 25 people on it as well. There's coaches going down there too. I was on the anti-Poll Tax marches in 1990's & there was a tremendous feeling of people power let's make this demo bigger & better Let Bush-boy-Blair know exactly what we think of his macho posturing & all out warmongering!
See you all down there.
Grim O'Grady

Hear hear Grim, good to hear that there are some other fans going!!

> May I reply with a question,

> Are you a liberal? Because you definitely seem to subscribe to the same
> ridiculous argumentative tactics that they do. That's what it all comes
> down to right, my spelling.

> By the way, no, I'm not President Bush, nor am I Tony Blair. Though, I
> highly respect the both of them.

> What really gets me about you tree humping liberals is that you will sit
> there and defend the a man who gases his own people, yet you claim that
> the UK/US are evil for going after the guy. Oh, but we're in it for the
> oil right?

> Here's a question. If it was all for the oil, why didn't we take it in 91?
> We could have come up with plenty of excuses then, but we didn't.

> Another question, why are Russia and France so worried about a war with
> Iraq? Oh, gee uhmmm, it wouldn't happen to be OIL would it? Oh no, just
> because the French and Nazis...err Germans have oil interests with the
> Iraqis doesn't mean THEY ARE IN IT FOR THE OIL does it?

> Wake up! Sure, every countries got their B.S. problems. But, there is a
> difference in terms of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the
> hands of democracies like UK, US, and Isreal, as opposed to nations ran by
> tyrants.

> And, please, if you are going to say, "Well, the US used nukes in
> Vietnam." Are we really going to have to debate this. I think it's
> reasonable to say that the use of the bomb in this instance was necessary.
> Such a massive attack would have occurred regardless (if the vietnamese
> continued to resist). Execpt, instead of using a bunch of resources and
> putting more American soldiers at risk, the bomb did the same amount of
> damage with much less resources disposed of.

> Oh, but please, continue on with your making fun of my spelling and
> grammar. It's what you tree huggers are best at, you know, avoid the real
> issues at hand.

Wow, there's just so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin! I almost want to take a red marker and correct all over your statement. Besides the grammar, yeah, you can call it a cheap shot but honestly if you want to join a debate in written word, you'll be taken more seriously if you give the impression of having at least a 7th grade education. If you spoke a primary language other that English than I'd understand but it doesn't sound like you do. At least us 'liberals' are generally more educated and well read, so if you are trying to insult us for that characteristic, well then you go right ahead.
What the hell did you mean about the US using nukes in Vietnam.../debate? What debate would that be because there were no nukes used in Vietnam. So what are you talking about? Let me educate you about the oil situation you meantioned. The US, Saudi's and British make money off the Iraqi oil embargo. When Saddam invaded Kuwait it was in defiance of the control over oil. We have control over that oil and want to keep it that way. France and Russia DO NOT have access to this oil, they have other resources, but they don't like being kept out of the 'sweet deal', so this is why they are not supporting us in this war now. So no, it's not "all about oil" but as long as we have involvements in the Middle East, it will always be about oil and any mental midget knows that. So, there ya go.

> Um, sorry to break up the lovefest, but do either of you realize that the
> United States did not drop nuclear bombs on Vietnam?

> In this entire thread, only Neal has pointed out this fact. Shame on all
> of you. Reading all this I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Only one
> other poster in this entire thread has bothered to mention that you meant
> Japan, not Vietnam.

> Your credibility is officially destroyed, as is the credibility of anyone
> who failed to call you on your unbelievable mistake. Both of you should
> cease talking about these issues altogether. Talk about music. Talk about
> your love life. Talk about anything else.

> And this is not an issue of "liberal versus conservative" or
> nitpicking about typos. Any decent conservative would howl with laughter
> at your blunder and skewer you without breaking a sweat. If you can't even
> get your countries right, how can you possibly expect to think clearly
> about any of these important problems?

> The Emperor of Vietnam. Really.

Thank you Emperor! I just noticed that myself! LOL! I'm actually suprised Mindy din't catch that.

> I stand corrected. I will sh*t the f*ck up.

> For what it's worth, I wrote that message at 2am, half asleep.

Riiiiight!

> Why not make send packages to your countries troops that might be heading
> out, risking their lives to provide security for your country. Why not
> send them messages of hope and support.

> Instead, lets pretty much go say, "F*ck you, you are all risking your
> lives for something that we don't want!"

> Or how about the old hippie saying, "How many babies did you
> kill?"

> Absolutely amazing.

Again, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? You don't know what those who protest war are saying, you are using extremes to make your point and putting words in other's mouth. That's not what they are saying at all, my father was in the military and I respect what they have to do. As far as the 'Baby' thing, that's what liberal people of your level of education might say but I prefer that no one parish from this war at all, baby to grandparent, US or Iraqi citizen. I wouldn't ask a soldier that question but I would ask Bush/Cheney.

Your thought process is what's amazing.

> Like it or not, war's on. Why waste your time?

It's not about trying to stop the war, we are more realistic than that, it's about letting those who need to know that we don't agree with the decision to go to war. That's very important and never a waste of time, but thanks for being concerned about how we spend our time.

> Dude, if you are so conservative and patriotic, then stop liking the
> Smiths and Morrissey, a self-professed faggot who plays whiny jingly pop
> music that OBVIOUSLY appeals to Birkenstock-wearing lesbians and
> vegetarians.

> Conservative and a Smiths fan? That doesn't mix!

> Ted Nugent, that's your man!

I always wondered that myself. How did Oaf and other pro-war/conservative fans get into this music which is essentially liberal? If Morissey expressed he was a Bush supporter I might be disappointed enough not to listen to his music as much. Being predominantly left of center, I've never been drawn to listen to country music or Christian rock so I am truly amazed that it happens the other way around. I think this is a valid sociological question. Any theories?

> I always wondered that myself. How did Oaf and other pro-war/conservative
> fans get into this music which is essentially liberal? If Morissey
> expressed he was a Bush supporter I might be disappointed enough not to
> listen to his music as much. Being predominantly left of center, I've
> never been drawn to listen to country music or Christian rock so I am
> truly amazed that it happens the other way around. I think this is a valid
> sociological question. Any theories?

Well, the music's so damn catchy it hooks the unlikeliest fish.
Plenty of skinheads are into Moz because they wilfully misinterpret his politics. As for the others, I suspect they wilfully ignore the political content, which is quite easy to do with his recent stuff. I suspect a lot of conservatives would agree with Moz's anti-monarchy sentiments, and plenty of carnivores are into Moz, and I must count myself amongst these.

These things are never black and white - I listen to a bit of "Bitches and Ho's"-style gangsta rap, but I don't subscribe to that point of view - sometimes it's just so outrageous it's humorous, and it's hard to be into rap without being exposed to a fair amount of this.

I suspect these people just skip right past the political tracks

> I always wondered that myself. How did Oaf and other pro-war/conservative
> fans get into this music which is essentially liberal? If Morissey
> expressed he was a Bush supporter I might be disappointed enough not to
> listen to his music as much. Being predominantly left of center, I've
> never been drawn to listen to country music or Christian rock so I am
> truly amazed that it happens the other way around. I think this is a valid
> sociological question. Any theories?
Being slightly right of center, I take offense to your assumption I listen to Country music or Christian Rock. I am not the Rush Limbaugh Pat Robertson listening gun carrying nazi you think I am. Seriously though, I think there is a movement for a more moderate republican party, where in the past moderate republicans were shunned. In my state, a lot of Republican woman are pro-choice, and want Government involvement in such issues as environment and are willing to pay more taxes when it comes to schools. I am not as familair with Morrissey's lyrics as many of you are, but from what I have read he is is very intune with both female issues and social issues in general and that might be the appeal. After saying this, I don't agree with Morrissey when he said President Bush is a crashing bore. Now if he said Lott and Ashcroft..........

Smiths R Us, you prick.Where are you from? I hope a stray missile hits your house and kills your pets.

> Being slightly right of center, I take offense to your assumption I listen
> to Country music or Christian Rock. I am not the Rush Limbaugh Pat
> Robertson listening gun carrying nazi you think I am. Seriously though, I
> think there is a movement for a more moderate republican party, where in
> the past moderate republicans were shunned. In my state, a lot of
> Republican woman are pro-choice, and want Government involvement in such
> issues as environment and are willing to pay more taxes when it comes to
> schools. I am not as familair with Morrissey's lyrics as many of you are,
> but from what I have read he is is very intune with both female issues and
> social issues in general and that might be the appeal. After saying this,
> I don't agree with Morrissey when he said President Bush is a crashing
> bore. Now if he said Lott and Ashcroft..........

