Errors-To: owner-chalkhills@sgiblab.sgi.com
Reply-To: chalkhills@sgiblab.sgi.com
Sender: owner-chalkhills@sgiblab.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk
From: owner-chalkhills@sgiblab.sgi.com
To: chalkhills@sgiblab.sgi.com
Subject: Chalkhills Digest #5-347


         Chalkhills Digest, Volume 5, Number 347

               Wednesday, 22 December 1999

Today's Topics:

                          Szabo
         Hebrew 2000 was many thousand years ago
                         Sir Paul
        The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading
                         Flotsam
                      Andy and TMBG
               True? + Trainspotter moment
     I know there's an Alanis joke here somewhere....
            cd technology; redneck technology
              re: Knights in shining Mersey
               Does Humor Belong in Music?
               I said,No,no,no,you're wrong
                     American Beauty
                  I Don't Believe It !!
                 Re: Legislating Morality
                  Schmillennial Bullsh*t
                         Re: Sex

Administrivia:

    To UNSUBSCRIBE from the Chalkhills mailing list, send a message to
    <chalkhills-request@chalkhills.org> with the following command:

	unsubscribe

    For all other administrative issues, send a message to:

	<chalkhills-request@chalkhills.org>

    Please remember to send your Chalkhills postings to:

	<chalkhills@chalkhills.org>

    World Wide Web: <http://chalkhills.org/>

    The views expressed herein are those of the individual authors.

    Chalkhills is compiled with Digest 3.7 (John Relph <relph@sgi.com>).

Thank you for the winter friendliness that's snowing down.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message-ID: <006901bf4b3b$b4d3db40$775791d2@p13s574p>
From: "John  Boudreau" <aso1@mocha.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject: Szabo
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:43:17 +0900

Season's Greetings from frigid Aso County ...

Following info from D.Mattacks :

" ....  Chuck Szabo US player
living in England  -  plays with Natalie Umbruglio or something ....  v
good .... "

Sorry - that is all I can tell you . By the way , Dave is so busy in the
States that from next year he will divide his time between England and US .
He is setting up an apartment in Boston .

Cheers ,

John The Sushiman

------------------------------

Message-ID: <385EBCE8.EB545CA7@home.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:34:07 -0500
From: Mark Newberg <mhnewberg@home.com>
Organization: @Home Network
Subject: Hebrew 2000 was many thousand years ago

To all my gentile friends,

I don't know the exact year we are in according to the Hebrew
calendar, but it is something like 5760.

If it wasn't for computers this whole hullabaloo about the year 2000
would not exist. This is my opinion and I'm sticking to it!
--
'Do I have to tell a story of a thousand rainy days since we first met?
It's a big enough umbrella, but it's always me that ends up getting wet'

							Mark

------------------------------

Message-ID: <A127B0EEA451D211AF1100A0C91E010E076668@NTSERVER>
From: Ben Tusher <btusher@ruzika.com>
Subject: Sir Paul
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 16:33:59 -0800

>>In fact, all four of them were knighted at the same time. Then John gave
back his knighthood in the early 70s (I think) to protest about something
that the UK government did - but more probably because he felt awkward being
a pot-smoking, long-haired baronet.

The other three didn't bother. They're all still Sirs.>>

Actually, the Beatles were not knighted in 1965.  They were made Members of
the Order of the British Empire (MBE).  It was a political move by the Prime
Minister (Harold Wilson) to increase his popularity with the younger
population.  Actually, many other MBE recipients returned their medals to
protest the Beatles receiving this distinction.

John returned his MBE in order to protest England's support of the Vietnam
War and for his single "Cold Turkey" not hitting #1 (I think this was either
1969 or 1970).

-Ben

------------------------------

From: "Mark Strijbos" <mmello@knoware.nl>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 01:48:08 +0100
Subject: The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading
Message-Id: <19991221004612.D8ABEA6CE7@mail.knoware.nl>

Dear Chalkers,

sorry to bore your socks off some more...

> Unfortunately, Mark, you seem to be a bit confused on this point.
> While the millennium does indeed end at the end of the year 2000, >
> not 1999, this decade and century DO, in fact, end in just a couple
> of  weeks. The last year of the '90s is *not* "2000," nor is it the last
> year of the 20th century

nope, i _was_ right

> Reason being: While there was no "year 0000"
> to begin the millennium,

So, when did the first century start? exactly, the year 1.

