From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #342 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Sunday, December 23 2001 Volume 05 : Number 342 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Dec 2001 23:25:38 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) wrote in <9b12aec3.0112171113.2588c498@posting.google.com>: >Amen sister. If I hear this bunch hooey one more time (about people >not caring about the small states anymore if the electoral system goes >into the dust bin where it should have been scrapped a long time ago) >I'm going to throw up. And if I hear one more person trying to disgrace our Constitution, I'm going to throw up. >Not only that, but the electoral college *encourages* people not to >vote. You could just as well say that a popular election would encourage people not to vote -- if one candidate is clearly ahead in the polls (i.e., 1996), why would anyone across the entire country go to vote? It seems to me that this turnout would be even worse. >Anyone who is "proud" of the fairness of the last election, >obviously doesn't know the system very well and has no qualms about >the supreme court electing their president and the person that had the >clear majority is not in the oval office. Or rather, anyone who is not proud of the last election obviously doesn't know anything about our country's history or founding principles. Please tell me, what do you think should have happened instead of the Supreme Court handling this process? We should have just ignored all applicable laws and our Constitution and put Al Gore in office? Please. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 2001 23:20:18 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point Vicki Cain wrote in <3C1E08B0.D78280F3@yale.edu>: >Then, when Ms. Bush appealed to our sympathies about all >the children in Afghanistan without proper health care, I was fuming! >There are currently *millions* of children in this country who have no >health insurance, and her husband is doing absolutely nothing about >that. Also, if he had his way, I'm sure he'd cut back the funds that are >currently allowed even more. Well, I have news for Mrs. Bush -- it is not our responsibility to provide health care for the children in Afghanistan, and it's not our government's responsibility to provide health care for the children here either. For the sake of the welfare of our children, hopefully it never will be. (You can tell that to Mrs. Clinton, as well). >Nope. I certainly don't share your unpleasant opinions of folks in the >British Isles. From London to Liverpool to Glastonbury to Hay-on-Wye to >Exeter, they all treated us very well. Who said I have an unpleasant opinion of people from the UK? I have at least a dozen British/Irish/Scottish friends, and in fact my most recent girlfriend was from Liverpool. I'm sorry if I sent the wrong idea. >I've got news for you...they don't care now. > >The problem I have with the system is that it's a weighted system. A >vote in California (55 electoral votes) doesn't have the same amount of >weight as the weight of someone in, say, Wyoming (3 electoral votes). A >single vote in Wyoming has much more power to turn the state over to one >candidate or the other than a single vote in California. And that's >wrong. But keep in mind that that state's electoral votes are "weighted" just as well; Wyoming's votes are thus less likely to influence the final election results. > >In fact, I'd be willing to think that if we eliminated the electoral >system, that the candidates would actually be *more* concerned with the >votes in the less-populated states because single votes do add up. Nah. Al Gore would have spent all of the end of his campaign in California, where the big votes are. It would have been poor campaign strategy to do anything less. >For >example: Rudy Perpich was the governor of Minnesota for 3 terms and he >was elected without ever carrying the Twin Cities. That was because he >campaigned nearly exclusively in the Iron Range and rural Minnesota. The >same thing could be true if the electoral college was eliminated. >Someone could actually become President without carrying the larger >states, and the way it's currently set up, that's almost impossible to >accomplish. It seems to me it would be no different gathering the electoral votes from the many small states than it would be gathering the individual votes from the many small states. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 2001 23:26:25 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point "Chris K @*_*@" wrote in <3C1E2A30.60ACE87A@ehmail.com>: >wouldn't you rather have your vote count directly >in the election? It counts directly in determining how my state's representatives to the electoral college will vote. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 2001 23:51:09 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point Hi Angie, >Point the 2nd: From what I understand, our electoral system is sadly >outdated, the electoral colleges are not accurate representation of >the American legal voting population. I've heard this comment from a >number of sources and I tend to agree. I think a popular idea that's been going around -- and not only just lately - -- is that the Constitution is old and outdated. But it is important to remember that some of our greatest literary works at hundreds of years old, some of our greatest philosophers lived hundreds of years ago, etc. And yet, we don't consider them outdated. In terms of representation, I believe that electoral votes per state are realigned with the comparative population of the states every ten years when the census is complete. >So maybe if they insist on using this electoral >college system they should at least standardize voting methods for >something as all-encompassing as a Presidential Election. I think that there definitely may be problems with up-to-date voting booths, etc., in various parts of the country. But if the states can't fix these problems, what makes you think the federal government can? It's just an even larger bureaucracy to sift through. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 2001 23:44:24 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth) wrote in <3af38f41.0112140707.e270baa@posting.google.com>: >Righto. In return I'll politely ask you to stop trying to label anyone >and everyone whose political views diverge from yours as a >`communist'. I didn't label anyone. I asked. And my asking was not because her political views were different from mine, but rather because her political views closely mirror that of a communist. >Other people have taken you up on the US electoral system, who are >more clued up (and interested) than this ignorant foreigner[2], but >I'm fascinated. What are the reasons you told your grandparents that >convinced them of the democracy of last year's US elections? And >please base your arguments in product (ie. the fact that more >Americans wanted Gore to be president than Bush) rather than in >process. Please see my other posts, or read the Constitution. >You seem to think that this hatred stems from (paraphasing again, >sorry) their hatred of our freedoms. I think that's shallow, but very >convenient, nonsense. To paraphrase AJ, it doesn't add up at all. If >people were driven to mass murder out of hatred for other countrys' >freedoms then Switzerland and Iceland would be the most terrorised >countries on Earth. Which they plainly are not. Switzerland and Iceland aren't easy targets like the United States are. They don't have as high of a standard of living or as much influence in international affairs, and thus I think it is quite