Both good points Crushy and Caleb, thanks for your responses.

"I suspect a lot of conservatives would agree with Moz's anti-monarchy sentiments"

bizarre.why would it mainly be conservatives who are anti-monarchy? Is that the way it is in Australia? Here in Britain, it is very different...

> Both good points Crushy and Caleb, thanks for your responses.
thanks, I was wondering what Smiths/Morrissey songs do have politcal content in them.

> "I suspect a lot of conservatives would agree with Moz's
> anti-monarchy sentiments"

> bizarre.why would it mainly be conservatives who are anti-monarchy? Is
> that the way it is in Australia? Here in Britain, it is very different...

Well, yes - as a former colony ugly nationalism can often rear its ugly head here in the form of anti-monarchism , which isn't to say its wrong, but most certainly misguided in its intent.

We may well have Irish blood and English hearts but that doesn't mean we need be any more wedded to outdated institutions than our forebears. As Moz himself said when on tour - "that song was called 'Irish Blood, English Heart'. and well ... I knew you'd understand".

to name a few (i'm going more for socio-political, so my definition might be kinda broad -- i.e. not just governmental politics):

shoplifters of the world unite

meat is murder

the queen is dead

the headmaster ritual

barbarism begins at home

suffer little children

still ill

this night has opened my eyes (although much of it is "borrowed" from shelagh delaney)

panic

sweet and tender hooligan

paint a vulgar picture

bengali in platforms

margaret on the guillotine

that's all for now, but there are loads more. somebody else can supply the rest!

> thanks, I was wondering what Smiths/Morrissey songs do have politcal
> content in them.

I never said they have political content in them (although I'm sure some do, I'll listen more closely next time), I said they are essentually liberal in nature, one example is the homosexual content or the insinuation of the topic. Now, there are homosexuals who are conservative but the origins of the homosexual community is derived from quite liberal roots. Now that I'm thinking about it off the top of my head, Moz does express a dislike for Margaret Thatcher or the British Parliament in a song or two, so that would be political content, no?

> I never said they have political content in them (although I'm sure some
> do, I'll listen more closely next time), I said they are essentually
> liberal in nature, one example is the homosexual content or the
> insinuation of the topic. Now, there are homosexuals who are conservative
> but the origins of the homosexual community is derived from quite liberal
> roots. Now that I'm thinking about it off the top of my head, Moz does
> express a dislike for Margaret Thatcher or the British Parliament in a
> song or two, so that would be political content, no?
There you go, thanks. I heard a song where Morrissey sang "we won't vote conservative", but I was wondering if there is more.

> There you go, thanks. I heard a song where Morrissey sang "we won't
> vote conservative", but I was wondering if there is more.

Some of his songs are politically blatant but some are left up to the listener's interpretation. Today I listened to Vauxhaul & I and 'Lazy Sunbathers' is sort of a sarcastic, cynical comment on those who can't be bothered to get involved with global issues (maybe even global warming "The suns warms the planet to the core" ?) but more specifically, war. It's a great song.
This is a compelling topic.

> to name a few (i'm going more for socio-political, so my definition might
> be kinda broad -- i.e. not just governmental politics):

> shoplifters of the world unite

> meat is murder

> the queen is dead

> the headmaster ritual

> barbarism begins at home

> suffer little children

> still ill

> this night has opened my eyes (although much of it is "borrowed"
> from shelagh delaney)

> panic

> sweet and tender hooligan

> paint a vulgar picture

> bengali in platforms

> margaret on the guillotine

> that's all for now, but there are loads more. somebody else can supply the
> rest!

As I mentioned in another post, 'Lazy Sunbathers'. Mindy, what is political about 'Bengali In Platforms"? Not testing you, just curious.

it's talking about how immigrants try to assimilate themselves into a culture and may just try a little too hard. that's why it was considered racist -- that, and the fact that a lot of people don't know what verisimilitude is (when the author of a work and the narrator are two different people -- i.e. the narrator is a persona taken on by the author).

this explanation is from "it may all end tomorrow": A very controversial song for the line "life is hard enough when you belong here", it's probably a good thing the public never heard the apparently punk-like version recorded in the last sessions as The Smiths.
As Rogan says, with its tone of condescension "politely mocking", it's hard to justify these lyrics as anything other than incredibly badly thought out. Easily offensive, two justifications are that it was purposefully done to incite the critics (although as the individual Morrissey was always so closely aligned with his lyrics, it's hard to see this) and Rogan's point that the definite setting of the song is in the 1970s. At no point is it made clear that the singer is in any way sympathetic with the lyrics - it's fair enough to say that the only endorsement of the lyrics is that Morrissey wrote them. Furthermore, Ian Bell has an interesting slant on the debate over this song :

"It seems to me that Morrissey has no case to defend here, except the accusation that rather than be an over-inhibited liberal tip-toeing around a sensitive subject, he has tackled the very experience of being 'other'. The central idea seems to be that Morrissey is urging the Bengali in question not to assimilate under the pressure to do so, but rather to remain true to his culture. The issue is not one of belonging geographically (i.e. of leaving the country), but of not being accepted purely on other people's terms, because of those terms. It seems a celebration of diversity, rather than exclusivity. And it seems strange that the speaker should be so concerned that the Bengali might 'blame' or 'hate' him, if he (ie Morrissey) is as uncaring, dismissive and racist as is suggested."

for more information on lyrics and the possible interpretations of them, you can try: http://www.man.compsoc.org.uk/~moz/

i hope that helped a bit. like i said before, my definition of political is pretty broad. for me, the word also encompasses social issues in general.

...unfortunately with a bunch of upper middle class dickheads whose parents all voted Tory and who listen to NOFX, fuck knows why they're going. But still, the bus is only 7 quid.

> Some of his songs are politically blatant but some are left up to the
> listener's interpretation. Today I listened to Vauxhaul & I and 'Lazy
> Sunbathers' is sort of a sarcastic, cynical comment on those who can't be
> bothered to get involved with global issues (maybe even global warming
> "The suns warms the planet to the core" ?) but more
> specifically, war. It's a great song.
> This is a compelling topic.
Yes it is and I want everyone to know that even though I am a beach person, I do most of my reading/homework/papers on the beach when its warm enough and I always use sunscreen.
I went to a site that has lyrics and Morrissey's song "this is not your country" seems political. "Sorrow will come in the end" isn't political but I love the lyrics. Im going to get you, so don't close your eyes.

> it's talking about how immigrants try to assimilate themselves into a
> culture and may just try a little too hard. that's why it was considered
> racist -- that, and the fact that a lot of people don't know what
> verisimilitude is (when the author of a work and the narrator are two
> different people -- i.e. the narrator is a persona taken on by the
> author).

> this explanation is from "it may all end tomorrow": A very
> controversial song for the line "life is hard enough when you belong
> here", it's probably a good thing the public never heard the
> apparently punk-like version recorded in the last sessions as The Smiths.
> As Rogan says, with its tone of condescension "politely
> mocking", it's hard to justify these lyrics as anything other than
> incredibly badly thought out. Easily offensive, two justifications are
> that it was purposefully done to incite the critics (although as the
> individual Morrissey was always so closely aligned with his lyrics, it's
> hard to see this) and Rogan's point that the definite setting of the song
> is in the 1970s. At no point is it made clear that the singer is in any
> way sympathetic with the lyrics - it's fair enough to say that the only
> endorsement of the lyrics is that Morrissey wrote them. Furthermore, Ian
> Bell has an interesting slant on the debate over this song :

> "It seems to me that Morrissey has no case to defend here, except the
> accusation that rather than be an over-inhibited liberal tip-toeing around
> a sensitive subject, he has tackled the very experience of being 'other'.
> The central idea seems to be that Morrissey is urging the Bengali in
> question not to assimilate under the pressure to do so, but rather to
> remain true to his culture. The issue is not one of belonging
> geographically (i.e. of leaving the country), but of not being accepted
> purely on other people's terms, because of those terms. It seems a
> celebration of diversity, rather than exclusivity. And it seems strange
> that the speaker should be so concerned that the Bengali might 'blame' or
> 'hate' him, if he (ie Morrissey) is as uncaring, dismissive and racist as
> is suggested."