And thus it ended in the year 100, making the year 101 the first year
of the second century and 1901 the first year of this, the 20th,
century. I won't say it's easy to grasp but it _is_ true, honest!

1st 		1-100
2nd 	101-200
3rd 	201-300
[...]
19th	1801-1900
20th  	1901-2000

And, along the same lines, the very first decade ended in the year
10. So i'm very sorry, but the current decade really won't end before
December 31st 2000.

XTC content: I really love the no-budget videos for You're A Good
Man Albert Brown and Mole From The Ministry. Excellent stuff that
makes you hungry for more psychedelic Dukes footage. Damn
shame that film idea never went through

yours in xtc,

Mark Strijbos at The Little Lighthouse
 http://www.knoware.nl/users/mmello/
     or http://come.to/xtc

------------------------------

From: "Mark Strijbos" <mmello@knoware.nl>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 01:48:08 +0100
Subject: Flotsam
Message-Id: <19991221004609.3F92BA6CE5@mail.knoware.nl>

Dear Chalkers,

A few odds and ends this time:

> 3. I look for XTC in license plates. I find all combinations but the
> correct one.
me too... sigh

But i do have a lovely "LED XTC" license plate from Louisiana in my
collection. It's amazing what you can find on eBay :)

> Robert Wyatt (Tyler's suggestion originally, and very much seconded by me)
And me!

Either as producer or drummer, the results would be very interesting
at least.
His single "Shipbuilding" is one of the few non-XTC records i have
kept and will always cherish. Damn him (and Elvis Costello who
wrote it of course) for beating This World Over as the best anti-war
song i've ever heard.

> So, Apple Venus has shipped 39066 units in total. What sort of living
> does that give to Andy and Dave, eh?
not much, but of course there are other countries as well as the
existing back catalog. Then there's reproduction rights (radio play
etc) and other copyright payments.

And if i'm not mistaken, this also means that AV1 has already
outsold albums like The Big Express and Nonsuch in the UK.
In this day and age, where you have to pay the High Street shops to
get them to even stock your cd, i think that's actually pretty good for
a small record company with a very limited promotional budget.

Next?

Ah yes, a slightly more serious subject... does society have a right
to criminalize some drug users while it simple taxes others?
Up to a point where children are encouraged to turn in their parents
if they suspect the use of illegal substances like, God forbid, pot ?
I don't think so, it reminds me just a tad too much of the methods
employed by Stalin and Hitler in their heyday

And yes, i would rather have my kids smoke dope legally, without
fear of their lives being ruined because they experimented a bit like
kids will always do.

Let's face it, prohibition doesn't work. You can outlaw prostitution
and feel good about your own morals but it won't get one hooker off
the streets. Same goes for gambling, drinking, smoking and all other
activities that are considered to be "sinful" in one way or another.
What really happens is that you create a black market, leading to all
kinds of new problems like organized crime and corrupt law
enforcement.

Education and setting an example works, just like most kids learn
how to deal with alcohol.
But 10% of them won't and will end up as substance abusers.
But are they thrown in jail? No - and they don't belong there, they
need treatment. ditto for drug users.

yours in xtc,

Mark Strijbos at The Little Lighthouse
 http://www.knoware.nl/users/mmello/
     or http://come.to/xtc

------------------------------

Message-Id: <v03007800b484918a8510@[165.121.69.214]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:09:47 -0500
From: Mitch Friedman <mitchf@mindspring.com>
Subject: Andy and TMBG

Hi,

1) Andy thinks "Birdhouse in Your Soul" is a fantastic song but doesn't
really like anything else on "Flood".

2) Andy *really* disliked the album "John Henry".

3) Andy thought "XTC vs. Adam Ant" was 'eh'.

That's all I know,
Mitch

------------------------------

Message-ID: <046901bf4b5c$6ae796e0$2d64a8c0@emigre>
From: "Simon Curtiss" <mduffy@clear.net.nz>
Subject: True? + Trainspotter moment
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 15:32:38 +1300

Hi Y'all

I got this on the Be Bop Deluxe mailing list. Apologies if these guys are on
this list too.

>>I was watching "The List" on VH-1 last night.  The topic was best lead
>>guitarists.  Not one panelist mentioned Bill...I guess I should have
>>figured with VH-1 being so mainstream...I then proceeded to smoke
>>something and listened to "October Man" with the headphones.  Very cool!

