my inner demons compel me to be here
your cheeks are flush like rose petals
you're consumed with rage but i'm consumed with you

our eyes intertwine through the haze
intoxicated by your bloodshot stare
in all of my dreams i never thought i'd see
a face that could launch a thousand ships

and the music was like wind in your hair
the moonlight caressed your silhouette
kiss of ocean mist is in the air
why must god punish me this way

lay down my hand the next move is yours
as you undress me with your frozen eyes
in all of my dreams I never thought I'd see
an endless love to share my blue lagoon

and the music was like wind in your hair
the moonlight caressed your silhouette
kiss of ocean mist is in the air
why must god punish me this way

happiness is hard to come by
but I've had my fair share
the satin sheets, the lemon peels
the minor keys, the major pills
we've climbed the mountain, saw the top
and planted the apple seed
and can't you see we could've had it all

and the music was like wind in your hair
the moonlight caressed your silhouette
kiss of ocean mist is in the air
why must God punish me this way

and the music was like wind in your hair
the moonlight caressed your silhouette
kiss of ocean mist is in the air
why must god punish me this way
why must god punish me this way
this way, this way, this way ...

this looks exactly like me.
i'm just as accurate and when done there's a similar mist floating all over the place.

"O Earth, what changes hast thou seen! There where the long street roars hath been the stillness of the central sea. The hills are shadows, and they flow from form to from, and nothing stands. They melt like mist, the solid lands. Like clouds they shape themselves and go." -Tennyson, In Memoriam

"Remember: today is the tomorrow you were dreading yesterday."

"All of your best choices got you where you are today."

"Is Israel not simply a response to outright hostile actions purported by the States of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran and Lebanon?"

The short answer is, no. Israel is a classic settler nation with all the existential attributes and brutality of a colonial ruler.

Sometimes an article deserves reprinting in full.

(copyfree)

Date : 2004-01-29
''Diagnosing Benny Morris: the mind of a European settler''

By Gabriel Ash - YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)

Israeli historian Benny Morris crossed a new line of shame when he put his academic credentials and respectability in the service of outlining the "moral" justification for a future genocide against Palestinians.

Benny Morris is the Israeli historian most responsible for the vindication of the Palestinian narrative of 1948. The lives of about 700,000 people were shattered as they were driven from their homes by the Jewish militia (and, later, the Israeli army) between December 1947 and early 1950. Morris went through Israeli archives and wrote the day by day account of this expulsion, documenting every "ethnically cleansed" village and every recorded act of violence, and placing each in the context of the military goals and perceptions of the cleansers.

Israel's apologists tried in vain to attack Morris' professional credibility. From the opposite direction, since he maintained that the expulsion was not "by design," he was also accused of drawing excessively narrow conclusions from the documents and of being too naive a reader of dissimulating statements. Despite these limitations, Morris' "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugees Problem, 1947-1949" is an authoritative record of the expulsion.

In anticipation of the publication of the revised edition, Morris was interviewed in Haaretz - ( http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/380986.html,
Hebrew original at
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/objects/pages/PrintArticle.jhtml?itemNo=380119). The major new findings in the revised book, based on fresh documents, further darken the picture.

The new archival material, Morris reveals, records routine execution of civilians, twenty-four massacres, including one in Jaffa, and at least twelve cases of rape by military units, which Morris acknowledges are probably "the tip of the iceberg." Morris also says he found documents confirming the broader conclusions favored by his critics: the expulsion was pre-meditated; concrete expulsion orders were given in writing, some traceable directly to Ben Gurion.

Morris also found documentations for Arab High Command calls for evacuating women and children from certain villages, evidence he oddly claims strengthen the Zionist propaganda claim that Palestinians left because they were told to leave by the invading Arab states. Morris had already documented two dozen such cases in the first edition. It is hard to see how attempts by Arab commanders to protect civilians from anticipated rape and murder strengthen the Zionist fairy tale. But that failed attempt at evenhandedness is the least of Morris' problems. As the interview progresses, it emerges with growing clarity that, while Morris the historian is a professional and cautious presenter of facts, Morris the intellectual is a very sick person.

