--------------------------------------------------------------------- T H E G A R Y N U M A N D I G E S T (by subscription only - to unsubscribe, see bottom of this message) --------------------------------------------------------------------- (#2001-219) - Topics This Issue: 1) Gary leaving Eagle 2) New Label 3) Label deal 4) New Label 5) Digest (09/20/2001 18:01) (#2001-218) 6) Radio Free Numa 7) off-topic: no war machine... everybody wants peace 8) FWD: You can't bomb us back into the Stone Age. We're already there ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 20:31:44 -0400 From: "Sean Caszatt" Subject: Gary leaving Eagle Regarding Gary's decision to leave Eagle and look elsewhere for a deal, I think it's an excellent choice. Anything would be better than Spitfire as a label in the USA. Cleopatra's re-releases were much more visible and accessible than Spitfire's release of PURE. (I ordered PURE from the UK, but would have bought a U.S. copy had I been able to find one on a store shelf.) I think Gary could, conceivably, be more attractive to U.S. labels this time around. Especially after a well-received (if under-promoted) tour. Just my two cents... Sean ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 23:03:21 -0400 From: "Tim" Subject: New Label Interesting point.....what are the possibilities now for Gary and a new label........anyone want to make a REALISTIC guess.....someone (a label) with world wide capacity I suspect.....and what about returning to Beggars Banquet? Just wondering.... Tim "...the machmen meet the machines and play kill by numbers..." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 23:16:26 -0500 From: Mark Hubbard Subject: Label deal I have been wondering things like this as well. Like, does Gary have some say when dealing with labels in other countries, IF he has a label deal in the UK. For example, when he went to Eagle, they hooked him up with Cleo here in the states. But, does he HAVE to have their say so. IE: He gets a label that only takes care of Europe. Could Gary, on his own, try to get US distribution, through say, Cleo again? Or will his hands be tied, based on what other UK deal he gets. Mark Hubbard > >Any thoughts on what labels in the US he would look to? He has stated that he wanted to >look into a better, more touring/pro promotion based US based label. Any thoughts anyone? >Is anyone worried we might not see another Numan release until maybe 2003 or 2004? Will >NUMA resurface in the mean time? Any thoughts? > >Mike in Detroit ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:40:34 -0700 From: Rod Reynolds Subject: Re: New Label > Interesting point.....what are the possibilities now for Gary and a new > label........anyone want to make a REALISTIC guess.....someone (a label) > with world wide capacity I suspect.....and what about returning to Beggars > Banquet? > > Tim > Beggars Banquet has already stated that they are not interested. I have a meeting with Cleopatra next week and will ask if they are. But who knows if Gary would be interested in Cleo? BTW Cleo no longer distributes Eagle, so it was not they who made a choice to drop Gary. In fact, Gary was not dropped by Eagle, either, just the distribution changed. Brian (manager of Cleo) is not happy with Eagle. He told me that there were too many Numan releases on the (US) shelves all at once - the law of diminishing returns - amongst the BB and Cleo re-issues and the Exile (and related) cds... Rod Los Angeles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 02:30:26 EDT From: ImAnAgent9984@cs.com Subject: Re: Digest (09/20/2001 18:01) (#2001-218) In a message dated 9/20/01 5:04:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time, MDaemon@garynumanfan.nu writes: << Not to be rude but in case you were wondering....nobody cares. sorry, I know that's rude. But atleast I'm honest. John >> I really want to apologize for that one. I wasn't in the best of moods. Again, I'm sorry. John ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 04:56:23 -0500 (CDT) From: cb Subject: Radio Free Numa 4:52 am 21 sep 2001... KVRX (91.7 Austin, TX) played I Die, You Die. sounds like the album version. Gotta love college radio. :) cheers, -- Cyberspace Buddha /(0\ What's on, your mind? mailto:cb@silverchat.com \1)/ http://silverchat.com/~cb donottelnetto:silverchat.com. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:31:08 -0500 From: "Val & Ben Iglar-Mobley" Subject: off-topic: no war machine... everybody wants peace I appreciate that some of us here would like the list to get back on topic, but again the questions are coming up, so I guess I'll have to continue my little war for peace. >> No, I think I would call the police and have him arrested. > > Gee, a "pacifist" using force? > ... >> I may be a pacifist, > > Maybe you'd like to think so. I know different. I think you're confusing "pacifism" with "passivism." Pacifists are not anarchists. Being opposed to violence doesn't mean I have to also be opposed to law-enforcement. >> I don't think I would pull a gun on him. > > No, you'd have someone else pull a gun on him. I promise you, if I thought that calling the police meant that whoever I was turning in would be killed, I wouldn't do it. I don't want anyone killed in my name. My working assumption is that our police strive to avoid killing the people they apprehend. > You sound like the man who loves to eat steak, > but casts a critical eye upon the butcher. Smile when you say that to a vegetarian, pardner. > There's