>Well, the show is a joke.  Another example that is going around:  they
>asked Jason Falkner to drop Andy Partridge from his three favorite
>songwriters list because the producers had never heard of him.  Could be
>true.

- anyone know if this really happened? It's very sad (as in 'you sad gits')
if it's true.

Equally sad is this little trainspotting moment. What Now! is a kids TV
Saturday morning show here in NZ and last weekend they played nearly 2/3's
of 'Thanks For Christmas' whilst decorating the kids ward at some hospital -
made my morning anyway - my son (2.5) looked at me very strangely when Dad
started getting all excited!

I'm gone

Simon

Rumours that Prince Charles is giving up painting watercolours so that he
will be known as 'The Prince Formerly Known As Artist' are unfounded.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 23:25:37 +0000
From: Scott Barnard <gforsche@videotron.ca>
Subject: I know there's an Alanis joke here somewhere....
Message-id: <000901bf4b41$8626a420$0f66c818@oemcomputer.videotron.ca>

In #5-344 Simon Doane wrote <Irony has figured heavily in many posts during
the course of the last year (can you guess which ones, Scott?)>

Oh, spiffing.

Hoist by me own fucking petard.  Now I'll have to spend the holidays in
remedial reading.

S.

Note: The preceding message was entirely lacking in irony, sarcasm, satire,
burlesque and, in all probability, humour.

------------------------------

Message-ID: <19991221040521.61239.qmail@hotmail.com>
From: "Megan Heller" <hellerm@hotmail.com>
Subject: cd technology; redneck technology
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:05:20 CST

Wayne (WTDK@aol.com) instructs--
>Although I haven't had this experience with The Big Express (I did buy
>one of the early bizarre Virgin issued editions of Drums and Wires
>though), the issue of the erosion of early CDs is a good point. In
>fact if you own any European editions of XTC stuff pressed in the
>mid80's you may want to take a look at them. CD Review ran an article
>a couple of years ago on a whole series of CDs pressed by Virgin UK
>(with the PDO stamp on them) that showed early signs of fatigue and
>erosion. Evidently the aluminum content was low and the pressing
>process flawed making them vulnerable to decay within a decade. This
>appears to be true of any CDs pressed by Virgin around this time frame
>with the PDO stamp on it.

okay, I'm sorry, where would one find the "PDO" stamp? I don't *think* I
have any of those versions, although I have three Virgin releases from the
mid-eighties; the catalog numbers begin CDV...  This may have been explained
before, but, alas, I fell asleep in class.

Matthew Seery explains Midnight Oil--
>Actually "Redneck" in this case does refer to the narrow minded racist
>views that people associate with this word. The name Redneck Wonderland
>is not an endorsement but rather a comment on the rise of people like
>Pauline Hanson and the support that her narrow minded simplistic views
>have gained since the change of government and hence the political
>climate in 1996. In Australia, the term Redneck is often identified with
>people whose political views are from the extreme right. It also seems to
>be associated with certain people who live away from the big cities who
>love to shoot the crap out of anything that moves and who think Indonesia
>is going to invade Australia tomorrow. I think the point that Midnight
>Oil were trying to make was that you don't need to go out to the bush to
>find "rednecks". They can be found in the cities in all different walks
>of life.

quite true, and, growing up in the American South, I am all too familiar
with this term.  I'm actually interested to know if anyone knows when/where
this term first appeared.  I alwasy heard that it referred originally to
bumpkin farmers with sunburned necks, but I have no idea how long it's been
around.

but *everyplace* has its rednecks...

m.

------------------------------

Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19991220233926.00709b68@mail.interlog.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 23:39:26 -0500
From: David Oh <davidoh@interlog.com>
Subject: re: Knights in shining Mersey

>Chalkhills Digest, Volume 5, Number 341
>From: David Oh <davidoh@interlog.com>

>>my only question is this: why was macca knighted while george and ringo
>>were not? what places him above the other two? i don't get it!

>In fact, all four of them were knighted at the same time. Then John gave
back his knighthood in the early 70s (I think) to protest about something
that the UK government did - but more probably because he felt awkward
being a pot-smoking, long-haired baronet.<

in actual fact, they were awarded m.b.e.s, which stands for "member of the
british empire", in the late 60s (not sure of the date), which is _not_ the
same as being knighted. it's a level or two down from knighthood. an m.b.e.
is not to be confused with an o.b.e., which is "order of the british
empire". i'm not sure of the pecking order here... perhaps one of our
british chalkies can explain it all?

btw, john returned his as a protest about the vietnam war, i believe.