His sickness is of the mental-political kind. He lives in a world populated not by fellow human beings, but by racist abstractions and stereotypes. There is an over-abundance of quasi-poetic images in the interview, as if the mind is haunted by the task of grasping what ails it: "The Palestinian citizens of Israel are a time bomb," not fellow citizens. Islam is "a world in which human lives don't have the same value as in the West." Arabs are "barbarians" at the gate of the Roman Empire. Palestinian society is "a serial killer" that ought to be executed, and "a wild animal" that must be caged.

Morris' disease was diagnosed over forty years ago, by Frantz Fanon. Based on his experience in subjugated Africa, Fanon observed that "the colonial world is a Manichean world. It is not enough for the settler to delimit physically, that is to say, with the help of the army and the police, the place of the native. As if to show the totalitarian character of colonial exploitation, the settler paints the native as a sort of quintessence of evil … The native is declared insensitive to ethics … the enemy of values. … He is a corrosive element, destroying all that comes near it … the unconscious and irretrievable instrument of blind forces" (from "The Wretched of the Earth"). And further down, "the terms the settler uses when he mentions the native are zoological terms" (let's not forget to place Morris' metaphors in the context of so many other Israeli appellations for Palestinians: Begin's "two-legged beasts", Eitan's "drugged cockroaches" and Barak's ultra-delicate "salmon"). Morris is a case history in the psychopathology of colonialism.

Bad Genocide, Good Genocide

When the settler encounters natives who refuse to cast down their eyes, his disease advances to the next stage -- murderous sociopathy.

Morris, who knows the exact scale of the terror unleashed against Palestinians in 1948, considers it justified. First he suggests that the terror was justified because the alternative would have been a genocide of Jews by Palestinians. Raising the idea of genocide in this context is pure, and cheap, hysteria. Indeed, Morris moves immediately to a more plausible explanation: the expulsion was a precondition for creating a Jewish state, i.e. the establishment of a specific political preference, not self-defense.

This political explanation, namely that the expulsion was necessary to create the demographic conditions, a large Jewish majority, favored by the Zionist leadership, is the consensus of historians. But as affirmative defense, it is unsatisfactory. So the idea that Jews were in danger of genocide is repeated later, in a more honest way, as merely another racist, baseless generalization: "if it can, [Islamic society] will commit genocide."

But Morris sees no evil. Accusing Ben Gurion of failing to achieve an "Arabenrein Palestine," he recommends further ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, including those who are Israeli citizens. Not now, but soon, "within five or ten years," under "apocalyptic conditions" such as a regional war with unconventional weapons, a potentially nuclear war, which "is likely to happen within twenty years." For Morris, and it is difficult to overstate his madness at this point, the likelihood of a nuclear war within the foreseeable future is not the sorry end of a road better not taken, but merely a milestone, whose aftermath is still imaginable, and imaginable within the banal continuity of Zionist centennial policies: he foresees the exchange of unconventional missiles between Israel and unidentified regional states as a legitimate excuse for "finishing the job" of 1948.

Morris speaks explicitly of another expulsion, but, in groping for a moral apology for the past and the future expulsion of Palestinians, he presents a more general argument, one that justifies not only expulsion but also genocide. That statement ought to be repeated, for here is a crossing of a terrible and shameful line.

Morris, a respectable, Jewish, Israeli academic, is out in print in the respectable daily, Haaretz, justifying genocide as a legitimate tool of statecraft. It should be shocking. Yet anybody who interacts with American and Israeli Zionists knows that Morris is merely saying for the record what many think and even say unofficially. Morris, like most of Israel, lives in a temporality apart, an intellectual Galapagos Islands, a political Jurassic Park, where bizarre cousins of ideas elsewhere shamed into extinction still roam the mindscape proudly.

Nor should one think the slippage between expulsion, "transfer," and genocide without practical consequences. It is not difficult to imagine a planned expulsion turn into genocide under the stress of circumstances: The genocides of both European Jews and Armenians began as an expulsion. The expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 was the product of decades of thinking and imagining "transfer." We ought to pay attention: with Morris's statement, Zionist thinking crossed another threshold; what is now discussed has the potential to be actualized, if "apocalyptic conditions" materialize.

