Print

Print


Dear Listers,

Some of our off-topic judgments, or should I say *evaluations* on the List
seem to be a bit too strict, I daresay a bit too categorical. With all due
respect, I hardly expect ready-made truth announcements on the subject of
world politics (or on any subject, *a jerk like Berlusconi*, * the moron*
Bush, and the *definitely third rate actor-in-politics* A.Sh. included)
from a European or an American with a corresponding cultural background.
Especially from a non-politician, but a humble admirer of modernist poetry
and/or Eliot*s verse in particular, like myself. As the reader of most
messages who rarely jumps into discussion, I would definitely welcome more
flexibility, or perhaps even indirectness in our judgments, which may prove
helpful in discussing fields beyond our direct expertise.

Temur

P.S. Saying US is not invading North Korea simply
>  'cause there ain't no oil there...
seems fairly Russian/Marxist judgment to me as I heve always believed it*s
the matter of Western Values in the first place. Besides, there is no iol
or gas out there in Afghanistan, if my memory serves me right.

T.K.


On Oct 9 2003, Automatic digest processor wrote:

> There are 20 messages totalling 1164 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. OT or OT? politics/Bush, et.al. (8)
>   2. T.E. vs D.H. (2)
>   3. Is TWM a 'cool' poem in the sense of Mcluhan? (4)
>   4. Is TWL a 'cool' poem in the sense of Mcluhan? (6)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:51:46 +0200
> From:    Gunnar Jauch <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: OT or OT? politics/Bush, et.al.
>
> am 7.10.03 15:39 Uhr schrieb Nancy Gish unter [log in to unmask]:
>
> > Dear Gunnar,
> >
> > You're preaching to the choir.
>
> Not necessarily, dear Nancy.
> There are lots of tacit Bush admirers on this list, just take Eugene, our
> patriotic Wall Street poet or Ken A. ... Not too many would admit it,
> though. It's kind of an embarrassing thing, like having bad breath or
> athlete's foot.
>
> > But as I always point out, Americans
> > did not, in fact, "trust" to Bush.  They voted for Gore by half a
> > million.  After 9/11 there was such terror here that people truly
> > needed to believe in someone.  Bush seems to have squandered
> > that.  His is now back down in polls to where he was before it, and a
> > solid majority of Americans believe we are "seriously on the wrong
> > track."  I don't know if that poll has been reported where you are.
> > Plus the leak of a CIA operative is a big problem for him--especially
> > since his father ran the CIA.
> >
> > California, on the other hand. . . . . .
>
> And they did it again!
> After turning a third rate actor into a President.
>
> That's pretty sickening. Goes to show what show biz can do.
>
> This was how a jerk like Berlusconi became Italy's President:
> He simply owned most Italy's TV channels...
>
> > Nancy
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:54:09 +0200
> From:    Gunnar Jauch <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: OT or OT? politics/Bush, et.al.
>
> am 7.10.03 23:29 Uhr schrieb Carrol Cox unter [log in to unmask]:
>
> > Nancy Gish - Women's Studies wrote:
> >>
> >> [clip]
> >
> >> But the question is what should be done to  prevent that.  An
> >> argument was made and can still be made that inspections worked
> >> and were working and that is why his "program" was not producing.
> >> Why are we, then, not invading North Korea?
>
>
> Simple: 'cause there ain't no oil there...
>
>
> Gunnar
>
> ------------------------------
>
>