>The other three didn't bother. They're all still Sirs.

no, they are not "sirs", but they can add the m.b.e. after their names.
"sir" paul was knighted only a couple of years back, possibly the year
before elton john was.

>I'm surprised, o much-vocal David, by this gaping whole in your
all-encompassing knowledge.

i may be vocal (i like the sound of my voice... ?), but there are many
holes (and wholes, too) in my not-so-all-encompassing knowledge.

I guess nobody is perfect.

especially not me, mate! :-)

 peace & xtc,

 davidoh

------------------------------

From: Hbsherwood@aol.com
Message-ID: <0.29b0d167.2590602b@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 23:46:35 EST
Subject: Does Humor Belong in Music?

Folks:

A few digests back (it may still be visible in the rear-view mirror, through
the haze of sanctimony and cordite smoke) I alluded to the mid-century
bandleader Spike Jones. I am sure the reference occasioned a wide smile of
welcome recognition in most of the Two or Three Gathered, particularly those
of us who answer to the description, "long in the tooth and short on brain
cells." However, it has come to my attention that for a few youngsters, that
august name (or a variant spelling of it) is more likely to spur thoughts of
clever music videos and recent surrealist movies than of the most
diaphragm-wrenchingly, eyeball-poppingly, lung-butter-looseningly funny music
ever committed to wax, shellac, vinyl, or plastic.

It would be an awful thing if Spike Jones and His City Slickers were to be
ushered quietly into the mists of ancient history without so much as an
off-key rendition of "Taps" gargled through a glass of Listerine by Doodles
Weaver, and it is with this in mind that I offer to my Chalkie friends a
small but, I think, worthy Christmas present. Like the best gifts, this one
serves a plurality of purposes: While it passes the Spike Torch to a new
generation of small fry who have never been exposed to the dangerous notion
that a strictly instrumental passage, completely free of verbal cues of any
kind, can make you pee your pants from laughter, it also might serve in its
small way to provide a little pure entertainment for folks of a literary
bent.

The nugget I offer up for your delectation, then: Thomas Pynchon's liner
notes for "Spiked! The Music of Spike Jones" (Catalyst, 1994), available and
handsomely formatted by your correspondent at
http://users.erols.com/fiction-net/spike

The essay is affectionate, informally chatty, imbued with the gentleness and
generosity of spirit that characterizes the later Pynchon, and is informative
and as funny as befits its subject without trying to upstage him. It places
Jones squarely in his era,  providing context for the trademark Slicker
loony-bin antics while slipping us the hipster's sedition: If you're not
utterly hooked by the time you reach the part about Spike watching Igor
Stravinsky conducting The Firebird in squeaky patent leather shoes, you'd
better check your pulse.

Finishes Pynchon:

     "My band's got rhythm," Spike said once, "and to it we
     add a guffaw. We get along by not taking anything serious."
     Which, if not heavy duty prophecy, turns out at least to be
     his maniac's blessing and gift, finally, to us, adrift in
     our own difficult time, with moments of true innocence, like
     good cowbell solos, few and far between.

Not a bad thought to bear in mind as you tuck into your Christmas turkeys and
millenial hysteria. And as we perch in the back seat of the family
Oldsmobile, bobbing the dachsund's head and watching out the back windshield
at the Twentieth Century receding into the distance, we can take some comfort
in the knowledge that, big and ugly and filthy and bewildering and murderous
though it was for the most part, there were at least a few things about it
that really weren't too bad at all.

Harrison "Plus, most of us got laid at least once" Sherwood

------------------------------

Message-ID: <19991221052109.24244.qmail@ww182.netaddress.usa.net>
Date: 20 Dec 99 21:21:09 PST
From: Chris Wisniewski <riserius1@netscape.net>
Subject: I said,No,no,no,you're wrong

>In fact, all four of them were knighted at the same time. Then John gave
back his knighthood in the early 70s (I think) to protest about something
that the UK government did - but more probably because he felt awkward
being a pot-smoking, long-haired baronet.

The other three didn't bother. They're all still Sirs.

I'm surprised, o much-vocal David, by this gaping whole in your
all-encompassing knowledge.

I guess nobody is perfect.