The march of civilization and the corpses of the uncivilized

It is instructive to look closer at the manner in which Morris uses racist thinking to justify genocide. Morris' interview, precisely because of its shamelessness, is a particularly good introductory text to Zionist thought.

Morris' racism isn't limited to Arabs. Genocide, according to Morris, is justified as long as it is done for "the final good." But what kind of good is worth the "forced extinction" of a whole people? Certainly, not the good of the latter. (Morris uses the word "Haqkhada," a Hebrew word usually associated with the extinction of animal species. Someone ought to inform Morris about the fact that Native Americans aren't extinct.)

According to Morris, the establishment of a more advanced society justifies genocide: "Yes, even the great American democracy couldn't come to be without the forced extinction of Native Americans. There are times the overall, final good justifies terrible, cruel deeds." Such hopeful comparisons between the future awaiting Palestinians and the fate of Native Americans are common to Israeli apologists. One delegation of American students was shocked and disgusted when it heard this analogy made by a spokesperson at the Israeli embassy in Washington.

Morris's supremacist view of "Western Civilization," that civilization values human life more than Islam, has its basis in the moral acceptance of genocide for the sake of "progress." Morris establishes the superiority of the West on both the universal respect for human life and the readiness to exterminate inferior races. The illogicalness of the cohabitation of a right to commit genocide together with a higher level of respect for human lives escapes him, and baffles us, at least until we grasp that the full weight of the concept of "human" is restricted, in the classic manner of Eurocentric racism, to dwellers of civilized (i.e. Western) nations.

This is the same logic that allowed early Zionists to describe Palestine as an empty land, despite the presence of a million inhabitants. In the end, it comes down to this: killing Arabs -- one dozen Arabs or one million Arabs, the difference is merely technical -- is acceptable if it is necessary in order to defend the political preferences of Jews because Jews belong to the superior West and Arabs are inferior. We must be thankful to Professor Morris for clarifying the core logic of Zionism so well.

The color of Jews

Morris assures us that his values are those of the civilized West, the values of universal morality, progress, etc. But then he also claims to hold the primacy of particular loyalties, a position for which he draws on Albert Camus. But to reconcile Morris' double loyalty to both Western universalism and to Jewish particularism, one must forget that these two identities were not always on the best of terms.

How can one explain Morris' knowledge that the ethnic Darwinism that was used to justify the murder of millions of non-whites, including Black African slaves, Native Americans, Arabs, and others, was also used to justify the attempt to exterminate Jews? How can Morris endorse the "civilizational" justification of genocide, which includes the genocide of Jews, even as he claims the holocaust as another justification for Zionism? Perhaps Morris' disjointed mind doesn't see the connection. Perhaps he thinks that there are "right" assertions of racist supremacy and "wrong" assertions of racist supremacy. Or perhaps Morris displays another facet of the psychopathologies of oppression, the victim's identification with the oppressor.

Perhaps in Morris' mind, one half tribalist and one half universalist, the Jews were murdered to make way for a superior, more purely Aryan, European civilization, and the Jews who are today serving in the Israeli army, both belong and do not belong to the same group. They belong when Morris invokes the totems of the tribe to justify loyalty. But when his attention turns to the universal principle of "superior civilization," these Jews are effaced, like poor relations one is ashamed to be associated with, sent back to the limbo they share with the great non-white mass of the dehumanized. In contrast, the Jews of Israel, self-identified as European, have turned white, dry-cleaned and bleached by Zionism, and with their whiteness they claim the privilege that Whites always had, the privilege to massacre members of "less advanced" races.

False testimony

It would be marvelous if Morris the historian could preserve his objective detachment while Morris the Zionist dances with the demons of Eurocentric racism. But the wall of professionalism -- and it is a very thick and impressive wall in Morris' case -- cannot hold against the torrent of hate.

For example, Morris lies about his understanding of the 2000 Camp David summit. In Haaretz, Morris says that, "when the Palestinians rejected Barak's proposal of July 2000 and Clinton's proposal of December 2000, I understood that they were not ready to accept a two state solution. They wanted everything. Lydda, and Akka and Jaffa."

