From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #293 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, October 19 2000 Volume 09 : Number 293 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Decent Covers [was RE: Review of 10-16-2000 gig] ["Thomas, Ferris" ] re: lennon's piano ["Scott Clark " ] Re: vocab rehab [dmw ] Re: vocab rehab [Michael R Godwin ] Re: vocab rehab ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: reap ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: quote of the day [hbrandt ] Re: an elite, secret show I WON'T be seeing [Eb ] Re: an elite, secret show I WON'T be seeing [hbrandt ] Re: reap [Stephen Buckalew ] To QUAIL re: HATE [hbrandt ] Re: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. [Capuchin ] boring political crap! do not read! ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] vocab rehab ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" ] vocab rehab ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" ] Re: heifer project international (NR) [Asshole Motherfucker ] Re: vocab rehab [drop the holupki ] lobsterboy and nader go to the zoo [Ken Ostrander ] Re: lobsterboy and nader go to the zoo [Viv Lyon ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:19:33 -0400 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: Decent Covers [was RE: Review of 10-16-2000 gig] Probably one (all right, two) of the best I've heard: 'Waterloo Sunset' at the Knitting Factory in '97 and 'Silver Dagger' from the Bottom Line in '98. I've since seen him do 'Waterloo' with Tim as well as the Rock and Roll Armada and he never came close to the solo version from the KF. Beeee-utiful. A very good rendition of a very good song. - -----Original Message----- From: Ben [mailto:bpnicast@bulldog.unca.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 5:06 PM To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Subject: Re: Review of 10-16-2000 gig > the nay-sayer sayeth: > > > Vocally duplicated the sound effects, eh? Sounds arch and wacky. > > If you think the original is "arch and wacky," perhaps you would have > found this to be so. Personally, I was impressed. (So was everyone else > who heard it, it seemed.) Yes I do agree that sometimes Robyn does songs in versions that are a bit too silly, such as A Day In The Life on Live Death being an example. But for a song that isn't exactly the most serious in the Beatle catalog, this version was done pretty "straight", especially with the doomy-sounding synth strings. Robyn seemed to be too busy coming up with the correct words to do anything too wacky. Of course there were other covers done at these shows which had no campy value to them, such as Satellite Of Love and It's Not Dark Yet. Yeah, Robyn resisted doing a Dylan imitation! Though Robyn does do a number of tounge in cheek covers there are countless other covers in the past Robyn has done which we could list that are done in a "serious manner". Of course one would probably have to have attended a whole lot of Robyn concerts, or be a tape weenie to know that. :) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:28:00 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: vocab rehab jbranscombe@compuserve.com: >Steve just described Bush as being 'disinterested'. If only he were. New Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary: disinterested 2. not interested, indifferent. Although I agree that uninterested would be better. - - Steve __________ Iąd sit down and meditate but my ass is on fire. - Bill Nelson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:50:16 +0100 From: "Scott Clark " Subject: re: lennon's piano > George Micheal bought Lennon's piano for 2 million. > It was the piano Lennon used to compose Imagine. imagine no possessions...i wonder if you can. imagine no george michael...noooooo problem! =============================================================== Scott Clark "The love of the irregular sc8y@swissinfo.org is a sign of the basic Charlottesville, VA, USA quest for freedom."--Soetsu Yanagi =============================================================== _______________________________________________________________________ Dreaming of a Swiss Account? Get it here: http://freemail.swissinfo.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:52:04 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: vocab rehab On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, jbranscombe@compuserve.com wrote: > Continuing on from Stewart's imply/infer comment. I was shocked to see that > feggers have recently made two of the most common errors of this ilk. > Someone (Jeff D., I think) wrote about people flaunting laws rather than > flouting them, and Steve just described Bush as being 'disinterested'. If > only he were. Uninterested is the word you're looking for. Sorry to come > over all pedantic...Actually, I'm not sorry at all... i was appalled recently to be reading what purported to be a book of scholarly merit that repeatedly misused the word "decimate" in the same fashion favored by sports announcers of questionable literacy. - -- pretentious sod d. - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:59:45 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: vocab rehab