> for more information on lyrics and the possible interpretations of them,
> you can try: http://www.man.compsoc.org.uk/~moz/ i hope that helped a
> bit. like i said before, my definition of political is pretty broad. for
> me, the word also encompasses social issues in general.

Wow, thanks. I never interpreted that song that way, but now I see it.

> Yes it is and I want everyone to know that even though I am a beach
> person, I do most of my reading/homework/papers on the beach when its warm
> enough and I always use sunscreen.

Ya gotta protect that skin!

> I went to a site that has lyrics and Morrissey's song "this is not
> your country" seems political. "Sorrow will come in the
> end" isn't political but I love the lyrics. Im going to get you, so
> don't close your eyes.

no problem. a lot of moz's songs are so ambiguous. they can be interpreted any number of ways. others just talk about such esoteric things that anyone but a northern english male of questionable sexuality who lived through the thatcher era can't be expected to know what he's talking about exactly (i.e. shoplifters of the world unite). i'd like to say that i just naturally understand all the lyrics because i'm brilliant, but i cannot. that website i posted is really great for getting the back stories. i'm told that "songs that saved your life" is wonderful too -- it's much more complete.

SWCITE definitely deals with the politics of the record industry and of the courts, since it deals with the infamous mike joyce lawsuit. and i'd forgotten about TINYC. that's a wonderful song about how the BBC exploited the situation in ireland for ratings and passed judgment on it, without really understanding what it's about -- the history, etc.

> SWCITE definitely deals with the politics of the record industry and of
> the courts, since it deals with the infamous mike joyce lawsuit.
Mike Joyce is either a troublemaker OR he is the stupidest human being on the planet(next to Eric Lindros). He went through the judicial systems with this,he knew he couldn't release anything, so why did he announce he was going to put the tracks on his site.
AUDIO NEWS

Statement From Mike Joyce

Hello People...

Due to the legal implications of putting up the Smiths tracks. I am currently
seeking advice as to the best way to get these tracks heard. I will keep you
informed of any progress. Sorry About the delay.

Love and Peace

Mike

P.S. There is only one factor in this that is stopping me from putting these tracks
up on this site. I'm sure you all know what/who that is.....

Find here....
some never before heard gems from the past..............
watch this space ! as new tracks will be added over the
coming months

ON HOLD

> Well, yes - as a former colony ugly nationalism can often rear its ugly
> head here in the form of anti-monarchism , which isn't to say its wrong,
> but most certainly misguided in its intent.

> We may well have Irish blood and English hearts but that doesn't mean we
> need be any more wedded to outdated institutions than our forebears. As
> Moz himself said when on tour - "that song was called 'Irish Blood,
> English Heart'. and well ... I knew you'd understand".

I agree,but why would it be conservatives who hold these radical views?

By the way I CANNOT BELIEVE you guys voted to keep the Queen. Wales would dump her straight away if we had a referendum.

i saw that ages ago on his site. he really is pretty dumb, isn't he? i mean, yeah, he got a bum deal, but that was 20 years ago. he needs to move on and stop trying to squeeze money out of his past glories.

> Mike Joyce is either a troublemaker OR he is the stupidest human being on
> the planet(next to Eric Lindros). He went through the judicial systems
> with this,he knew he couldn't release anything, so why did he announce he
> was going to put the tracks on his site.
> AUDIO NEWS

> Statement From Mike Joyce

> Hello People...

> Due to the legal implications of putting up the Smiths tracks. I am
> currently
> seeking advice as to the best way to get these tracks heard. I will keep
> you
> informed of any progress. Sorry About the delay.

> Love and Peace

> Mike

> P.S. There is only one factor in this that is stopping me from putting
> these tracks
> up on this site. I'm sure you all know what/who that is.....

> Find here....
> some never before heard gems from the past..............
> watch this space ! as new tracks will be added over the
> coming months

> ON HOLD

> i saw that ages ago on his site. he really is pretty dumb, isn't he? i
> mean, yeah, he got a bum deal, but that was 20 years ago. he needs to move
> on and stop trying to squeeze money out of his past glories.
Does anyone know why they didn't they put it in writing about the 40/40/10/10 split?
For Mike Joyce to receive 1 million pounds for sales and performing someone did very well managing that aspect but why was the split not put in writing?
Does anyone know the history?

a while back, someone posted entire transcripts of the court proceedings. even so, i am not sure that it wasn't put in writing. i think it was, but there was some question of manipulation or misinformation or something. i will try to find the old posts.

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/discuss/index.cgi?read=80710

that's a link to a pretty good post by jay. the thread has more info. basically, mike and andy supposedly didn't realize that they were getting a bum deal, even though it was in writing. there is a law that is sympathetic to such ignorance.

> http://www.morrissey-solo.com/discuss/index.cgi?read=80710 that's a link
> to a pretty good post by jay. the thread has more info. basically, mike
> and andy supposedly didn't realize that they were getting a bum deal, even
> though it was in writing. there is a law that is sympathetic to such
> ignorance.
thanks. I remember the appeal posted by I believe was Loafing. I think the appeal was upheld because The Smiths were a partnership and British law says proceeds are divided up equally no matter who does the most work unless all parties agree to an uneven split, and Mike Joyce said he thought it was 25%. It was then up to a Judge to decide who was more credible. Morrissey probably didn't have a chance against someone so naive(im trying to be kind here)who didn't take finacial papers to an accountant and just throw them in a drawer. I thought read somewhere they advise Morrissey/Marr to put in on paper but they never did.
I still believe Mike Joyce did really well to come out with over 1 million pounds before the lawsuit.

yes, he did. i mean, the one million pounds doesn't even include the perks of stardom and all the women he got to bang (although, as a judge pointed out to morrissey, that is irrelevant and akin to character assassination).

> I agree,but why would it be conservatives who hold these radical views?

It's by no means just conservatives, and it's probably not a majority of them, but it's one rare issue around which I find myself agreeing with many of my arch-enemies.

> By the way I CANNOT BELIEVE you guys voted to keep the Queen. Wales would
> dump her straight away if we had a referendum.

The 'No' campaign was one of the canniest political campaigns ever. Every poll showed an easy majority of Australians favoured a republic, so the nay-sayers elected to say that the model which was put up was just putting more power in the hands of politicians, and that we should hold out for a REAL republic. It played up to the present sense of distrust in all political figures in the cleverest way possible. It was all engineered by the Prime Minister, who is a staunch monarchist. A convention was held to select a model, which split the republican movement down the middle. The 'no' campaign wound up not campaigning for the monarchy, their slogan was rather "Not THIS republic, say no to the politician's republic". A lot of republicans want a directly-elected head of state, but the model proposed had a President elected by Parliament.
The republic will happen, because 75% of Australians actually want one, but it will take a Labor Prime Minister to co-ordinate it. Labor's model is step 1 have a referendum, "yes" or "no" on a monarchy, step 2 work out a model. That is almost guaranteed to succeed.

I've been round most of the UK, but never made it to Wales, which is a pity as I've heard many good things about the place. Is it a good place to live? Sadly most of what I know about Wales comes from 'The Goodies'.

> yes, he did. i mean, the one million pounds doesn't even include the perks
> of stardom and all the women he got to bang (although, as a judge pointed
> out to morrissey, that is irrelevant and akin to character assassination).
Did Morrissey really say that to a judge about all the woman Mike Joyce slept with? I would love to see the transcript of Morrissey's testimony.

i believe he did, because in some interviews he talked about how he and johnny didn't sleep with anybody during their time in the smiths (except presumably for johnny and his wife), whereas andy and mike f-ed anything that moved. i read that he brought it up in court and it really angered the judge.

i don't know where one could find a transcript of his testimony though. sowwy.

> i believe he did, because in some interviews he talked about how he and
> johnny didn't sleep with anybody during their time in the smiths (except
> presumably for johnny and his wife), whereas andy and mike f-ed anything
> that moved. i read that he brought it up in court and it really angered
> the judge.