Giovanni<

God, I hate when people get stuff wrong and then act smug.  The Beatles
were awarded the M.B.E. (Member of the British Empire) for the commerce
they brought to England from their record sales. John returned his as a
form of protest a few years later, but his list of protest reasons included
the fact that his latest single was not doing well in the charts, thereby
diluting its effectiveness. Paul was knighted recently by Queen Elizabeth,
mostly for charitable work such as the Prince's Trust, and generally for
being a good representative of the Crown and her Good Name. The three
surviving Beatles are all still M.B.E.'s. Only Paul, however, has the Title
of Sir.

Chris Wisniewski
XTC Content-- What exactly happened to XTC live and direct? I missed
something.
XTC Song of the day-- All Along The Watchtower
NonXTC SotD -- The Secret Kind  by Screaming Trees

------------------------------

Message-ID: <000f01bf4b83$242581a0$a6841818@we.mediaone.net>
From: "Drew MacDonald" <drewmacdonald@mediaone.net>
Subject: American Beauty
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 23:15:20 -0800

I've since deleted the Digest it appeared in, so I don't know to whom I'm
responding, exactly, but I'll keep this non-XTC comment short.

I'd hate to think that anyone -- let alone the tasteful, right-thinking
persons here in these Hills -- would forego seeing the film "American
Beauty" because of the recent pan from our brother. He seemed to go in with
a head full of grandiose expectations (always a problem when a movie is so
widely lauded) and then criticized the film for what it WASN'T, rather than
for what it was. Is it "Citizen Kane II?"  Of course not, and it doesn't
pretend to be. But what it accomplishes

Never mind. I just wiped out a longish review of the movie that really
doesn't belong here. And maybe you DO have to be an American to "get" the
film -- though I doubt it -- so just SEE it, okay? Wait for the videotape if
you must, but watch it with eyes, ears and mind open and you'll have quite
an experience.

If I made a "thumbs up" joke here, would the Brits on the list get it?

And does that last line open up too many potential ripostes?

Drew

------------------------------

From: David_Goody@mandg.co.uk
Message-ID: <0025684E.002C573B.00@mailgate.mandg.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:08:38 +0000
Subject: I Don't Believe It !!

Giovanni stated in Chalkhills #5-344......

>>Chalkhills Digest, Volume 5, Number 341
>>From: David Oh <davidoh@interlog.com>
>
>>my only question is this: why was macca knighted while george and ringo
>>were not? what places him above the other two? i don't get it!
>
>In fact, all four of them were knighted at the same time. Then John gave
>back his knighthood in the early 70s (I think) to protest about something
>that the UK government did - but more probably because he felt awkward
>being a pot-smoking, long-haired baronet.
>
>The other three didn't bother. They're all still Sirs.
>
>I'm surprised, o much-vocal David, by this gaping whole in your
>all-encompassing knowledge.
>
>I guess nobody is perfect.

I can't believe I'll be the only one to say this, but here goes...

Giovanni, I guess nobody is perfect. The Beatles received lesser honours in
the early 70's (CBEs, MBEs or OBEs; I'm not sure which), which John
returned.

The others were not knighted and never have been. They're still plain old
Mr.

Paul was recently knighted (mid-late 90's?).

Dave.

------------------------------

Message-Id: <v04210100b48499027ed1@[208.13.202.57]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:01:46 -0500
From: "Christopher R. Coolidge" <cauldron@together.net>
Subject: Re: Legislating Morality

>>You cannot teach morals if there is no punishment for not being moral.
>>Laws may not teach a moral, but they prevent most people from straying,
>>thereby teaching them that something is at least wrong.  You suggest that
>>education will prevent people from abusing drugs - how so?  By giving free
>>access to drugs, you take away the necessary weight behind the argument to
>>not use them.  Many people listen when you say, "Don't do drugs because
>>they're illegal."  How many of them will listen to you if you say, "Don't
>>do drugs because they're dumb and dangerous?"

>well, I did.  I've broken a lot of laws, none of which have harmed another
>person, and most ridiculous laws (not all-- I guess I don't think the
>jaywalking law is ridiculous).  I could have very easily done drugs on many
>occasions in college where I wouldn't have gotten caught.  Even
>after I >realised that many drugs weren't half as dangerous as I'd
>been told, by that >time I felt like it just wasn't my thing.