On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, steve wrote: > New Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary: > disinterested > 2. not interested, indifferent. Maybe this is a difference in language. In the UK, the normal meaning of 'disinterested' is 'unbiased'. I would have thought it was wrong to use it for "not interested". - - Mike Godwin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:00:44 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: vocab rehab "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" wrote: > > Sorry to come > over all pedantic...Actually, I'm not sorry at all... jmbc *is* Augustus Carp! See Chapter 1 (http://www.eldritchpress.org/carp/carp01.html): "And although my father had numerous faults, as I afterwards discovered and was able to point out to him..." Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:02:45 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: reap "Thomas, Ferris" wrote: > >> Ivan Owen, the voice of Basil Brush. > > Magic Roundabout? not even close enough to say "close but no cigar". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:03:46 -0600 From: hbrandt Subject: Re: quote of the day M R Godwin: > the radio played 'Hey Jude' > It sounded somehow different > Have I cracked up? Or > is there a remix going around? Maybe it was a live version? Or, the ((shiver)) Linda Mac version: http://www.fadetoblack.com/outtakes/new/heyjude.ram > I never > liked that long long fadeout anyway. It's a bit indulgent, yes. But, Paul's voice sounds great on that classic track, and his vocal adlibs are pretty creative. I'll take his "Juu-Ju-dee, Jud-ee, Ju-dee, Ju-dee, Ju-dee, Oww! Wo-oow!!" over Robert Plant's "Does anybody remember laughter?!" any day. /hal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:32:27 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: an elite, secret show I WON'T be seeing >looks like it happened: allstar news has a review posted at http://www.cdnow.com/cgi-bin/mserver/pagename=/RP/ALLSTAR/article.html/fid=227372 >> wherein we discover that starfucking is, in fact, a integral part of a good >review. ;) > > Among the glitteratti on hand were Beck, Sheryl Crow, > Stone Temple Pilots' Scott Weiland and Eric Kretz, > Anthony Kiedis from Red Hot Chili Peppers, Eric > Erlandson from Hole, Zack de la Rocha from Rage > Against the Machine, and actress Portia de Rossi from > Ally McBeal. Tickets went on sale just an hour before > the show. > >looks like you missed a golden opportunity, Eb! ;) Yeah, I already saw that review. I *did* see PJ perform on Leno last night, and I was really disturbed at how mainstream the song (and its presentation) were. As much Patty Smythe as Patti Smith, if you know what I mean. Her outfit and stage moves were notably showbiz, too. I hope this isn't an accurate indicator of the new album's sound. Eb PS Speaking of Zack de la Rocha...RIP Rage Against the Machine? Amy Correia tour dates: 10.18 - "Borders Books & Music" @World Trade Center, New York, NY 10.18 - Fez, New York, NY 10.20 - The Cutting Room, New York, NY 10.21 - Fine Line, Minneapolis, MN (opening for John Hiatt) 10.23 - The Ark, Ann Arbor, MI (opening for John Hiatt) 10.24 - Barrymore Theatre, Madison, WI (opening for John Hiatt) 11.03 - Aladdin, Portland, OR (opening for John Hiatt) 11.04 - King Cat Theatre, Seattle, WA (opening for John Hiatt) 11.06 - Great American Music Hall, San Francisco, CA (opening for John Hiatt) 11.08 - Catalyst, Santa Cruz, CA (opening for John Hiatt) 11.09 - 4th & B, San Diego, CA (opening for John Hiatt) 11.10 - Ventura Theatre, Ventura, CA (opening for John Hiatt) 11.11 - El Rey, Los Angeles, CA (opening for John Hiatt) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:59:19 -0600 From: hbrandt Subject: Re: an elite, secret show I WON'T be seeing > I *did* see PJ perform on Leno last night > Her outfit and stage moves were > notably showbiz I missed her Leno appearance (damn!), but hasn't she always flirted with that 'showbiz/glam' approach? The garish makeup she displayed on the "To Bring You My Love" tour comes to mind. /hal ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:00:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. http://us.imdb.com/Title?0262265 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:00:23 -0400 From: Stephen Buckalew Subject: Re: reap My parent's cat is named Basil Brush after the aforementioned puppet, bummer Steve B. (lived in England for a few in my youngin' days) *************************************************************** "...isn't it good to be lost in the wood..."--Syd Barrett *************************************************************** At 12:06 PM 10/19/2000 +0100, you wrote: >Ivan Owen, the voice of Basil Brush. > >(fx: the massed sounds of non-uk fegs going, "who?") > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:13:47 -0600 From: hbrandt Subject: To QUAIL re: HATE I must tell you that I'm getting a lot of mileage out of answering unsolicited "Pro-W" email by quoting your recent "Moment of Hate" rant: http://www.fegmania.org/archives/fegmaniax/v09.n289 True story: My 65-year old Mom (who's voting for Nader) said that finally someone had expressed her thoughts and demanded I send her a copy to show my sister and her W-supporting husband! Here's hoping you'll vent again before 7 November. /hal ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:41:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Bayard wrote: > http://us.imdb.com/Title?0262265 No. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:54:52 -0400 From: drop the holupki Subject: Re: an elite, secret show I WON'T be seeing when we last left our heroes, Eb exclaimed: >I *did* see PJ perform on Leno last night, and I was really disturbed at >how mainstream the song (and its presentation) were. As much Patty Smythe >as Patti Smith, if you know what I mean. Her outfit and stage moves were >notably showbiz, too. I hope this isn't an accurate indicator of the new >album's sound. skipped the leno thing (after the yankees went up 8-4, i turned off the toob and went to bed). which song did she play? the new album doesn't really strike me as "showbiz" though. a couple times i caught myself thinking it *was* a patti smith record. it's well-produced and might have some mainstream appeal but it's still fairly gritty. >PS Speaking of Zack de la Rocha...RIP Rage Against the Machine? they're vowing to march onwards with or without zack. such troopers. >Amy Correia tour dates: >10.20 - The Cutting Room, New York, NY i'm toying with this one. depends on how i feel after tonight's fegstravaganza. last night at maxwell's was quite nice -- well worth the two hour drive through the rain (plus, we all were invited to a fundraiser for pat dinizio's new jersey senator campaign!). more on that later. woj ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:14:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: heifer project international (NR) On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, steve wrote: > No Eddie, you haven't demonstrated that Gore would be worse than Bush. > You've stated your political opinion, and that's cool. Well, he showed that Clinton/Gore was worse than Bush/Quayle. That's pretty impressive on its own. > As I've pointed out to jeme, the debate commission is a wholly owned > subsidiary of the two major parties. You may have pointed toward it while writing in reply to something I wrote, but it's hardly like you brought something new to my attention. > None of the other minor party candidates would have gotten in. Other > parties get in only when they can't be kept out. This should not be a > surprise. Yes, this should be SCHOKING. This should be riot-in-the-streets kind of offensive. This is our government inhibiting free speech and open election. This is a violation of your basic rights. This is the sort of thing our government sends troops to foreign nations to prevent (if it's a pro-USA candidate being kept out, that is). We should not accept this. Only rank cynicism, lack of self-respect, and indifference would make this "not be a surprise". RE: eddie's not-quite-carefully-document-yet-clear rant about the failings and atrocities of Clinton/Gore: > I would agree with three of the above and might score a couple at zero. > On the rest I simply disagree or would apply a heaping dose of context. I'd love to see you break that down and justify that view. I simply cannot understand how a person could explain away genocide, economic terrorism against one's own countrymen and others, and the administrations complete inaction on environmental and civil rights issues. > And I DO think that Gore has the potential to to be a very good > President because it's obvious that he recognizes what the problems > are. No. He recognizes what the public thinks the problems are. He doesn't belive they're problems and he's (seemingly) perfectly happy ignoring them. He's been doing it for eight years. > The question is whether he would be willing to take ALL of them > on, and how successful he would be if he did. The question is whether he'll take ANY of them on. Let's talk in four years. > Nor do I think that his policy positions are crafted simply to get > elected. Again, the question is how much he would be able to get done. Can you point to any specific examples of his work reflecting his publicly stated views post-nomination to VP? (He was pretty strongly anti-abortion before he was nominated to VP and did some work in that respect. When asked to "reconsider his conviction" by the Democratic National Committee before being nominated, he said he had and so he was nominated. He didn't say whether or not he came to a different conclusion, however. Let's not forget the prayer of the Catholic bishop openning the DNC.) I can point to NUMEROUS examples of his work contradicting his publicly stated views. > I believe that voting for Nader will get you nothing. OK... wait. Hold that thought. > If Gore is elected, campaign reform might just skate by. If Nader is elected, campaign reform is sure to be a top issue. No compromises or half-assed baby-steps toward resolution. (I can just see Gore's "don't ask, don't tell" resolution to corporate campaign contributions.) I ask you what it would benefit Gore or his party to reform campaign financing. The major parties have no interest in this. They get all the money they could like and it keeps fringe candidate out of the spotlight. It's win/win for the Dems and