> i don't know where one could find a transcript of his testimony though.
> sowwy.
I would pay to see Morrissey's testimony. Too bad it wasn't like the OJ trial.

this is a British protest directed at Blair and the British goons, not Bush. We can't persuade Bush anything, he's not our elected leader (he's not ANYONE'S elected leader!). But we can protest against Britain's involvement in the war.

> this is a British protest directed at Blair and the British goons, not
> Bush. We can't persuade Bush anything, he's not our elected leader (he's
> not ANYONE'S elected leader!). But we can protest against Britain's
> involvement in the war.

I was listening to 'All Things Considered' today on NPR and there was a great piece on anti-war music. They will probably post the transcripts and hopefully the name of the artists they featured tomorrow, when (if) they do I will post it here. The songs were FANTASTIC, everything from Ani DeFranco, to Chumbawumba 'Jacob's Ladder' (very good song) and some rap artists who I didn't recognize (but that isn't saying much) which was extremely insightful. Many of these songs won't be played on mainstream radio, suprise, but they might be down load-able. I know Chumbawumba encourages you to down load songs from their web site. I guess unless a song has the theme of 'pro-America, pro-war gonna kick their ass' type stuff, you're not likely to hear it on Corporate radio.

> this is a British protest directed at Blair and the British goons, not
> Bush. We can't persuade Bush anything, he's not our elected leader (he's
> not ANYONE'S elected leader!). But we can protest against Britain's
> involvement in the war.

It's good to hear someone from England say that (he's not ANYONE'S elected leader) I have heard that people in Europe (and around the world) realize that the American people did not elect bush. (the supreme court and Jeb Bush basically did). The problem is that very few people in america know how it all actually went down because it wasn't in american news. Not only did bush not win the popular vote, he did not get the most votes in Florida either! It was in the European newspapers however. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "reelect Gore in 2004" It was great. Personally I voted for Nader. The book "stupid white men" by Michael Moore (bowling for columbine) goes into detail on the whole corrupt Bush scam into the white house, including how Florida illegally kept many, black democratic people from voting. It's a very good, funny and informative book.

I think that the attitude 'nothing's going to stop this war' is lazy and apathetic. I feel that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem, there is no inbetween. There needs to be a great movement against this war, and if everyone feels like "I never talk to my neighbor, I'd rather not get involved" (ha ha you can always fit a morrissey quote into every point you're trying to make) then there's going to be a nuclear holocaust and all those war-mongering and apathetic people (and the good people) are going to die.

"It's good to hear someone from England say that (he's not ANYONE'S elected leader) I have heard that people in Europe (and around the world) realize that the American people did not elect bush. (the supreme court and Jeb Bush basically did)"

Bush's brother and a bunch of judges mostly appointed by his Dad and Reagan! How democratic!

"The problem is that very few people in america know how it all actually went down because it wasn't in american news"

My God! I didn't know about that! That is a disgrace! Are there no TV channels or newspapers that are critical of Bush? That's a conspiracy!

Your comments are spot on!

well all of the previous comments are mostly correct, except that the media did cover the whole florida embarrassment. the thing is, nothing got done about it. it was put into the news so much, that i think a lot of people got sick of it and started seeing gore as a sore loser bla bla bla rather than the real winner who got fucked over bigtime.

> well all of the previous comments are mostly correct, except that the
> media did cover the whole florida embarrassment. the thing is, nothing got
> done about it. it was put into the news so much, that i think a lot of
> people got sick of it and started seeing gore as a sore loser bla bla bla
> rather than the real winner who got fucked over bigtime.

It got covered but in a bad way. For example, the story was posted with the headline..."Recounts show Bush still would have won" Then they take their time in mentioning that this is only in one three scenarios, none of which would be used by the agency counting the votes, or were methods being considered by the courts. They bury down somewhere in paragraph 17 that Gore would have won in the most popular scenarios and in the two methods the court was considering using. But everyone who just read the headline, or read 10-15 paragraphs comes away thinking that everything that happened was ok.

This country is mired in record unemployment, record deficit, record job losses, and 3 other record economic factors....and all the American Media really does is help prop the man up and support his "war on terrorism".

Four of the Supreme Court Justices had personal stakes in the outcome of that election...all of them for Bush...and none of them recused themself. Hell, Rehnquist, the Chief Justice, wore special robes to the proceedings with yellow armbands or something like that, and later donated the robes to a museum as a tax write off.

Why doesn't the media cover it? Because basically SIX corporations control virtually all of the media that US citizens are exposed to. The FCC is looking to weaken the laws that govern that further. These corporations are conservative organizations and heavily favor Republicans over their democratic counterparts, in donations, support, press releases, endorsements, commentary, and spin.

Hell Bush practically bragged about American assassinations in his State of the Union address and only a few internet sites really slammed him for this. THe American media is lost.

> well all of the previous comments are mostly correct, except that the
> media did cover the whole florida embarrassment. the thing is, nothing got
> done about it. it was put into the news so much, that i think a lot of
> people got sick of it and started seeing gore as a sore loser bla bla bla
> rather than the real winner who got fucked over bigtime.

The media did cover it, but not the REAL story. And not like it was covered in Europe. The whole story about how black people were prevented from voting in Florida was NOT covered in the mainstream media. There is no mainstream media in America attacking Bush right now, or at the time of the "election". Yes, and there was a lot of "sore loser" talk, even on the tonight show and saturday night live and other such shows. In the San Francisco Bay Guardian (good indie liberal newspaper, which can also be read online at sfbg.com) does an issue every year called "The top ten biggest news stories that you never heard about", which really illustrates the way the American media not only does not cover MAJOR stories, but gets pay offs by the government for covering up the ones that show our atrocities to the rest of the world.

The only country in the world that still thinks the United States is a 'democracy' (the greatest nation in the world) is the United States!!

Right On!!! Things in this country have gone to hell in a handbasket since Bush took over!

> The media did cover it, but not the REAL story. And not like it was
> covered in Europe. The whole story about how black people were prevented
> from voting in Florida was NOT covered in the mainstream media. There is
> no mainstream media in America attacking Bush right now, or at the time of
> the "election". Yes, and there was a lot of "sore
> loser" talk, even on the tonight show and saturday night live and
> other such shows. In the San Francisco Bay Guardian (good indie liberal
> newspaper, which can also be read online at sfbg.com) does an issue every
> year called "The top ten biggest news stories that you never heard
> about", which really illustrates the way the American media not only
> does not cover MAJOR stories, but gets pay offs by the government for
> covering up the ones that show our atrocities to the rest of the world.

i know that. i was just responding to the previous post which suggested that the american people knew nothing about the election scandal. i didn't explain myself very well at all. i guess that's what i get for writing from a personal perspective. i mean, i knew about what was going on in florida, but i also don't limit myself to CNN and other mainstream sources, since as king george pointed out, the mainstream media is run by large corporations with vested interest in delivering rightwing biased news. i should have made that more clear in my post. thanks for clearing some stuff up for everybody though.

> I always wondered that myself. How did Oaf and other pro-war/conservative
> fans get into this music which is essentially liberal? If Morissey
> expressed he was a Bush supporter I might be disappointed enough not to
> listen to his music as much. Being predominantly left of center, I've
> never been drawn to listen to country music or Christian rock so I am
> truly amazed that it happens the other way around. I think this is a valid
> sociological question. Any theories?

How can meet eaters listen to Moz? How can swingers listen to Moz? Believe it or not, not every Morrissey song is political. I find some of gene's music pretty good even though a lot of their politics are over-the-top. I enjoy a few hollywood movies even though 99% of actors are liberals.

I think part of the problem is that liberals typically think they are the only ones who care about the needy. Thus, they think any entertainment that portrays unjust in the world cannot be enjoyed by conservatives. However, (most) conservatives DO care about the needy, they just have different theories on the best way to improve the lives of the lower classes.

> How can meet eaters listen to Moz? How can swingers listen to Moz? Believe
> it or not, not every Morrissey song is political. I find some of gene's
> music pretty good even though a lot of their politics are over-the-top. I
> enjoy a few hollywood movies even though 99% of actors are liberals.

> I think part of the problem is that liberals typically think they are the
> only ones who care about the needy. Thus, they think any entertainment
> that portrays unjust in the world cannot be enjoyed by conservatives.
> However, (most) conservatives DO care about the needy, they just have
> different theories on the best way to improve the lives of the lower
> classes.