clear why people have more to hate in the United States. >If my theory is correct (and I have evidence for my theory) then >international terrorism is substantially soluable without resort to >mass bombs and violence. If your theory is correct (which you have, as >usual, no evidence for) then its the end of the world, because people >are just going to go on hating America and their freedoms and trying >to bomb the US and the US is going to keep bombing back, and off we go >until Osama Bin Laden Jnr gets a nuclear bomb. Where is your "evidence"? No, it's not the end of the world. The United States will liquidate those who intend to harm us, sending a clear message to future terrorists, showing them exactly what will happen if they try to do the same. It's a strong deterrent. >Not my morals Eric. The giving of charity is part of Christian >morality (Luke 13 - 13:14), 'Zakat' is roughly equivalent to >charitable giving and is one of the five pillars of Islam, charitable >giving is part of Jewish morality (Leviticus 25.35), charity is the >first of the ten Bhuddist perfections, and so on and so on... [snip] I'm not saying that these morals are yours and only yours, and I'm not even saying that I necessarily disagree with them. What I am saying is that you have no right to tell other people that it is their obligation to do this or that with their money. >And paying someone more than 87c an hour isn't charity. If paying someone more than they're worth isn't charity, than what is!? The only places in the world where labor is cheap is where it is unproductive. This is not my hypothesis; this is economic fact. >In fact the only people who don't like charity are libertarians and >communists. And what have they got in common? It would appear that >what unites libertarianism and communism is that they both put their >own dogma and theorising above the welfare, needs and wants of actual >real live flesh and blood people. This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and it shows your continued ignorance towards my beliefs. One of the main tenets of libertarian thought is to get the government out of giving handouts and cut taxes to give money back to the people, so that they can then give to their favorite charities, etc., where it can be put to the best use. Only then will people really be better off. The government never has been an efficient or effective charity system, and it never will be. You really have no clue what you're talking about on this one. >And you show it yourself; in this argument I have scrupilously backed >up everything I have said with clear evidence and examples. You have >given no evidence to back up your theories, you have only promoted >your theory. Or when it clearly didn't work, you've shuffled off >responsibility and told us you `don't support all US policy', >presumably because it isn't libertarian enough. For every weak piece of evidence you have shown, I countered. You just choose to ignore that. And you choose to ignore my evidence (be it accepted and basic economic theory, or historical pretext) as evidence, because it doesn't help your arguments. Please show me one example of where I "shuffled off" -- just because I support one thing doesn't mean that I don't support another. It seems that you're looking for easy ways out. >Paying someone 87c per hour *is* clearly inequitable, by every >sensible measure available to us. You've taken clear examples of >inequity, applied your ammoral philosophy to them and bingo! you claim >them not to be inequitable. Well, that doesn't tell me they're not >inequitable, that tells me that your philosophy is morally bankrupt >and vaccuous. And it tells me that you've never taken a class in economics. Please go do so before you embarass yourself even further. >You tell me that I haven't shown any skill in economics. I have shown >you clear examples of the results of free market economics in the >third world. You have only shown me theory and no evidence to back >that theory up. You've shown me what the IMF has done, but I don't really care. I'm not arguing on the merit of the IMF's policies, merely its right to exist and operate freely in a free world and a free market. It seems that you fail to see the difference. >OK, well lets follow your reasoning too. What's the implication of >that argument? Of course! Drop their wages. If increasing wages loses >job security, then decrease their wages and increase their job >security. Pay them 50c and hour instead of 87c. 30c. 10c. > >Good economics. Dreadful humanity. Dogma over people. No, you really lack no understanding of economic equilibrium, which markets reach on their own if they're allowed. >You tell me that I offered a "long-winded commentary on how "poverty >and inquity causes hate"". It might have been long-winded, but at >least it was factually accurate and based in evidence, not theorising. > >So, in summary, instead of telling us `Capitalism. You should try it.' >I suggest reality, evidence and facts. You should try them. If you above paragraph about wages isn't theorizing rahter than "factually accurate and based in evidence," I have no idea what is. >Yeah well, given the choice between a global network of artists, >activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs; >and a bunch of humourless libertarians, I know who I'd rather invite >me to a party. I'm sorry that you don't find me humorous, but that's really not my problem. >And just to dispell that jarring note of agreement you introduced: who >pays for nationwide civil defense? Who are you planning on taxing for >it and by how much? My country's government, if it limits itself to its Constitutional responsibilities, will only cost about $100 billion per year. The excise taxes and tariffs that are already being collected here, which bring in over that cost, are more than sufficient. >I do trust you haven't been too busy to read this. But you really have no idea how busy I am. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 2001 23:54:36 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point AJ, You are wrong about the candidates "focusing" on certain states -- there is a reason why candidates do a whirlwind tour of the country in their last days before the election. You could say that the popular vote of the Floridians decided the election... but you could also say that about every single other state (or groups of states) that had enough votes to sway the election. To say that the presidential election was the decision of one state and only one state is absurd. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 2001 23:57:53 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point bbwminors@aol.com (BBWMinors) wrote in <20011220134159.01603.00000383@mb-ch.aol.com>: > Actually, even THAT is debatable. I think the recipient of the popular > vote in Florida is getting fat and bearded in Tennessee even as we > speak. Nope. Take a look at every single study published since the election. Even the extensive recount that Al Gore requested would not have won him the election. If I'm not mistaken (i.e., someone with more time please check on this), the only way Gore would have won was if not only the undervotes (e.g., when a card was punched once but not all the way through) were counted, but ALSO the overvotes (e.g., when more than one hole was punched) and assumed attributed to Gore. If there were ballots where Gore and another candidate were both punched, I don't think it is in anyone's interests to just assume that those votes were for Gore. That, of course, is my opinion. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #342 ********************************************