Reps. > The current Supreme Court is a hindrance to reform and if Bush gets > the kind of appointees he wants, it will be worse. By what criteria? Bush's appointees will be strict Constitutionalists who emphasize the freedoms granted by the Constitution (including the 14th amendment, thus being extremely weighted toward corporate control, but perhaps not interpreting it the same way it was in Roe v. Wade). Gore's appointees will be restrictive of civil rights in favor of "protection" of the people in order to satisfy the Democratic requirement of more strict gun and drug laws while satisfying Gore's own requirement a strong anti-abortion stance. So what's better? > The Republicans do not share this trait. They just make up some > bullshit excuse and they don't care how much they get slagged for it. So what you're saying is that the Republicans will get whatever Justices they like regardless of who nominates them. So how are Gore and Bush's decisions different again? > Bush badly needs something to satisfy the fundies, and a couple of > anti-choice Justices would get him a lifetime supply of free-will love > offerings. Well, as I've said. Gore is demonstrably "anti-choice" as well, so I don't see why you're making a distinction. But also, realize that we're letting abortion rights ride on a very shakey Supreme Court decision rather than just passing a law like we should. Even a STATE law would be enough. If your state passed a law protecting the right to particular medical procedures without restriction, the Supreme Court couldn't do a damn thing about it. I'm not sure why this approach hasn't been taken, seeing how 71% of Americans are in favor of such protections. > I suspect Gore's appointees would be much like Clinton's. You hope Gore's appointees will be much like Clinton's. They will be similar or worse. But Gore will absolutely assure that they will not be better... not for you, anyway. > Nader as he is, with the backing of one of the two major parties and a > full campaign from the time of the Democratic convention. Would he win? First: No major party would touch him. Campaign reform alone assures that. Second: What do you mean by "a full campaign"? Do you mean millions of dollars in soft-money flooding in from phoney "committees to elect"? It wouldn't happen. It's a fundamental point of his campaign not to allow such things. Do you mean media coverage? Not going to happen because Nader opposes the $70B in free broadcast spectra given out by the republicans and democrats (with the notable dissent of McCain, Bradley, and Dole... hmmm... what happened to their media campaigns?) and the newspapers are generally owned by the broadcasters as well. If you're saying "if Nader sold out, would he get elected?" My answer is, "I hope not". Third: Unrelated to your question: All it would take is Nader in the debates. If Nader's message was heard and understood freely by the American people, it would be supported in a massive wave. It would be a landslide. > OK, I'm sure that everybody has had more than enough of this. So no more > political stuff until after Viv eats her shorts. You sound like you're hoping, Steve. Seriously though, offlist or on (preferably on because there's education in it), respond to the direct questions. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:24:53 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: boring political crap! do not read! >From: Asshole Motherfucker >however, taking cheap shots at nader is just petty. his "fotune", >as he disclosed a few months ago, is about 3 million dollars. he's >lived in the same apartment for thirty years, doesn't own a car, >doesn't have a wife. for three decades he's been a tireless worker >for the cause of justice -- almost without compare. he does more >in an off week to make the world a better place than bush and gore >have done in their combined lives. he's probably the most qualified >presidential candidate in history. In short, he's an android! How can you go wrong? :) Dan Savage's column this week calls Nader voters idiotic and childish. It's partly his usual resentment and derision of anyone hipper than him, but it's mostly a heaping helping of bluster about not liking Bush (a fact he reminds us of even in non-election years, come to think of it). So I have to acknowledge voting for the candidate I'd truly like to see as president, regardless of his chances to win, as childish, and grow up and vote for the candidate I'd settle for. >From: Ben >Of course there were other >covers done at these shows which had no campy value to them, such as >Satellite Of Love I can never tell...is that ironic or just funny? :) >From: steve > >It all depends on what weight you give to things. By my measure, Bush >will be MUCH worse. And I DO think that Gore has the potential to to be a >very good President because it's obvious that he recognizes what the >problems are. The question is whether he would be willing to take ALL of >them on, and how successful he would be if he did. Nor do I think that >his policy positions are crafted simply to get elected. Again, the >question is how much he would be able to get done. I thought that way about Clinton when I voted for him in '92. I'm not sure "able" is the right word. >Sure, judicial appointments are something of a crap shoot. But we are >looking at the potential of a unified Republican government. Bush badly >needs something to satisfy the fundies, and a couple of anti-choice >Justices would get him a lifetime supply of free-will love offerings. Is the abortion issue truly significant (to Washington and its "fund-ies") or just a way to motivate voters? Drew - -- - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen.com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:26:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: speaking of pirates again... It seems my last message with a very similar subject line was wrong wrong wrong. I'm dumb and the victim of a hoax (along with some other respectable, smart people). I am shamed. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:46:24 -0400 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: vocab rehab Stewart compared me to Augustus Carp on this one, as he mentioned Viz recently I'd say I was more Mr Logic... My Chambers dictionary says for disinterested - " impartial; unselfish; (revived from obsolesence) uninterested..." There you go! I still think uninterested is a better word for uninterested...Humph! jmbc PS People have been getting excited by Robyn's rediscovery of Trams Of Old Woman. I wonder if he was nudged that way by the opening earlier this year of London's first new tram route for donkey's years. It runs, more or less, between Croydon and Wimbledon. Neither of them mentioned in the song - unlike my locale (he boasted) Teddington and Twickenham. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:56:28 -0400 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: vocab rehab As my language pogrom is in full swing I might as well tell you (WOJ!!!) that it's 'trouper' as in acting troupe not 'trooper'. As a luvvie myself I know that we're far harder than all those nancy military types... jmbc Dic-tionary-tator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:16:07 -0700 From: Asshole Motherfucker Subject: Re: heifer project international (NR) >and the administration complete inaction on environmental and civil >rights issues. if only it were inaction. in truth, it's *active* *negative* participation. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:18:21 -0700 From: Asshole Motherfucker Subject: Re: vocab rehab >PS People have been getting excited by Robyn's rediscovery of Trams Of >Old Woman. I wonder if he was nudged that way by the opening earlier >this year of London's first new tram route for donkey's years. It runs, >more or less, between Croydon and Wimbledon. Neither of them mentioned >in the song - unlike my locale (he boasted) Teddington and Twickenham. the way it was told during the western swing, grant-lee's long been a fan, and requested a bunch of those old songs. he even kind of introduced Trams for most every west-coast show. apparently, that's how he got him to try out Lightbulb Head the other night as well? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:37:38 -0400 From: drop the holupki Subject: Re: vocab rehab when we last left our heroes, jbranscombe@compuserve.com exclaimed: >As my language pogrom is in full swing I might as well tell you (WOJ!!!) >that it's 'trouper' as in acting troupe not 'trooper'. the phrase i used -- "what troopers" -- is a cliche which implies (not infers) continuing effort despite adversity. given that, "trooper" (i.e., a soldier) makes more sense than "trouper" in my mind anyways. but what the hell do i know? i'm just one of them damn yankees devolving your native tongue. woj n.r. starship troupers ;) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:52:10 -0400 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: lobsterboy and nader go to the zoo http://www.frontiernet.net/~claunt/lobsterboy.html >Guess what? Lennon's not God. duh. actually, it all depends on your definition. surely, his mid-seventies work can get pretty thin; but who can deny his influence on popular culture? who would dare? > I'm for more fair, honest, and open elections. Supreme Court aside, > you're far more likely to get them by voting for Gore. Nader has zero > chance of being elected. we'll see about what gore will do for campaign finance reform. as far as your estimation of ralph's chances, if he could get 34% of a state where the other candidates got 33%...well, you do the math. > Nader is well to the left of any Democratic candidate that I can > think of. The Green Party has a long way to go before it becomes anything > more than a spoiler in national politics. The one-half of the electorate > that does not vote is not going to rise up overnight and become Green > voters, the Green Party will have to build their base over a number of > years. that's the plan. realistically, we're shooting for the five percent that will get us matching federal funding and establishment as an official party. then the real work begins at the grass roots level, getting folks elected for local offices using the momentum of this campaign. >well, the democratic party would never in a million years get behind >nader -- it couldn't even come close to getting behind brown or jackson. >but, if nader were allowed to debate, he'd clean up like