But in his book "Righteous Victims," Morris explains the failure of the negotiations thus: "the PLO leadership had gradually accepted, or seemed to…Israel...keeping 78 percent of historical Palestine. But the PLO wanted the remaining 22 percent. … At Camp David, Barak had endorsed the establishment of a Palestinian state…[on only] 84-90 percent of that 22 percent. … Israel was also to control the territory between a greatly enlarged Jerusalem and Jericho, effectively cutting the core of the future Palestinian state into two…" Morris' chapter of "Righteous Victims" that deals with the '90s leaves a lot to be desired, but it still strives for some detached analysis. In contrast, in Haaretz Morris offers baseless claims he knows to be false.

If Morris lies about recent history, and even grossly misrepresents the danger Jews faced in Palestine in 1948, a period he is an expert on, his treatment of more general historical matters is all but ridiculous, an astounding mix of insinuations and cliches. For example, Morris reminds us that "the Arab nation won a big chunk of the Earth, not because of its intrinsic virtues and skills, but by conquering and murdering and forcing the conquered to convert." (What is Morris' point? Is the cleansing of Palestine attributable to Jewish virtues and skills, rather than to conquering and murdering?)

This is racist slander, not history. As an example, take Spain, which was conquered in essentially one battle in 711 A.D. by a band of North African Berbers who had just converted to Islam. Spain was completely Islamized and Arabized within two centuries with very little religious coercion, and certainly no ethnic cleansing. But after the last Islamic rulers were kicked out of Spain by the Christian army of Ferdinand and Isabel in 1492, a large section of the very same Spanish population that willingly adopted Islam centuries earlier refused to accept Christianity despite a century of persecution by the Spanish Inquisition. 600,000 Spanish Muslims were eventually expelled in 1608.

Obviously, Islamic civilization had its share of war and violence. But, as the above example hints, compared to the West, compared to the religious killing frenzy of sixteenth century Europe, compared to the serial genocides in Africa and America, and finally to the flesh-churning wars of the twentieth century, Islamic civilization looks positively benign. So why all this hatred? Where is all this fire and brimstone Islamophobia coming from?

Being elsewhere

From Europe, of course, but with a twist. Europe has always looked upon the East with condescension. In periods of tension, that condescension would escalate to fear and hate. But it was also mixed and tempered with a large dose of fascination and curiosity. The settler, however, does not have the luxury to be curious. The settler leaves the metropolis hoping to overcome his own marginal, often oppressed, status in metropolitan society. He goes to the colony motivated by the desire to recreate the metropolis with himself at the top.

For the settler, going to the colony is not a rejection of the metropolis, but a way to claim his due as a member. Therefore, the settler is always trying to be more metropolitan than the metropolis. When the people of the metropolis baulk at the bloodbath the settler wants to usher in the name of their values, the settler accuses them of "growing soft," and declares himself "the true metropolis." That is also why there is one crime of which the settler can never forgive the land he colonized -- its alien climate and geography, its recalcitrant otherness, the oddness of its inhabitants, in sum, the harsh truth of its being elsewhere. In the consciousness of the settler, condescension thus turns into loathing.

Israeli settler society, especially its European, Ashkenazi part, especially that Israel which calls itself "the peace camp," "the Zionist Left," etc., is predicated on the loathing of all things Eastern and Arab. (Now, of course, there is the religious, post-1967 settlers who relate to the Zionist Left the way the Zionist Left stands in relation to Europe, i.e. as settlers.) "Arab" is a term of abuse, one that can be applied to everything and everyone, including Jews. This loathing is a unifying theme. It connects Morris' latest interview in Haaretz with Ben Gurion's first impression of Jaffa in 1905; he found it filthy and depressing.

In another article, published in Tikkun Magazine, Morris blames the "ultra-nationalism, provincialism, fundamentalism and obscurantism" of Arab Jews in Israel for the sorry state of the country (although Begin, Shamir, Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon, and most of Israel's generals, leaders, and opinion makers of the last two decades are European Jews). For Morris, everything Eastern is corrupt and every corruption has an Eastern origin.