   You can't legislate morality. It doesn't work. Of all people,
Victorian England had the right idea, there were no laws against
homosexuality or currently illicit drugs. You could smoke all the
opium and have all the homosexual sex you wanted, but you also had to
deal with being ostracised and shunned socially. Not that I'd like us
to go back to Victorian society, but a truly free society doesn't
need to legislate for or against morality. When you don't like
something and try to pass laws to discourage it, it opens up the
possibility that someone else is going to come along and pass laws
encouraging that same practice. Besides, if you're truly comfortable
with yourself and the way you live your life, you don't give a rat's
ass what anyone thinks about it anyway. Can't please everybody, and
you can't pass laws to get people to behave the way you want them to.
Of course there should be laws to protect us from the irresponsible
behavior of others, but I reserve the right to either be responsible
for myself or remove myself sensibly from the gene pool by my idiotic
actions, as the case may be.

Christopher R. Coolidge

Homepage at
http://homepages.together.net/~cauldron/homepage.html

------------------------------

Message-ID: <19991221110238.11584.qmail@web3105.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 03:02:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Dom Lawson <zackbusner@yahoo.com>
Subject: Schmillennial Bullsh*t

Sorry, couldn't help myself...

Thanks to all you ever-so clever people for pointing
out that the new millennium begins next year rather
than in a couple of weeks time. How very educational
and yet, at the same time, how utterly pathetic. Get a
life! Yes, if you're going to split numerical hairs,
the 21st century doesn't really kick in until 2001 but
(and it's a huge but) who gives a monkey's anus??? The
vast majority of people will be celebrating the
transition from the 1900s to a period where years
begin with 2 and not 1. Is this so bad? Are we all
appalling fuckwits for not getting it right? No, we're
normal and perfectly entitled to treat Dec 31st 1999
as the eve of a new millennium. Any religious or
historical significance that you may attach to the
event is irrelevant anyway - the numbers are wholly
arbitrary and are brought to you courtesy of our Lord
Jesus H Corbett - and by the time 2001 comes along
there will be very few people who can still be arsed
to get excited. Naturally there will be a few
self-appointed guardians of the "truth", with their
snooty noses pointing skyward, mocking the foolish
prematurity of the overwhelming majority of sentient
beings, but hey, why let a few twats get you down?
Enjoy your party next year, pseudo-intellectual
midgets that you are, and don't you dare join in this
month's festivities. After all, it's not really the
new millennium yet, is it? Christ on a bike! The
things people get smug about.....

"...and I tried to explain it to people, but would
they listen? The fools! If only everyone was as
well-informed as me!" etc etc etc. Meanwhile, the
party went on...

As I say, pathetic.

Dom.

=====
A post-imperial King Kong who smashes the windows of the department
stores and pulls out wriggling handfuls of humans, twined between his
digits and caught like the termites that they are in the cable-thick
fur on the back of his huge hands. He disentangles them from his fur,
eyes their knotted faces, and then pops them between his teeth, each
of which is the size of a dentist.

------------------------------

Message-Id: <v04210101b4849e90ccef@[208.13.202.57]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:12:22 -0500
From: "Christopher R. Coolidge" <cauldron@together.net>
Subject: Re: Sex

At 10:41 AM -0800 12/20/99, <owner-chalkhills@chalkhills.org> wrote:
>word to that.  It's quite troubling how many sexual acts *are* illegal in
>many states in the US (see above broken laws).  Is this the kind of
>legislation of morality we should put up with? (do you have any idea in how
>many states sex outside of marriage is illegal?  heterosexual and homosexual
>oral sex?  and these laws have been enforced as recently as in the last
>twenty years)

   In Vermont where I live, the Supreme Court has as of today decided
that same sex marriage is permissible under the Vermont constitution.
While I have mixed feelings about that(too complex to go into), it's
worth pointing out that, unlike many other states Vermont is already
one of the most liberal states in the union on gay and lesbian
rights. Many companies and even towns have domestic partner benefits
available, and the state as a whole has no opinion on what people do
in their bedrooms. That's how it should be. Nonetheless, people are
also free to believe that homosexuality is wrong if their religious
beliefs demand it, as long as they practice live and let live.
Disagreement should not equal intolerance. Vermonters are very
tolerant people, even when they disagree with a certain lifestyle.

Christopher R. Coolidge

Homepage at
http://homepages.together.net/~cauldron/homepage.html

"A Great law protects me from the government. The Bill of rights has
10 GREAT laws.  A Good law protects me from you.  Laws against murder,
theft, assault and the like are good laws.  A Poor law attempts to
protect me from myself."  - Unknown

------------------------------

End of Chalkhills Digest #5-347
*******************************

Go back to the previous page.