From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #296 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, October 20 2000 Volume 09 : Number 296 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: heifer project international (NR) [Capuchin ] Re: heifer project international (NR) [GSS ] second joe's pub setlist [drop the holupki ] maxwell's setlist [drop the holupki ] hitchcock redux [Mark A Pyskoty ] Heifer Nixon [Christopher Gross ] Re: Heifer Nixon [Viv Lyon ] we're in for it. [Viv Lyon ] Re: we're in for it. [Christopher Gross ] re: lennon's piano [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: we're in for it. [Tom Clark ] NYTimes.com Article: Group Details Decline of Ecosystems [Munki1972@yaho] RE: Heifer Nixon ["Bachman, Michael" ] Speak of the devil! [Viv Lyon ] RIP [Tom Clark ] Liberate the Sauce! [Michael Wolfe ] Re: politicz [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Populist Manifesto part one ["hamlet007" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:09:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: heifer project international (NR) On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, J. Brown wrote: > Nader will never get elected president! Even if he was allowed to debate > and there was full and equal federal funding of elections because he's too > far to the left of the political mainstream in the US. I disagree with this. He's not very left, really, at all. He transcends left and right. Left and Right are old ideas that don't really make sense any more. He has some ideas that are traditionally "lefty" and some that aren't at all. He doesn't want to take public ownership of any private industries or property. He doesn't want to limit personal freedoms for the sake of "security". I've never been "left" and I don't think I ever will be. Hell, I flirted with Libertarianism for a few years a while back. In fact, I can see why someone might call Ralph very far right wing because he's a big "law and order" man... he wants to punish those who shun their legal responsibilities. He wants to make companies PAY for the resources they get from the people. As far as the mainstream political US being on the right, how do you explain the numbers (from BusinessWeek and Time): 76% of Americans think corporations control too much of our public lives. 71% of Americans believe abortion should be safe and legal. 68% of Americans believe there should be LAW preventing discrimination based on secual preference. I think Chris Gross (unless I'm misinterpreting him) is the ONLY person I've heard say that Nader wouldn't be a BETTER leader than Gore or Bush. (More likely, Chris is just pretending to "call out sloppy thinking" and shoot down arguments rather than making a stand himself... playing the safe pedant rather than the at-risk advocate.) > And gore and the democrats want campaign finanace reform because the > democrats have to work a whole lot harder to raise money thatn the repubs > do. And raising all that money also forces them to compromise their > values more than the repubs. Well, that's not true here. In our Secretary of State campaign, the Republican candidate posted her campaign budget and it was far larger than anyone had ever posted for that office before, so the Democrat went out and IN ONE WEEK topped her by a $100,000. No other candidate will come close to their spending. Gore came to town and charged thousands of dollars to have lunch with him... same folks showed up who paid thousands for lunch with Bush. Anyway... I've got to get some work done so I can take an early weekend. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:11:23 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: heifer project international (NR) > And gore and the democrats want campaign finanace reform because the > democrats have to work a whole lot harder to raise money thatn the repubs > do. And raising all that money also forces them to compromise their > values more than the repubs. what "values" are these? Gore has 'virtual values'. What might seem like a compromise one minute soon becomes a reinforcement. gss ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:15:14 -0400 From: drop the holupki Subject: second joe's pub setlist grant lee hitchcock 20 october 2000 joe's pub, nyc main set: gene hackman mighty joe moon queen elvis honey, don't think jesus [improv] i feel beautiful heavenly st. expedite flavour of night squint dark princess lonesome serenade antwoman fuzzy encore: happiness i used to love you mockingbirds sleeping knights of jesus [mexicana tempo] the shallow end uncorrected personality traits jealous guy [lennon] trams of old london the hook all i have to do is dream ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:15:11 -0400 From: drop the holupki Subject: maxwell's setlist grant lee hitchcock 19 october 2000 maxwell's, hoboken, nj main set: "dental origin" [robyn improv] gene hackman heavenly queen elvis st. expedite flavour of night the shallow end antwoman mockingbirds "what can you see if you listen very quietly?" [robyn improv] i feel beautiful honey, don't think sleeping knights of jesus lonesome serenade dark princess mighty joe moon it's the life mr. kennedy [new robyn song; hypothetical title, could be "maybe it'll rain"] fuzzy encore: rock of ages [grant solo; quickly aborted] happiness [grant solo] daisy bomb cynthia mask jumpin' jack flash [request/improv] all i have to do is dream trams of old london ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:20:01 -0400 From: Mark A Pyskoty Subject: hitchcock redux >have fun, >mike hooker >ps- i finally met some fegs and its always fun to have faces to go with the >names. NOBODY ever looks like you imagined they did :) Glad to hear the Robyn/Grant show worked out for you! Passed on the NYC gig. Awaiting the New Year and the RETURN of The Soft Boys...twice in a lifetime!!!! Ayeeeeeee...... Anyway, the gist of this ramble is putting a face to screen scribble...I'm finally going to meet up w/some Seance members tonight @ the