How exactly do conservatives care about the poor, needy, opressed, minority groups etc.?

that's a silly question, david. you know they show their love for the peoples of third world nations by bombing the shit out of them in order to save them from toothless dictators.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA....ENGLAND....ISRAEL....TURKEY....the axis of evil! (and more too)

> How exactly do conservatives care about the poor, needy, opressed,
> minority groups etc.?

Ok, I will tell you who I perceive the differences between liberal theory and conservative theory towards improving the quality of life for the lower classes. Liberal theory: Spread the wealth, ie socialize health care, extend benefits for the unemployed, give handouts to the needy, etc. Conservative theory: Some spreading of the wealth, but gear welfare towards getting people to become more active members of society. The clearest example of this is how unemployment benefits. Sure, unemployment benefits are useful in the short term directly after someone loses their job, but extended unemployment benefits simply allows the recipient of the benefits to holdoff finding a job for later. Do you think people ever get an "oh crap my benefits are about to run out...better find a job" type feeling? If capable people are sitting at home when they could be employed, this hurts all classes (think on a macro level here folks, not just one lazy person).

As far as helping minority causes...the biggest problem for blacks in America today is primary schooling. The Republicans have pushed a voucher system as a partial fix to help increase competition with inner-city schools. I have no idea if it will work. The democrats have pushed no plans to fix inner-city schools. So in response to the blacks biggest concerns, the left presents no solutions.

> Ok, I will tell you who I perceive the differences between liberal theory
> and conservative theory towards improving the quality of life for the
> lower classes. Liberal theory: Spread the wealth, ie socialize health
> care, extend benefits for the unemployed, give handouts to the needy, etc.
> Conservative theory: Some spreading of the wealth, but gear welfare
> towards getting people to become more active members of society. The
> clearest example of this is how unemployment benefits. Sure, unemployment
> benefits are useful in the short term directly after someone loses their
> job, but extended unemployment benefits simply allows the recipient of the
> benefits to holdoff finding a job for later. Do you think people ever get
> an "oh crap my benefits are about to run out...better find a
> job" type feeling? If capable people are sitting at home when they
> could be employed, this hurts all classes (think on a macro level here
> folks, not just one lazy person).

> As far as helping minority causes...the biggest problem for blacks in
> America today is primary schooling. The Republicans have pushed a voucher
> system as a partial fix to help increase competition with inner-city
> schools. I have no idea if it will work. The democrats have pushed no
> plans to fix inner-city schools. So in response to the blacks biggest
> concerns, the left presents no solutions.

I'd hardly call the Democrats "The Left". There is no doubt that a proper socialist party would sort out the problems.But I accept your arguments.

> Ok, I will tell you who I perceive the differences between liberal theory
> and conservative theory towards improving the quality of life for the
> lower classes. Liberal theory: Spread the wealth, ie socialize health
> care, extend benefits for the unemployed, give handouts to the needy, etc.
> Conservative theory: Some spreading of the wealth, but gear welfare
> towards getting people to become more active members of society. The
> clearest example of this is how unemployment benefits. Sure, unemployment
> benefits are useful in the short term directly after someone loses their
> job, but extended unemployment benefits simply allows the recipient of the
> benefits to holdoff finding a job for later. Do you think people ever get
> an "oh crap my benefits are about to run out...better find a
> job" type feeling? If capable people are sitting at home when they
> could be employed, this hurts all classes (think on a macro level here
> folks, not just one lazy person).

do you really think most people are satisfied with their unemployment checks? i'm sorry, but it's almost impossible to live on that pittance. most people who collect unemployment have tried or are trying to get jobs but are very beaten down by the system. as for welfare, i'm no fan of it, but it serves a purpose. sure, some people abuse it, but most people who are on it are honest people who need help. welfare is barely enough to live on anyway. most people who are on it are not proud of it either.

> As far as helping minority causes...the biggest problem for blacks in
> America today is primary schooling. The Republicans have pushed a voucher
> system as a partial fix to help increase competition with inner-city
> schools. I have no idea if it will work. The democrats have pushed no
> plans to fix inner-city schools. So in response to the blacks biggest
> concerns, the left presents no solutions.

also, i really would have to disagree with what you've said about republicans and education. sure the voucher thing might help in some cases, but not all. in any case, it was favored by a slim margin of democrats anyway. (i, for one, am not really in favor of vouchers because they generally result in a loss of funding to public schools and an influx of government money into parochial schools, which violates the separation between church and state.) furthermore, republicans are notorious for voting against funding for schools. i'm from torrance, california, which is a very conservative little city in the greater los angeles area (which, i'm sure you know, is largely democratic). my town consistently voted against giving extra, much-needed money to our schools, even though torrance, while not affluent, is still rather nice. and you know what a big reason for this was? a lot of the (republican) white folks didn't like how we admitted low-income minority kids from other cities that had even poorer schools. how sympathetic. is that being a compassionate conservative? i believe eventually, the grant was voted in, but it took many years of trying. (i should mention that i went to the poorest school in town -- it's not like they'd send all the inner-city kids to the nicer ones across town.)

Hell,I've always said you give the best rim jobs.

I'm sure it was only the republican white folks who objected to the admittance of minority students to your district. Bigotry does cross party lines more than you'd think.

What's the point of giving money to schools if they don't teach kids anything anyways? D.C. has one of the highest $ per student rates in the country, yet they still can't teach their kids s**t. Vouchers *could* force currently failing public schools to get their act together once they start to realize that they actually have to do their job to get any gov't money. Regardless of whether this whips inner-city schools into shape, it will at the very least give inner-city kids who want to receive a proper education a better chance at doing so.

I'm all for the seperation of church and state (I am 100% non-religious - what put us here just seems somewhat irrelevant), however, vouchers would not violate this clause in the constitution if both parochial and non-parochial schools were given equal opportunity to admit voucher holding students - which they would under the republican plan. The point that there are more parochial private schools than non-parochial is constitutionally irrelevant.

"England for the English" sounds very reactionary to me. I downloaded a video with about half of it dedicated about how Morrissey hated all the changes in his neighborhood. He also mentioned somewhere his displeasure with Margaret Thatcher, John Major, and Tony Blair. While he is very socially aware he seems like someone who wants little Government involvement in his life.

> I'm sure it was only the republican white folks who objected to the
> admittance of minority students to your district. Bigotry does cross party
> lines more than you'd think.
Wasn't Storm Thurmund a dem at one time and wasn't Robert Byrd a member of the KKK?

> I'm sure it was only the republican white folks who objected to the
> admittance of minority students to your district. Bigotry does cross party
> lines more than you'd think.

> What's the point of giving money to schools if they don't teach kids
> anything anyways? D.C. has one of the highest $ per student rates in the
> country, yet they still can't teach their kids s**t. Vouchers *could*
> force currently failing public schools to get their act together once they
> start to realize that they actually have to do their job to get any gov't
> money. Regardless of whether this whips inner-city schools into shape, it
> will at the very least give inner-city kids who want to receive a proper
> education a better chance at doing so.

well, i wasn't talking just about inner-city schools. my old high school is poor monetarily, but it is quite a good school academically anyway. it is just rundown and not altogether pleasant. it was also renowned for being one of the most diverse schools in the state with very little conflict. there were almost no fights and of the few there were, almost none were racially motivated. i believe in my graduating class of around 500, about 10 kids were admitted to UC Berkeley, several more to UCLA, one to Stanford, three to Cornell, several to USC, one to brown (me), etc. so it was quite a good school and it's a pity that bigotry keeps it rundown and dimly lit and moldy.

> I'm all for the seperation of church and state (I am 100% non-religious -
> what put us here just seems somewhat irrelevant), however, vouchers would
> not violate this clause in the constitution if both parochial and
> non-parochial schools were given equal opportunity to admit voucher
> holding students - which they would under the republican plan. The point
> that there are more parochial private schools than non-parochial is
> constitutionally irrelevant.

but doesn't it seem funny to think that federal money would be going toward paying for kids to go to mandatory mass? not to mention the fact that most parochial schools are ironically moral cesspools. there are other solutions, i am sure.