One shouldn't, therefore, doubt Morris when he proclaims himself a traditional Left Zionist. Most of what he says hasn't been said already by David Ben Gurion or Moshe Dayan. Loathing of the East and the decision to subdue it by unlimited force is the essence of Zionism.

Understanding the psycho-political sources of this loathing leads to some interesting observations about truisms that recur in Morris' (and much of Israel's) discourse. Morris blames Arafat for thinking that Israel is a "crusader state," a foreign element that will eventually be sent back to its port of departure. This is a common refrain of Israeli propaganda. It is also probably true. But it isn't Arafat's fault that Morris is a foreigner in the Middle East. Why shouldn't Arafat believe Israel is a crusader state when Morris himself says so? "We are the vulnerable extension of Europe in this place, exactly as the crusaders."

It is Morris -- like the greater part of Israel's elite -- who insists on being a foreigner, on loathing the Middle East and dreaming about mist-covered Europe, purified and deified by distance. If Israel is a crusader state, and therefore a state with shallow roots, likely to pack up and disappear, it is not the fault of those who make that observation. It is the fault of those Israelis, like Morris, who want to rule the Middle East from behind tall walls and barbed wire.

Morris is deeply pessimistic about Israel's future; this feeling is very attractive in Israel. The end of Israel is always felt to be one step away, hiding beneath every development, from the birthrate of Bedouins to the establishment of the International Court of Justice.

Naturally, every Palestinian demand is such a doomsday threat. This sense of existential precariousness can be traced back to 1948; it was encouraged by Israel's successive governments because it justified the continuous violence of the state and the hegemony of the military complex. It may eventually become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

But this existential fear goes deeper. It is rooted in the repressed understanding (which Morris both articulates and tries to displace) of the inherent illegitimacy of the Israeli political system and identity. "Israel" is brute force. In Morris' words: "The bottom line is that force is the only thing that will make them accept us." But brute force is precarious. Time gnaws at it. Fatigue corrodes it. And the more it is used, the more it destroys the very acceptance and legitimacy it seeks.

For Israel, the fundamental question of the future is, therefore, whether Israelis can transcend colonialism. The prognosis is far from positive. In a related article in The Guardian, Morris explains that accepting the right of return of the Palestinian refugees would mean forcing Israeli Jews into exile. But why would Jews have to leave Israel if Israel becomes a bi-national, democratic state? One cannot understand this without attention to the colonial loathing of the Middle East which Morris so eloquently expresses.

But taking that into account, I'm afraid Morris is right. Many Israeli Jews, especially European Jews who tend to possess alternative passports, would rather emigrate than live on equal terms with Palestine's natives in a bi-national state. It is to Frantz Fanon again that we turn for observing this first. "The settler, from the moment the colonial context disappears, has no longer an interest in remaining or in co-existing."

Gabriel Ash was born in Romania and grew up in Israel.

Mr. Mister.


"When I get pissed, you get mist"

I can see why this didn't make the cut; most of it is new material and never happened in the novella. Too bad Darabont didn't follow suit when he shot the ending of "The Mist".

No.

All I see is him taking him to another group of people right across. Had he say picked him up and like the kid burst into pink mist, then I would see your point.

But right now all you are doing is pulling at straws that are not there.

It's not liberal dogma to question the false misrepresentation the media and government created surrounding the capabilites of Al Qaeda. They would want us to believe that they are nebulous enemy in the mists out there, forever a threat, hoping we would willingly concede to any actions in their pursuit going as far as dismantle our civil liberaties in the name of security, dissolving the very freedoms that define the Western world.

Numerous documents have shown that US military action in Iraq created further recruits for Al Q, who sought to tie down the American military in Iraq, the disparity of conduct between different members who cropped up showed that Al Q is not as organized or well finiaced as the West would lead us to believe. Those whose negative views of the West had their views reinforced in illegal unilatarel and unlawful actions leading to attacks in Madrid and London.

The policy created leads to a war that lasts forever, in the words of Bush a task that is never ends. Allowing for the endless war we saw in George Orwell's 1984.