no police in this situation. We ARE the police. Is the U.S. going to act as a police force... or a hired mafia hit-man? I said I'd call the police, not the local "don." If we act as a police force-- if all we do is work to apprehend bin Laden, not kill him or his countryfolk-- I'll be the first to applaud. I hereby grant everybody I've argued with one free "I told you so" in that event. I will humbly offer a "You were right; I was wrong" to the list. Unfortunately, every time Mr. Bush talks about this crisis he uses the word "war," and I strongly suspect he doesn't mean it in a poetic sense. I think he's preparing for a bloodbath. > If you kill someone in self-defense it is not murder. True, but if someone murders a member of your family and you hunt that person down and kill him, it is. A person in the U.S. is legally permitted to resist an intruder with deadly force, but once that intruder has escaped that permission ends. >> Going to war against Afghanistan is not justified. > > Of course it is. In the US, aiding and abetting a criminal is a > separate criminal act. Yes, but not one that's punishable by death. Harboring criminals is not an act of war. If you think it is, can I point out that the U.S. harbors Henry Kissinger and has refused to extradite him to any of the countries that have standing arrest orders against him for crimes against humanity? Kissinger engineered the bombing of Cambodia as part of our insane war against Vietnam, and as a result the social structure of Cambodia was destroyed, allowing a marginal faction known as the Khmer Rouge to rise up and take control, carrying out one of the bloodiest massacres in world history. Kissinger, as Secretary of State and overseer of our foreign policy, helped engineer the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat against the democratically-elected president Salvador Allende of Chile, to install the military dictator Augusto Pinochet, one of the worst butchers the world has ever seen. Kissinger cannot travel to these and other countries because he would face immediate arrest and trial. If Afghanistan's harboring bin Laden entitles us to bomb their country, how many bombs are you prepared to say Chile and Combodia are allowed to drop onto U.S. cities? For myself, I would prefer to see no more bombs fall here, so in fairness I have to say that I don't believe bombing Afghanistan is justified, either. > Pearl Harbor was a direct result of economic > sanctions placed on Japan... There was a bit more than just the sanctions that spurred the Pearl Harbor attack. President Roosevelt ordered our fleet moved from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, effectively boxing in the Japanese. The Japanese were sailing to invade Indonesia in order to gain an access to oil, from which they had been cut off by the sanctions. With our fleet in their way, the necessary first step for the Japanese was an attack against the fleet. The Army board concluded at the time, and documents declassified since have confirmed, that Roosevelt and military leaders knew the attack was coming and when. It is believed Roosevelt felt such an attack was necessary to bring the U.S. into the war, and so he positioned our forces in such a way that they would be attacked. Was a war to quell the Nazi threat justified? History has passed judgement pretty resoundingly on that question. Was Roosevelt justified in forcing a Japanese attack on the U.S. to compel Americans to support our entrance into that war? I'll leave that for others to decide. Did the sanctions alone instigate the Japanese attack on the U.S. No, they did not. > This doctrine is completely discredited. Actually, sanctions and diplomacy have been reaffirmed, by this very crisis. Before the U.S. has even fired a shot, we already have Pakistan negotiating with the Taliban and urging them to hand over Osama bin Laden, if not to the U.S. then to a third-party nation. And the Taliban have just made a "request" of bin Laden that he voluntarily turn himself in! From their militant position prior to the Pakistani diplomacy, that's a dramatic step toward concession. > Violence has solved EVERY major human conflict in history. Not true. The Cuban Missile Crisis most definitely qualifies as a "major conflict"-- bringing us right up to the brink of nuclear war; the silos had opened up, the nose cones had emerged-- but that was solved through diplomacy. The Soviet Union dissolved without bloodshed. War is not the only tool in the kit. > But who exactly is going to take this message to the terrorists? The Pakistanis, apparently. And thank Allah for them. The U.S. has sure fallen down on that task. > Bush... said that he would not negotiate as long as Iraqi forces > remained in Kuwait, which leaves the door open for negotiations > AFTER a voluntary Iraqi withdrawal. Once Iraq had withdrawn the U.S. would've had no incentive to negotiate. Effectively, Bush was saying, "no negotiations, period." Bear in mind, all the Iraqi government was asking in return for that offer of withdrawal was consideration of resolutions that the United Nations had already passed! The United Nations had already condemned the Israeli occupation of those territories, but Israel summarily ignored the condemnation because the U.S. backed them. > Iraq took an entire nation hostage, and killed many > Kuwaiti citizens in the process... But they looked like amateurs compared to the Iraqi death toll the U.S. carried out. The U.S. invasion of Vietnam ranks alongside the Nazi holocaust-- 2 million Vietnamese killed (officially, though the actual number is more like 3 or 4 million). Who shall prevent those U.S. terrorists from getting away with it? The U.S. invasion of Panama the World Court classified as "illegal aggression." What are we doing to prevent further terrorism from them? I am not anti-U.S. I love my country. I'm just pointing out that condemning this action while turning a blind eye to our own is pure hypocrisy. Arguing that we cannot use diplomacy with "terrorists" or governing bodies that carry out illegal aggression and occupation... means we can never use diplomacy at all. Let the killing commence. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition. One important reason former President Carter has been so successful in negotiating peace as he's done is that he approaches other leaders and governments as if they were ruling bodies, not as if they were the demons our press and State Department make them out to be. He offers his respect and he listens to what they have to say. I don't think that's an unreasonable step to take in the service of preventing killing. The Dalai Lama has adopted the same approach in dealing with the Chinese government, despite their having decimated his countryfolk, and through his work he has been able to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Tibetans. We can posture ourselves and sniff derisively about "negotiating with terrorists" and comfort ourselves with our hard-line intolerance when we count up our dead... or we can try to save lives. > Practicing the same methods of violence as terrorists would be > to initiate sneak attacks, to bomb buildings and buses and cars > and kill women and children. Oh? Are there going to be safety mechanisms on the bombs we're going to use? Will they be clearly labeled "for use in killing soldiers ONLY; not to be used against women and children"? To quote someone else here: > As far as innocents being killed during this war.....I'd hate to > say it but it's gonna' happen no matter what. That's pretty much > a given in any war. Even Cheney was saying it's going to happen > undoubtedly. If we kill innocent civilians, we have adopted the methods of our attackers. > And make no mistake: war has been declared, and war it is. War has not been declared. Terrorism has been declared. Insofar as there has been any declaration of war, it has been one-sided: by the U.S. > We have to fight for our freedom here > because it's being threatened. It is indeed. Our freedom from violence is threatened by the terrorists... and our other freedoms are threatened by some in the U.S. who would use this tragedy to curtail our civil liberties. John Ashcroft has already called for a rollback of civil rights, supposedly in service of aiding investigative bodies' ability to apprehend and prosecute terrorists. I want to live in a safe society, but I also want to live in a free society, and I don't want to sacrifice our rights against unlawful arrest, search, and seizure to make our society more "safe." If anyone feels similarly, the ACLU is coordinating a letter-writing campaign to urge Congress not to legislate away our liberties in the wake of this attack. You can visit this link to send a message to your elected officials in support of the cause: http://www.aclu.org/action/liberty107.html I passed along in my earlier post a link to send a message to George W. Bush to urge restraint. Here's another to send a similar message to our members of Congress: http://www.moveon.org/justice/ > Not a bad idea - not a bad idea at all. Think I'll do that - thanks > for the suggestion. I also like to think that it counts that my fave > pizza joint, "Famous Pizza" on 14th St., is Arab-owned and > operated and I've been there a couple of times since. I'm glad you like the idea, Joey, and, yes, I agree that patronizing any Arab-immigrant-owned business ought to serve the same purpose. Have a slice for me. If anyone would like to take the additional step of signing an on-line statement condemning acts of hatred and violence against Arab immigrants and Muslims, here is a web site that is collecting names for a message of solidarity: http://pledge.DrSteen.com And if anyone else is interested in other on-line resources for pacifists, here are a few web sites I can offer: http://www.igc.org http://www.peace-action.org http://www.warresisters.org And to everyone on all sides of this issue, let me pass along a message from Tamim Ansary, an Afghan-American immigrant. I think his words need to be taken into consideration, whatever we think is the appropriate course of action. I will say this for Mr. Bush: the bombs haven't fallen yet! Peace, Ben . . . As I walk through This wicked world, Searching for light in the darkness Of insanity, I ask myself, "Is all hope lost? Is there only pain and hatred And misery?" And each time I feel like this inside, There's on thing I want to know: What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding? And as I walk on Through troubled times, My spirit gets so downhearted Sometimes. So where are the strong? And who are the trusted? And where is that harmony, Sweet harmony? 