"england for the english" is a line from "the national front disco." this is another case of mistaken identity -- of the song's narrator. "your arsenal" does not come with lyrics, but i believe i read somewhere that the phrase is supposed to be in quotes (i.e. the kid going to the national front disco is saying it, not moz).

from what i've read, it seems that moz is fiscally moderate and socially very liberal. he hates margaret thatcher (the reagan of the UK) because of how she basically set back british socialism many years. britian is still recovering from things she did. he hates blair because blair is supposed to be a socialist (labor party=socialist, more or less), but he has pretty much abandoned everything that party stands for in favor of pursuing his friendship with the devil, i mean dubya.

that being said, i don't think anybody likes government control in their lives. it just depends on what you consider control. (for instance, right now, i'd say the government has more power than it did when clinton was president, which is contrary to what republicans supposedly stand for.)

(i think i've seen the video you're talking about. i got it from cemetrygates. did you?)

> "england for the english" is a line from "the national
> front disco." this is another case of mistaken identity -- of the
> song's narrator. "your arsenal" does not come with lyrics, but i
> believe i read somewhere that the phrase is supposed to be in quotes (i.e.
> the kid going to the national front disco is saying it, not moz).

> from what i've read, it seems that moz is fiscally moderate and socially
> very liberal. he hates margaret thatcher (the reagan of the UK) because of
> how she basically set back british socialism many years. britian is still
> recovering from things she did. he hates blair because blair is supposed
> to be a socialist (labor party=socialist, more or less), but he has pretty
> much abandoned everything that party stands for in favor of pursuing his
> friendship with the devil, i mean dubya.

> that being said, i don't think anybody likes government control in their
> lives. it just depends on what you consider control. (for instance, right
> now, i'd say the government has more power than it did when clinton was
> president, which is contrary to what republicans supposedly stand for.)

> (i think i've seen the video you're talking about. i got it from
> cemetrygates. did you?)
Shhh, don't mention socialists, some people get it confused with communism. I listened to Blair during the Clinton Administration and he sounded more like a member of the American Democratic party than a socialist. I watched Tony Blair on C-Span the other day and he wasn't pandering to the christian coalition, like GWB does. I listened to other members of the Labour party and they basically sounded like Democrats in the US, not republican. Amerians should be aware of whats going on with Ashcroft because some of our civil liberties are in jeopardy in the name of terrorism. Are they justified? A national security card? I don't think so. Monitoring of every email or internet activity? I don't think so.
I downloaded the video from Kazaa. I liked the part when he went to his old school.

> Shhh, don't mention socialists, some people get it confused with
> communism. I listened to Blair during the Clinton Administration and he
> sounded more like a member of the American Democratic party than a
> socialist. I watched Tony Blair on C-Span the other day and he wasn't
> pandering to the christian coalition, like GWB does. I listened to other
> members of the Labour party and they basically sounded like Democrats in
> the US, not republican. Amerians should be aware of whats going on with
> Ashcroft because some of our civil liberties are in jeopardy in the name
> of terrorism. Are they justified? A national security card? I don't think
> so. Monitoring of every email or internet activity? I don't think so.
> I downloaded the video from Kazaa. I liked the part when he went to his
> old school.

well you're right about people confusing socialism with communism. people are weird like that. the labor party is left of center. i guess it just depends on how far you want to take it. there are members of the labor party who are more left than others.

and you are VERY right aobut the ashcroft thing. i mean, i think it's important to make this country safe, but some of this stuff goes way too far. i mean, even democrats who are supposed to be for BIG government wouldn't go this far. big brother is here.

ah kazaa, how i miss thee.

> Ok, I will tell you who I perceive the differences between liberal theory
> and conservative theory towards improving the quality of life for the
> lower classes. Liberal theory: Spread the wealth, ie socialize health
> care, extend benefits for the unemployed, give handouts to the needy, etc.
> Conservative theory: Some spreading of the wealth, but gear welfare
> towards getting people to become more active members of society. The
> clearest example of this is how unemployment benefits. Sure, unemployment
> benefits are useful in the short term directly after someone loses their
> job, but extended unemployment benefits simply allows the recipient of the
> benefits to holdoff finding a job for later. Do you think people ever get
> an "oh crap my benefits are about to run out...better find a
> job" type feeling? If capable people are sitting at home when they
> could be employed, this hurts all classes (think on a macro level here
> folks, not just one lazy person).

Oh yeah, when I'm on unemployment all I do is sit around eating bon bons and watch soaps, because my $150.00 weekly check allows me SUCH luxuries (thank god I have no other mouths to feed but my own). You're funny! What you've just proved is how out of touch conservatives are with the real world, but thanks for making me laugh anyway.

> As far as helping minority causes...the biggest problem for blacks in
> America today is primary schooling. The Republicans have pushed a voucher
> system as a partial fix to help increase competition with inner-city
> schools. I have no idea if it will work. The democrats have pushed no
> plans to fix inner-city schools. So in response to the blacks biggest
> concerns, the left presents no solutions.

> I'm sure it was only the republican white folks who objected to the
> admittance of minority students to your district. Bigotry does cross party
> lines more than you'd think.

> What's the point of giving money to schools if they don't teach kids
> anything anyways? D.C. has one of the highest $ per student rates in the
> country, yet they still can't teach their kids s**t. Vouchers *could*
> force currently failing public schools to get their act together once they
> start to realize that they actually have to do their job to get any gov't
> money. Regardless of whether this whips inner-city schools into shape, it
> will at the very least give inner-city kids who want to receive a proper
> education a better chance at doing so.

It's not the schools that are to blame for not teaching anything, it's that no one is willing to pay qualified teachers to instruct as they should. Instead everyone sees school teachers as baby sitters probably because they get a baby sitters wage. No one respects teachers but much is expected from them. They put up with all kinds of crap from the county, to the school district, the parents, the asshole kids yet they are the first to blame when the students are failing. Parents can't even control their own children but teachers are expected to do that and more. So that's why our schools are such crap, no one wants to invest in education. I always loved the saying; you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

> I'm all for the seperation of church and state (I am 100% non-religious -
> what put us here just seems somewhat irrelevant), however, vouchers would
> not violate this clause in the constitution if both parochial and
> non-parochial schools were given equal opportunity to admit voucher
> holding students - which they would under the republican plan. The point
> that there are more parochial private schools than non-parochial is
> constitutionally irrelevant.

i will probably become a teacher, but the thought of the getting low pay and no respect are not at all appealing.

> I was listening to 'All Things Considered' today on NPR and there was a
> great piece on anti-war music. They will probably post the transcripts and
> hopefully the name of the artists they featured tomorrow, when (if) they
> do I will post it here. The songs were FANTASTIC, everything from Ani
> DeFranco, to Chumbawumba 'Jacob's Ladder' (very good song) and some rap
> artists who I didn't recognize (but that isn't saying much) which was
> extremely insightful. Many of these songs won't be played on mainstream
> radio, suprise, but they might be down load-able. I know Chumbawumba
> encourages you to down load songs from their web site. I guess unless a
> song has the theme of 'pro-America, pro-war gonna kick their ass' type
> stuff, you're not likely to hear it on Corporate radio.

Here is the segment on anti-war music. I think it's really great and I highly recommend a listen:




http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/books_music/2003/feb/

> I always wondered that myself. How did Oaf and other pro-war/conservative
> fans get into this music which is essentially liberal? If Morissey
> expressed he was a Bush supporter I might be disappointed enough not to
> listen to his music as much. Being predominantly left of center, I've
> never been drawn to listen to country music or Christian rock so I am
> truly amazed that it happens the other way around. I think this is a valid
> sociological question. Any theories?

Let me clear this up for you. A *real* liberal has solidarity with the opressed peoples of the world, and therefore would not want to undermine the most capable military in the world going into an Orwellian nightmare society to overthrow the fascist dictator with the guarantee that the country will be turned over to the people. A fascist dictator, btw, who is a proven agressive threat towards all his neighbors. A fascist dictator who engages in genocide. A fascist dictator who has been giving the middle finger to the United Nations and international law for over a decade now while his people suffer and die.

Furthermore, to bring in the larger and connected War on Terrorism, a *real* liberal would not look upon all that Western Civilization has built and be so ashamed by it that he would actually allow Islamic FASCISTS to commit atrocities against innocent civilians and be unwilling to stand with the civilized world in strong self-defense.