nobody's >business. check this out: There will be a presidential debate this Friday, 8-930pm, sponsored by Judicial Watch. All 7 candidatse on the ballot in enough states to win the electoral college were invited; all except for Bush accepted. Al Gore, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Jim Hagelin, Harry Brown (libertarian), and Howard Phillips will participate. The topic of the debate is: How to restore ethics in government? >Actually, I don't know if Ralph still owns any stock, but investment >in one or several corporations is what made his fortune. it was the lawsuit that he filed against general motors (for invasion of privacy) that got him his fortune. he used that money to start numerous consumer activist groups. >For eight years he has been Vice President in an administration that has in >sum, I think, ended up on the positive side of the ledger. you might think that at least the democrats would have slowed the downward spiral in the last eight years; but you'd be wrong. some examples: CEO pay as a multiple of average worker pay has more than quadrupled. number of persons without health insurance has increased from 35 million to almost 45 million. discharges of lesbians & gays were from the military increased from a low of 617 right after the implementation of the "don't ask; don't tell" policy to more than a thousand. number of OSHA workplace safety inspections decreased from a pre-clintonian average of 61,794 to the current 34,378. number of prisoners in federal, state, and local jails and prisons increased from 1.15 million to more than two million. and the number of executions went from 14 in 1991 to 98 in 1999. owch! the democratic party has moved increasingly to the right, alienating the left and accomodating big money. people hang on to the party because of their fear of the republicans; but civil rights, access to abortion or planned parenthood, and the standard of living have all suffered more during the clinton years than the reagan years. all of this while we have a "booming economy". big corporate handouts go hand in hand with the exclusion of the working american from the political process. and, of course, the media doesn't help. ken "nearly every kernal popped" the kenster np superfurryanimals mwng ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:13:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: lobsterboy and nader go to the zoo On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Ken Ostrander wrote: > that's the plan. realistically, we're shooting for the five percent that will > get us matching federal funding and establishment as an official party. then > the real work begins at the grass roots level, getting folks elected for local > offices using the momentum of this campaign. In Oregon, the Green Party has been running candidates for years. We're currently running several for State Senate, one for Congress, and one for Secretary of State, as well as other local offices. After this election, one of our major goals is to recruit many more knowledgable, experienced people to run for more offices two years from now. We're also building the party by reaching out to labor unions, minority communities, local environmental groups, etc. etc. > check this out: > > There will be a presidential debate this Friday, 8-930pm, sponsored by > Judicial Watch. All 7 candidatse on the ballot in enough states to win > the electoral college were invited; all except for Bush accepted. Al > Gore, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Jim Hagelin, Harry Brown (libertarian), > and Howard Phillips will participate. This is probably apocryphal, unfortunately. The Judicial Watch site has not been updated in over a week, and the last statement from Gore's side was that if Bush would participate, then he would. Of course, since he knows full well Bush has already declined, he won't be showing up. This debate will probably not occur. As far as I know, it's not on Ralph's agenda. > >Actually, I don't know if Ralph still owns any stock, but investment > >in one or several corporations is what made his fortune. > > it was the lawsuit that he filed against general motors (for invasion of > privacy) that got him his fortune. he used that money to start numerous > consumer activist groups. He does own stock, in several companies. To the best of my knowledge, these are socially and environmentally responsible companies. Cicso has been tarred with the epithet 'monopoly,' and I know their plan to despoil pristine desert-land near San Jose (I think) is evil, but his ownership of their stock has not prevented him from speaking out (at length) against their plans. Nader, as has already been pointed out, is a capitalist. Never said he wasn't. But let's think about what he does with his money. Does he spend it on private planes and yachts, does he have a palatial estate, does he have a fleet of luxury vehicles? No. He uses the money to fund his many public interest groups, groups that do inestimably valuable work as watchdogs on industry, research on public policy, and getting disenchanted and disenfranchised people involved in the politcal process. Vivien ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #293 *******************************