Bob's your uncle:

"Loch Lomond" -- Scottish traditional

1. O whither away, my bonnie May,
Sae late and sae dark in the gloamin'?
The mist gathers gray o'er moorland and brae.
O whither sae far are ye roamin'?

I trysted my ain love last night in the broom,
My Donald wha loves me sae dearly.
For the morrow he will march for Edinburgh toon,
Tae fecht for his king and Prince Charlie.

Chorus:
O, ye'll tak' the high road and I'll tak' the low road,
An' I'll be in Scotland afore ye.
For me and my true love will never meet again
By the bonnie, bonnie banks o' Loch Lomond.

2. O braw Charlie Stewart, dear true, true heart,
Wha could refuse thee protection?
Like the weeping birk on the wild hillside,
How gracefu' he looked in dejection.

O, weel may I weep for yestre'en in my sleep.
We lay bride and bridegroom together.
But his touch and his breath were cold as the death,
And his hairtsblood ran red in the heather.
Chorus:

3. As dauntless in battle as tender in love,
He'd yield ne'er a foot tae the foeman.
But never again frae the fields o' the slain
Tae his Moira will he come by Loch Lomond.

The thistle may bloom, the king hae his ain,
And fond lovers will meet in the gloamin'.
And me and my true love will yet meet again
Far above the bonnie banks o Loch Lomond.
Chorus:

http://ingeb.org/songs/byyonbon.html

I've seen a few videos of the SawStop in action, and I'm left speechless every time I see it in action.

The table saw itself costs a lot of money, and at 60$, the replacement blade/brake modules aren't exactly cheap, but compared to the medical bills, workman's comp costs, and other costs associated with losing fingers, I don't see how most major woodworking companies can afford to NOT replace their older table saws with this system.

>> ^PerfectlySane:
This is a great idea but I've always wondered what else could legitimately go through the saw and carry a charge. What about wet wood or other common building materials?


They've thought of that too. From their faqs:

5. Will cutting green or “wet” wood activate the SawStop safety system?

SawStop saws cut most wet wood without a problem. However, if the wood is very green or wet (for example, wet enough to spray a mist when cutting), or if the wood is both wet and pressure treated, then the wood may be sufficiently conductive to trigger the brake. Accordingly, the best practice is to dry wet or green wood before cutting by standing it inside and apart from other wood for about one day. You can also cut wet pressure treated wood and other conductive material by placing the saw in bypass mode.



6. Can I cut conductive materials?

Yes. You can operate the saw in Bypass Mode which deactivates the safety system’s braking feature, allowing you to cut aluminum and other known conductive materials. If you are unsure if material you need to cut is conductive, you can make test cuts using Bypass Mode to determine if it will activate the safety system’s brake.



7. What happens if the blade comes in contact with a nail or staple in the wood?

Generally, the safety system will not activate when a nail or staple is cut. Although conductive, these objects are not large enough to cause the safety system to activate unless they are grounded to the table or operator when they contact the blade.

This is fucking awesome.

On a side note, for anyone who's never ridden the Maid of the Mist at Niagara Falls, slap yourself in the face with a wet rag and then watch this video. That should be a fair representation.

Now I can see the bunnies in the mist !

Nietzsche here points out one of the things I really dislike about most modern atheists--Richard Dawkins, etc. Most of them reject Christianity, but nonetheless adopt values derived from Christianity--and don't bother really trying to question it or put it on some kind of philosophical grounding. Were they really to look closely at it, many of their moral tenets would evaporate like mist in the sunlight.

While I dislike Sam Harris in general, his remarks on morality are essential for an intellectually honest atheism. He proposes that we ground morality on scientific rationality and analysis of neuroscience and psychology. Which at the very least gives an atheist standing to make moral claims.

However, I do not believe that this will, as Harris hopes, be sufficient for a society wide morality or the end of moral dispute. There are too many lines of attack one can take. Nietzsche himself, for example, would raise the point that the scientific attitude Harris espouses is simply a manifestation of the will to nothing--the inversion of the will to power caused by socialization into a society that limits freedom of action, and overall an unhealthy way to be. It is out of the will to nothing that Judaism arose, he claims, and then later Christianity. In fact, he even says that the scientific attitude arose as the victory of the will to nothing over lingering elements of the will to power in Christianity.