I don't oppose a policy just because a Republican is one of the leaders carrying it out. The rest of you can keep on proving how confused you are by favoring the INDEFENSIBLE status quo in Iraq just because you have personal issues with George Bush or Tony Blair or whomever. And you can keep on doing that while at the same time sounding like airheads when somebody asks you, "Well, what better policy would YOU support then? Continue the sanctions? Call the whole thing off and let Saddam do as he likes?" Yes, keep on doing that, while I continue to cheer on the crushing of Saddam Hussein, who by the way is now proven beyond ALL DOUBT to be in breach of Resolution 1441 (you know, that unanimously supported U.N. resolution that none of you gives a shit about). Indeed, Saddam is making illegal weapons of mass destruction WHILE THE INSPECTORS ARE THERE (so much for the argument that weapons inspectors somehow "contain" him). And, as the Febuary 10 issue of the New Yorker explains (and today's news corroborates) Saddam is hooked up with Usama bin Laden.

So yeah, whatever. Keep wondering how someone can like Morrissey and hate Saddam Hussein enough to want Saddam Hussein toppled. But then some here were bizarre enough to not understand why it was proper and necessary to topple the TALIBAN...(and their big reason back then was, "I HATE BUSH!"....)

The reason I support Bush IN HIS FOREIGN POLICIES is because he's assembled a team of people who understand we were attacked by extreme evil and are willing to fight TO WIN, as opposed to being a bunch of yellow-bellied pussies. Anything else would be negligent leadership.

Don't for a minute think that your opposition is in any way a "liberal" position (it's either far left wing or far right wing, or lost somewhere in complete confusion: the three places on the spectrum all the pro-status-quo-in-Iraq isolationists can be found). What Saddam Hussein stands for in Iraq, and certainly what the Islamic Fascists stand for in the War on Terrorism, is the polar opposite of *everything* a LIBERAL ought to be about. And however much you apologize for living amongst the democratic civilization, and however much you appease fascists and terrorists, they're still gonna hate you, they're still gonna attack you, they're still gonna draw up their imperialistic, terroristic, mass-murderous plans, so I say I'm gonna stand and fight. Which is why I happen to be on the right side of history, and you the wrong.

So, why overthrow Saddam?

1. End Saddam's genocide.
2. Liberate the enslaved, tortured, suffering, dying Iraqi and Kurdish peoples.
3. Prevent a totalitarian dictator from holding the world hostage with
WMD and nukes.
4. Uphold international law and order, and make UN resolutions mean something.
5. Ignite positive change in the Middle East region by, for once, intervening in a manner in line with the values the West claims to stand for.
6. Prevent Saddam from getting WMD in the hands of Islamic-Fascist terrorists.

Of course there are more good reasons, and others may put these reasons in a different order. But those are 6 solid moral justifications for intervening to remove Saddam. I don't see anything approaching a "moral" case for leaving the indefensible status quo there.

Whatever Morrissey's view on the matters is, I don't care, and I didn't realize there was such Political Correctness amongst the Morrissey crowd such that they feel to be a "real" fan of his music you must subscribe to this or that list of views. But whatever. What Morrissey makes clear music is that people should think for themselves. I guess it's all very fashionable to think opposing regime change in Iraq is the "right" point of view simply because you care more about hating George Bush than anything else. I'm sure that gets you pats on the back at the local Starbucks where all the OIL CONSUMING SUVs are parked. But ah well, let the fools be fools. When the dust settles, Saddam will be out of power, and you can go to Baghdad and talk to the Iraqi people about all your "liberal" reasons for having wanted to leave them in the hands of a madman.

Shut the fuck up. Asshole.

> Well, the music's so damn catchy it hooks the unlikeliest fish.
> Plenty of skinheads are into Moz because they wilfully misinterpret his
> politics. As for the others, I suspect they wilfully ignore the political
> content, which is quite easy to do with his recent stuff. I suspect a lot
> of conservatives would agree with Moz's anti-monarchy sentiments, and
> plenty of carnivores are into Moz, and I must count myself amongst these.

> These things are never black and white - I listen to a bit of
> "Bitches and Ho's"-style gangsta rap, but I don't subscribe to
> that point of view - sometimes it's just so outrageous it's humorous, and
> it's hard to be into rap without being exposed to a fair amount of this.

> I suspect these people just skip right past the political tracks

So, which Morrissey song tells us to oppose toppling agressive, genocidal, totalitarian regimes run by evil fascists? I missed that one....

agressive? try again, oaf

genocidal? over 15 years ago! why didn't we do anything about it back then. it's not like we didn't know he gassed kurds back then

totalitarian? okay, that one's true. but he's not the only dictator in the world.

evil fascist? i have a problem with the use of the word "evil" in this context. it's a loaded word with judeo-christian connotations. there are more value systems in the world than yours and mine. and after the Patriot II act was passed in the good ole USA, isn't accusing sadam of being a fascist a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

> Being slightly right of center, I take offense to your assumption I listen
> to Country music or Christian Rock.

I'm not right of center, but I love *real* country music, as anyone with any taste and sense would.

"Christian rock" is almost as big an oxymoron as "peace-loving Islam."

>I am not the Rush Limbaugh Pat
> Robertson listening gun carrying nazi you think I am. Seriously though, I
> think there is a movement for a more moderate republican party, where in
> the past moderate republicans were shunned. In my state, a lot of
> Republican woman are pro-choice, and want Government involvement in such
> issues as environment and are willing to pay more taxes when it comes to
> schools. I am not as familair with Morrissey's lyrics as many of you are,
> but from what I have read he is is very intune with both female issues and
> social issues in general and that might be the appeal. After saying this,
> I don't agree with Morrissey when he said President Bush is a crashing
> bore. Now if he said Lott and Ashcroft..........

I wonder how people into female issues can abide the gender apartheid inflicted upon Arab countries by Muslim governments? I mean there were actually MORRISSEY FANS in this forum who opposed toppling the Taliban. Unconscionable.

But Bush *is* a crashing bore. However, he also is fighting a good fight against terrorists and against Saddam, and is doing so with a foreign policy team light years more intelligent than the previous administration's.

Hey asshole, shut up. No one cares about your politics.

> agressive? try again, oaf

> genocidal? over 15 years ago! why didn't we do anything about it back
> then. it's not like we didn't know he gassed kurds back then

> totalitarian? okay, that one's true. but he's not the only dictator in the
> world.

Yes, agressive, genocidal, and totalitarian. These are all objective facts, well-documented by the United Nations.

> evil fascist? i have a problem with the use of the word "evil"
> in this context. it's a loaded word with judeo-christian connotations.
> there are more value systems in the world than yours and mine. and after
> the Patriot II act was passed in the good ole USA, isn't accusing sadam of
> being a fascist a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

LOL! There you go again, Mindy....

> I'm not right of center, but I love *real* country music, as anyone with
> any taste and sense would.

> "Christian rock" is almost as big an oxymoron as
> "peace-loving Islam."

god oaf, you actually claim not to be a bigot? your constant jabs at islam suggest otherwise.

> I wonder how people into female issues can abide the gender apartheid
> inflicted upon Arab countries by Muslim governments? I mean there were
> actually MORRISSEY FANS in this forum who opposed toppling the Taliban.
> Unconscionable.

i don't think anyone thinks gender apartheid is a good thing, but keep in mind that other people have different value systems. it's not right by our standards, but our standards are not universal. in any case, women have it just as bad if not worse in other countries (do i even need to bring up the proliferation of female circumcision in africa?). why don't we go in and bomb all the africans too, since we're so into bombing third world countries in the interest of liberating them?

and yeah, the taliban were bastards, but who put them in power? that's what i thought.

> But Bush *is* a crashing bore. However, he also is fighting a good fight
> against terrorists and against Saddam, and is doing so with a foreign
> policy team light years more intelligent than the previous
> administration's.

uh apparently you have been ignoring the news reports coming out in the last few days regarding both british and american intelligence. the CIA has said that there is NO link between saddam and al quaeda. there was communication, but the relationship was over before it began because of clashes between ideologies (saddam is about as far from an islamic fundamentalist as you can get). furthermore, it has been proven that the british intelligence report cited by colin powell as describing in "exquisite detail" the activities of saddam was proven to have been plagiarized from out of date academic papers. hmm, and there's no conspiracy? yeah right. deal with it: saddam has no ties to al quaeda and our intelligence agencies know it and are hopping mad that the government is trying to manipulate and/or suppress their findings.

as i say in another post, you obviously didn't pay any attention to the news that british intelligence reports which were both cited by colin powell and provided to the united nations as evidence were faked. when was the last time saddam was aggressive again? over a decade ago, and we went to war with him over it but LEFT HIM IN POWER. when was the last time he gassed kurds? oh yeah, over a decade ago, and we did NOTHING.

so you don't think the Patriot II act might infringe upon our freedoms? i dunno, but it seems like a case of the government overstepping its bounds to me.