'Cause each time I feel it slipping away, Just makes me wanna cry What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding? --Nick Lowe (by way of Elvis Costello) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:32:10 -0500 From: "Val & Ben Iglar-Mobley" Subject: FWD: You can't bomb us back into the Stone Age. We're already there You can't bomb us back into the Stone Age. We're already there http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/index.html Dear Friends, Yesterday I heard a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage," and he asked, "What else can we do? What is your suggestion?" Minutes later I heard a TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done." And I thought about these issues especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's been going on over there. So I want to share a few thoughts with anyone who will listen. I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I fervently wish to see those monsters punished. But the Taliban and Bin Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who captured Afghanistan in 1997 and have been holding the country in bondage ever since. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a master plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would love for someone to eliminate the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country. I guarantee it. Some say, if that's the case, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban themselves? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, damaged, and incapacitated. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food. Millions of Afghans are widows of the approximately two million men killed during the war with the Soviets. And the Taliban has been executing these women for being women and have buried some of their opponents alive in mass graves. The soil of Afghanistan is littered with land mines and almost all the farms have been destroyed. The Afghan people have tried to overthrow the Taliban. They haven't been able to. We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble with that scheme is, it's already been done. The Soviets took care of it . Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? There is no infrastructure. Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that. New bombs would only land in the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. (They have already, I hear.) Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time. So what else can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. I think that when people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" many of them are thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. They are thinking about overcoming moral qualms about killing innocent people. But it's the belly to die not kill that's actually on the table. Americans will die in a land war to get Bin Laden. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that, folks. To get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. The invasion approach is a flirtation with global war between Islam and the West. And that is Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants and why he did this thing. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. At the moment, of course, "Islam" as such does not exist. There are Muslims and there are Muslim countries, but no such political entity as Islam. Bin Laden believes that if he can get a war started, he can constitute this entity and he'd be running it. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the West wreaks a holocaust in Muslim lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong about winning, in the end the west would probably overcome--whatever that would mean in such a war; but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden yes, but anyone else? I don't have a solution. But I do believe that suffering and poverty are the soil in which terrorism grows. Bin Laden and his cohorts want to bait us into creating more such soil, so they and their kind can flourish. We can't let him do that. That's my humble opinion. Tamim Ansary ------------------------------ End numan@garynumanfan.nu Digest [09/21/2001 18:01] --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- T H E G A R Y N U M A N D I G E S T is produced, moderated, and distributed by Derek Langsford, Dave Datta, and Joey Lindstrom dlangs@sunstroke.sdsu.edu, datta@cs.uwp.edu, Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU ------------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to the messages in this list, email: numan@GaryNumanFan.NU If you want to be removed, or someone wants to be added, email: listserv@GaryNumanFan.NU and include this line as the first line of your message body: SUBSCRIBE numan@garynumanfan.nu (email address) or UNSUBSCRIBE numan@garynumanfan.nu (email address) (email address is optional but useful if you have multiple addresses) If you want to switch between receiving Digests or individual posts, again send to listserv@GaryNumanFan.NU and include either of these in your message body: NORMAL numan@garynumanfan.nu or DIGEST numan@garynumanfan.nu ------------------------------------------------------------------ Please note: this mailing list is configured to automatically unsubscribe you if mail to your mailbox goes undeliverable for any reason. If you suddenly stop receiving this list, you should assume you've been automatically unsubscribed and should then manually resubscribe. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Gary Numan Digest is brought to you via Joey Lindstrom and the GaryNUmanFan server (Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU) All of the opinions in this digest belong to the respective authors and do not necessarily agree with those of the Digest Producers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------