To overcome nihilism, we must overcome the will to nothing. And so much for Sam Harris, if we're to follow Nietzsche's schema.

Beyond that, a couple of interesting notes.

The fact that the Madman carries a lantern is a reference to Diogenes of Sinope, one of the founders of the Cynic school of Greek philosophy. (Really more of a way of life than a school, though.) He was famous for living in a tub and carrying a lantern wherever he went. He was perceived as crazy, but all he was really trying to do was show the Athenians how ridiculous and irrational their customs and values were. The connection with questioning the values of modern man is obvious.

It isn't necessarily clear that Nietzsche thought the Ubermensch was an actual man who would live, or an ideal to strive for. It's essential to keep this ambiguity in mind when talking about the Ubermensch.

I completely agree Mist...

He isn't trying to drown out anyone... it's an emphatic point... and a very valid one... I just don't think it's the same thing... no where close...

I wonder if he did not add his own brand of entertainment to his opinion and reporting... would he even be on TV... and would we even have the opportunity to hear this perspective?... is supect not...

You wanna front what?
Jump up and get bucked
If you're feeling lucky duck
Then press your luck
I snatch fake gangsta MC's and make em faggot flambe
Your nine spray my mind spray
Malignant mist steadily pumps the funk
The results you're a gang stuffed in a car trunk
You couldn't come to the jungles of the East poppin that game
You won't survive get live catchin wreck is our thing
I don't gang bang or shoot out bang bang
The relentless lyrics the only dope I slang
I'm a true master you can check my credentials
Cuz I choose to use my infinite potentials
Got a freaky, freaky, freaky-freaky flow
Control the mic like fidel castro locked cuba
So deep that you can scuba dive/my jive
Origin is unknown like the Jubas
I've accumulated honies all across the map
Cuz I'd rather bust a nut then bust a cap in
Ya back in fact my rap snaps ya sacroilliac
I'm the mack so i don't need to tote a Mac
My attack is purely mental and its nature's not hate
It's meant to wake ya up out of ya brainwashed state
Stagnate nonsense but if you persist
You'll get ya snotbox bust you press up on this
I flip hoes dip none of the real niggas slip
You don't know enough math to count the mics that I ripped
Keep the Dirty Rotten Scoundrel as his verbal weapons spit

Real rough and rugged, shine like a gold nugget
Every time i pick up the microphone i drug it
Unplug it on chumps with the gangsta babble
Leave your nines at home and bring your skills to the battle
You're rattlin' on and on and ain't sayin nothing
That's why you got snuffed when you bump heads with Dirty Rotten
Have you forgotten, i'll tap you [jaw]
I also kick like kung fu flicks by run run shaw
Made frauds bleed every time I g'd
Cuz i've perfected my drunken style like sam seed
Pseudo psychos i play like Michael
Jackson when i'm bustin ass and breakin backs
Inhale the putrified aroma
Breathe too deep and you'll wind up coma-
tose the king i'm hard like a fifth of vodka
And bring your clique cuz i'm a hard rock knocka
I gotcha, out on a limb i'm about to push you off the brink
Let you draw your craw but you burnin' shot breaks
When the East is in the house you should come equipped

Fly like a jet sting like a hornet
Knuckleheads get live and set it off if you want it
Dirty rotten scoundrels is crushin fools no joke
With styles more fatal than second hand smoke
Don't provoke the wrath of this rhyme inventor
Cuz I blow up spots like the world trade center
Come with the super trooper on his assault mission
The tech's technique cuz he's a technician
Wishin he'll go away won't help the weapons stop
The skills are shot cuz any idiot can let off a glock
Hard rock smellin the clutch of this untoucha
You claim you got beef on the streets so whatcha
Gonna do when real niggaz roll up on you
And you don't got your crew
Pull your glock but you don't got the heart
You was webbed straight from the start
Bought a tool and didn't learn how to use it
Got lost in Brooklyn so you had to lose it
Just for frontin you got that ass waxed