> to name a few (i'm going more for socio-political, so my definition might
> be kinda broad -- i.e. not just governmental politics):

> shoplifters of the world unite

> meat is murder

> the queen is dead

> the headmaster ritual

> barbarism begins at home

> suffer little children

> still ill

> this night has opened my eyes (although much of it is "borrowed"
> from shelagh delaney)

> panic

> sweet and tender hooligan

> paint a vulgar picture

> bengali in platforms

> margaret on the guillotine

> that's all for now, but there are loads more. somebody else can supply the
> rest!

And which one of these songs calls on the world community to let Saddam Hussein do as he likes?

oaf, pardon me, but stop being such an asshole. no one said anything about moz's songs being pro or anti saddam. however, his general politics which are hinted out throughout his oeuvre suggests he'd probably be anti-war. remember "ask" and "everyday is like sunday"? moz had a fear of nuclear war -- he was profoundly affected by the cold war from what i've read. now someone like you might twist this to say that, yeah, moz would agree with going to war with iraq to prevent them nuking us. however, as i have already said, the CIA has said that saddam would almost definitely not attack unless attacked. furthermore, it's not like he has nukes anyway. we do, baby. and if anyone uses 'em, it will be us, and that's something that we should really think long and hard about. i don't think this shit is worth starting world war 3, let alone hastening the end of the world.

> And which one of these songs calls on the world community to let Saddam
> Hussein do as he likes?

and which world community really allows Saddam to do what he likes?

> And which one of these songs calls on the world community to let Saddam
> Hussein do as he likes?


(rare unreleased out-take from "Vauxhall")

> So, which Morrissey song tells us to oppose toppling agressive, genocidal,
> totalitarian regimes run by evil fascists? I missed that one....

Wot? I never said Moz had expressed any sentiment in his music along these lines! The question was about why conservatives are attracted to Moz's music considering his politics appear to be so broadly liberal. I was responding to that in broad, not specific terms.

And for the last time, I don't oppose toppling Hussein. I simply dispute that the best or only way to achieve this is to commence bombing in the next few weeks.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- House and Senate negotiators have agreed that a Pentagon project intended to detect terrorists by monitoring e-mail and commercial databases for health, financial and travel information cannot be used against Americans.

The conferees also agreed to restrict further research on the program without extensive consultation with Congress.

House leaders agreed with Senate fears about the threat to personal privacy posed by the Pentagon program, known as Total Information Awareness (TIA). So they accepted a Senate provision in the omnibus spending bill passed last month, said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., who heads the defense appropriations subcommittee.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., senior Democrat on the subcommittee, said of the program, "Jerry's against it, and I'm against it, so we kept the Senate amendment." Of the Pentagon, he said, "They've got some crazy people over there."

The only obstacles to the provision becoming law would be the failure of the conferees to reach agreement on the overall spending bill in which it is included, or a successful veto of the bill by President Bush.

Lt. Cmdr. Donald Sewell, a Pentagon spokesman, defended the program, saying, "The Department of Defense still feels that it's a tool that can be used to alert us to terrorist acts before they occur." He added, "It's not a program that snoops into American citizens' privacy."

One important factor in the breadth of the opposition is the fact that the project is headed by retired Adm. John Poindexter. Several members of Congress have said he is an unwelcome symbol because he was convicted of lying to Congress when he was President Ronald Reagan's national security adviser. That his conviction was reversed on the grounds that he had been given immunity for the testimony in which he lied did not mitigate congressional opinion, they said.

The conferees' decision spells almost complete failure for a last-minute Pentagon effort, begun Friday, to protect TIA by establishing advisory committees to oversee it.

TIA would enable a team of intelligence analysts to gather and view information from databases, pursue links between individuals and groups, respond to automatic alerts, and share information, all from their individual computers.

It could link such different electronic sources as video feeds from airport surveillance cameras, credit card transactions, airline reservations and records of telephone calls. The data would be filtered through software that would constantly seek suspicious patterns.

The program could be employed in support of lawful military operations outside the United States and lawful foreign intelligence operations conducted against non-U.S. citizens.

The action was praised by Democrats and Republicans and by outside groups on both the political right and left.

"I listened to other members of the Labour party and they basically sounded like Democrats in the US, not republican"

The leaders of the Labour party have abandoned the party's history and are nothing but centrist nonces. The heart of the Labour Party is the voters, the members and the MPs. Mostly socialist.

"Christian rock" is almost as big an oxymoron as "peace-loving Islam."

what a bunch of shite! Why don't you read up on Islam?

oaf manipulating other people's words in order to give the appearance of bolstering his point? who ever heard of such a thing?

> god oaf, you actually claim not to be a bigot? your constant jabs at islam
> suggest otherwise.

How does pointing out that I can't see much "peace-loving" about Islam make me a bigot? I'm just supposed to accept as fact such proclamations? So if I said Bush is a "peace-loving Republican," and you said that's an oxymoron, would you be a bigot?

> i don't think anyone thinks gender apartheid is a good thing, but keep in
> mind that other people have different value systems. it's not right by our
> standards, but our standards are not universal. in any case, women have it
> just as bad if not worse in other countries (do i even need to bring up
> the proliferation of female circumcision in africa?). why don't we go in
> and bomb all the africans too, since we're so into bombing third world
> countries in the interest of liberating them?

Value systems which enslave women are objectively evil. The right to gender and racial equality is a univeral right for all humans on earth.

(We have male circumcision in America thanks to religious kooks, and while it's probably not as twisted as female circumcision, it's pretty fucked up if you ask me.)

> and yeah, the taliban were bastards, but who put them in power? that's
> what i thought.

I sure didn't put them in power!

And it's quite a stretch to say America did. America was accidentally a contributing cause in their rise due to their abandoning Afghanistan after rightfully helping them oust the Soviet empire. But whatever you believe, again, *I* didn't put them there, and *I* supported taking them out.

> uh apparently you have been ignoring the news reports coming out in the
> last few days regarding both british and american intelligence. the CIA
> has said that there is NO link between saddam and al quaeda.

You have to update your information, Mindy. Or, the web sites you consult for your info need to be updated. I believe the February 10 issue of the New Yorker is still on the newstands. Pick up a copy and read Stanley Goldberg's article.
You'll find the CIA has changed their views after gleaning more info from the terrorists we've rounded up in the past year. It's always been a fact that Saddam has dealings in the terrorist underworld, and now he has dealings with Al Quaeda specifically. Such a connection was not needed to justify killing him, but it's all the more reason to.

Anyway, I love the way people say, "There's no link between Saddam and terrorists," and then in the next breath say, "If you bomb Saddam, the terrorists will attack us!"

>there was
> communication, but the relationship was over before it began because of
> clashes between ideologies (saddam is about as far from an islamic
> fundamentalist as you can get).

Again, update your info. Check into that Feb 10 New Yorker.

> furthermore, it has been proven that the
> british intelligence report cited by colin powell as describing in
> "exquisite detail" the activities of saddam was proven to have
> been plagiarized from out of date academic papers. hmm, and there's no
> conspiracy? yeah right. deal with it: saddam has no ties to al quaeda and
> our intelligence agencies know it and are hopping mad that the government
> is trying to manipulate and/or suppress their findings.

> "Christian rock" is almost as big an oxymoron as
> "peace-loving Islam."

> what a bunch of shite! Why don't you read up on Islam?

What should I read?

Why don't you inform me of the proof that Islam is a "peace-loving" religion.
Just because people say over and over and over again that Islam = peace doesn't make it suddenly the truth. Shit don't work that way , man.

What has Islam done in the past century to bring greater peace to the world?

I'm a little sick of people acting like just because a belief system calls itself a religion it is due automatic and unquestioning respect. Religion sucks, and Islam sucks the hardest.

These judgements are directed at Islam in general, not every individual Muslim.