Steve Wynn/Marty Willson-Piper/Wesley Willis CMJ miasma of a show... I'm hopeful for good mood and a decent crowd this evening myself! m Sleep Well ~ Don't Burst ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:20:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Heifer Nixon What a great band name.... First off, as a Democrat-leaning independent, I quite agree that Kennedy is overrated. (But note that Bay of Pigs was actually an Eisenhower operation; JFK only decided to go ahead instead of cancelling it.) On the other hand, you are FAR too easy on Nixon. The man was slime. He gave us the EPA, true. Going to China was pretty clever too. But those are among the few bright spots in Nixon's history. The vast conglomeration of offenses we lump together under the misleading label "Watergate" were NOT typical of American government, they were vastly worse; and the idea that Nixon sacrificed himself to save the system is laughable. And let's not forget his red-baiting origins, when he did his part to create the atmosphere that led three successive presidents afraid of being eviscerated at the polls if they pulled out of Vietnam. On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Capuchin wrote: > As far as the mainstream political US being on the right, how do you > explain the numbers (from BusinessWeek and Time): > 76% of Americans think corporations control too much of our public lives. > 71% of Americans believe abortion should be safe and legal. > 68% of Americans believe there should be LAW preventing discrimination > based on secual preference. The second two are social issues; in my post I said specifically that the country has moved rightwards on *economic* issues. As far as economic issues go, I'd say the distrust of the very idea of welfare, the popularity of the flat tax, the hostility to antitrust enforcement, and the "privatize 'em all and let God sort 'em out" attitude are all much more widespread among the American public today than they were twenty years ago. Do you disagree? > I think Chris Gross (unless I'm misinterpreting him) is the ONLY person > I've heard say that Nader wouldn't be a BETTER leader than Gore or Bush. > (More likely, Chris is just pretending to "call out sloppy thinking" and > shoot down arguments rather than making a stand himself... playing the > safe pedant rather than the at-risk advocate.) Well that is certainly what I enjoy doing, so you aren't misinterpreting my psychological motivations. However, you *are* misinterpreting my political views, kinda. I don't think any of the three, Bush, Gore or Nader, would be a "good leader" in the sense of being able to inspire and unite the nation behind a common purpose. So they're all equal there. However, I don't buy the semi-demonic picture that has been painted of Gore. And while Nader may have good positions on many issues, he'd be in no position to get most of them into law even if he *did* win the election! In *that* sense, Nader would be a poor leader. Gore, on the other hand would have the Democats in Congress, the national Democratic machine, the twenty years of favor-trading on Capitol Hill, the cutthroat instinct, and the maps to buried bodies that would help him get things done, making him, in that sense, a better potential leader than Nader. Better to get some things done with Gore than nothing with Nader. Of course this reasoning is not going to convince those who think that Gore wants to do only evil; for those of you who feel that way, Gore's ability to get things done doesn't matter. - --Chris, who BTW prefers either just "Chris" or the full "Christopher Gross," rather than the sing-songy "Chris Gross" ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:53:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: Heifer Nixon On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Christopher Gross wrote: > The second two are social issues; in my post I said specifically that the > country has moved rightwards on *economic* issues. As far as economic > issues go, I'd say the distrust of the very idea of welfare, the > popularity of the flat tax, the hostility to antitrust enforcement, and > the "privatize 'em all and let God sort 'em out" attitude are all much > more widespread among the American public today than they were twenty > years ago. Do you disagree? I do. Vehemently (oh, when am I not vehement? I need to relax). The american MEDIA is more economically "rightward", and no fucking wonder. Who signs the paychecks, hires or fires the editors, holds veto power over the stories and slants? Well, heavens to betsy, I believe it's the *5* corporations who own 90% of the media outlets in this grand land of ours. My parents, whom I consider my bellwether of public opinion, are extremely concerned about the implications of WTO and NAFTA, they consider corporate welfare obscene, and are disgusted by the astronomical figures it has become common for companies to pay their CEO's. They are against privatizing social security, they believe Microsoft are an illegal monopoly that has done far more harm than good, and they think the flat tax is a very bad idea. Now, I may seem to be turning into Gore here (using personal anecdotes to make a point), so I'll shut up about my parents. Suffice to say that, from what I've seen and heard as an activist that tries to connect with people who aren't "true believers," I have heard more discontent with the economic trends in this country than enthusiastic paeans. Then again, I've been talking to middle class workers, not to the beneficiaries of the New Economy who've been raking in the stock-market play-dough for two or three years, and whom, incidentally, the media plays up to like cheap whores looking for a fast $50. > Gore, on the other hand would have the Democats in Congress, the national Democratic > machine, the twenty years of favor-trading on Capitol Hill, the cutthroat > instinct, You don't think Nader, the man who single-handedly took on the monolithic auto-industry, has the cutthroat instinct? You need to learn more about the man. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:28:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: we're in for it. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-WWF-Global-Environment.html If the Belgians say it, I'm inclined to believe them. Maybe I'm just partial to them cuz of their waffles. And their chocolate. Mmmm. Chocolate and waffles. Of course, I'm also inclined to believe them because I'm a fearmongering eco-terrorist. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:41:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: we're in for it. On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Viv Lyon wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-WWF-Global-Environment.html > > If the Belgians say it, I'm inclined to believe them. Maybe I'm just > partial to them cuz of their waffles. And their chocolate. Mmmm. Chocolate > and waffles. Hey! The World Wildlife Federation is an international organization, they aren't just Belgians! Remember, "Belgium" is a terrible insult in Galactispeke. Personally, I prefer Homer's patented Space Age Moon Waffles, with caramel bits and liquid smoke. My instant-runoff ballot: 1 Gore 2 Nader 9 Bush 843 Buchanan - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:33:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: re: lennon's piano Scott Clark wrote: >> 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! what if he promises to give up music and only host the sports machine? ===== "Freedom is participation in power." -- Cicero __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:05:38 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: we're in for it. on 10/20/00 12:28 PM, Viv Lyon at vivlyon@bitmine.net wrote: > If the Belgians say it, I'm inclined to believe them. Maybe I'm just > partial to them cuz of their waffles. And their chocolate. Mmmm. Chocolate > and waffles. You forgot the BEER, Dammit! Oud Bruin, Rodenbach, Blanch de Bruges... And Gueuze - beautiful Gueuze! - -tc p.s. Go Mets! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:32:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Munki1972@yahoo.com Subject: NYTimes.com Article: Group Details Decline of Ecosystems This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by jeff dwarf Munki1972@yahoo.com. fegarama since you have to register with the nytimes to read at their site, i just sent viv's article..... jeff dwarf Munki1972@yahoo.com /-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\ Sign up for NYTimes.com's Campaign Countdown E-mail With the presidential election around the corner, we are offering a daily campaign e-mail to bring you the latest developments in the race for the White House. Our Campaign Countdown e-mail will include information on the candidates' daily activities, the latest campaign news, the most important poll results and more. http://email.nytimes.com/email/email.jsp#campaign?eta4 \----------------------------------------------------------/ Group Details Decline of Ecosystems http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-WWF-Global-Environment.html October 20, 2000 By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS BRUSSELS, Belgium -- The natural wealth of the world's ecosystems has declined by a third over the past 30 years, according to a World Wildlife Fund study published Friday. The Living Planet Report 2000 also showed that the area of land mass and ocean needed to produce natural resources for consumers and to absorb carbon dioxide pollution has doubled since 1961. In its annual assessment of the earth's environment, the group blamed much of the damage on the rich northern countries at the expense of habitat in the tropical rain forests. ``Mankind cannot afford to keep drawing so heavily on the world's natural resources,'' said Professor Ruud Lubbers, the former Dutch prime minister, and the World Wildlife Fund's international president. ``We have borrowed this planet from our children and our grandchildren.'' The World Wildlife Fund said it measures the state of ecosystems based on the populations of species in the world's forests, fresh waters and oceans. It found that ecosystems had declined between 1970 and 1999 by 12 percent in the forests, 50 percent in fresh waters, and 35 percent in the oceans. The study said the pressure of mankind on nature had increased by about 50 percent over the same period and had now gone beyond the planet's ability to regenerate. The New York Times on the Web http://www.nytimes.com /-----------------------------------------------------------------\ Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the most authoritative news coverage on the Web, updated throughout the day. Become a member today! It's free! http://www.nytimes.com?eta \-----------------------------------------------------------------/ HOW TO ADVERTISE - --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson Racer at alyson@nytimes.com or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@nytimes.com. Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:37:31 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Heifer Nixon Nixon also did a dirty trick in 1968 to get elected. He had his agent, the Chinese widow of the WW2 Flying Tigers comander Clare Chennault, secretly negotiating with the South Vietnamese to stall and not make progess durring the 1968 Paris Peace talks. That way, the possible peaceful settlement would be delayed and LBJ and Hubert Humphrey would not have a peace agreement before the 1968 election. Had the agreement been signed or progess had been made, Nixon would never have been elected in 1968. The talks collapsed, Nixon got elected, thousands more died, and South Vietnam folded in 1975. LBJ found about Nixon's dirty trick later and could have spilled the beans but didn't do so. Nixon is pretty much scum in my book. A 1/2 step above U.S. Grant as our worse President ever. Michael - -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Gross [mailto:chrisg@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu] Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 2:20 PM To: Squidmaniax! Subject: Heifer Nixon What a great band name.... First off, as a Democrat-leaning independent, I quite agree that Kennedy is overrated. (But note that Bay of Pigs was actually an Eisenhower operation; JFK only decided to go ahead instead of cancelling it.) On the other hand, you are FAR too easy on Nixon. The man was slime. He gave us the EPA, true. Going to China was pretty clever too. But those are among the few bright spots in Nixon's history. The vast conglomeration of offenses we lump together under the misleading label "Watergate" were NOT typical of American government, they were vastly worse; and the idea that Nixon sacrificed himself to save the system is laughable. And let's not forget his red-baiting origins, when he did his part to create the atmosphere that led three successive presidents afraid of being eviscerated at the polls if they pulled out of Vietnam. On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Capuchin wrote: > As far as the mainstream political US being on the right, how do you > explain the numbers (from BusinessWeek and Time): > 76% of Americans think corporations control too much of our public lives. > 71% of Americans believe abortion should be safe and legal. > 68% of Americans believe there should be LAW preventing discrimination > based on secual preference. The second two are social issues; in my post I said specifically that the country has moved rightwards on *economic* issues. As far as economic issues go, I'd say the distrust of the very idea of welfare, the popularity of the flat tax, the hostility to antitrust enforcement, and the "privatize 'em all and let God sort 'em out" attitude are all much more widespread among the American public today than they were twenty years ago. Do you disagree? > I think Chris Gross (unless I'm misinterpreting him) is the ONLY person > I've heard say that Nader wouldn't be a BETTER leader than Gore or Bush. > (More likely, Chris is just pretending to "call out sloppy thinking" and > shoot down arguments rather than making a stand himself... playing the > safe pedant rather than the at-risk advocate.) Well that is certainly what I enjoy doing, so you aren't misinterpreting my psychological motivations. However, you *are* misinterpreting my political views, kinda. I don't think any of the three, Bush, Gore or Nader, would be a "good leader" in the sense of being able to inspire and unite the nation behind a common purpose. So they're all equal there. However, I don't buy the semi-demonic picture that has been painted of Gore. And while Nader may have good positions on many issues, he'd be in no position to get most of them into law even if he *did* win the election! In *that* sense, Nader would be a poor leader. Gore, on the other hand would have the Democats in Congress, the national Democratic machine, the twenty years of favor-trading on Capitol Hill, the cutthroat instinct, and the maps to buried bodies that would help him get things done, making him, in that sense, a better potential leader than Nader. Better to get some things done with Gore than nothing with Nader. Of course this reasoning is not going to convince those who think that Gore wants to do only evil; for those of you who feel that way, Gore's ability to get things done doesn't matter. - --Chris, who BTW prefers either just "Chris" or the full "Christopher Gross," rather than the sing-songy "Chris Gross" ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:14:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Speak of the devil! On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Bachman, Michael wrote: > Nixon also did a dirty trick in 1968 to get elected. He had his agent, > the Chinese widow of the WW2 Flying Tigers comander Clare Chennault, > secretly > negotiating with the South Vietnamese to stall and not make progess durring > the 1968 Paris Peace talks. That way, the possible peaceful settlement would > be delayed and LBJ and Hubert Humphrey would not have a peace agreement > before > the 1968 election. Had the agreement been signed or progess had been > made, Nixon would never have been elected in 1968. The talks collapsed, > Nixon > got elected, thousands more died, and South Vietnam folded in 1975. I was just beginning to read this article of Christopher Hitchens' in the new Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20001106&s=hitchens) when I got this email. Strange. Read it, it's a good article, and you don't have to create a lousy 'member profile' to see it. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:18:30 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: RIP Julie London Cry me a river, - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:05:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: Liberate the Sauce! If I haven't already lost all my cred with you, check out: http://www.dougallencomics.com/ You'll be glad you did. - -Michael ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:01:19 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: politicz >In Oregon, our state constitution allows for something we call "instant >run-off". It's a brilliant little system. > >See, instead of voting for a candidate, you put the candidates in the >order that you'd care to see them elected. So you might do this (taking >a subset of the candidates available; and this is not what my ballot >would look like, exactly): this is the system they use in Australia - it's usually called Preferential Voting. It works well if there are only up to about six or seven candidates - - but what if there are 30, 40, or 50? What happens is people are less likely to get out and vote, and the number of informal/illegal votes also increases (what are the odds of accidentally giving two candidates the same number? It works well if it's a limited thing - vote for your favourite seven candidates in order, say. If no-one gets to 50% after that, then a runoff election can be called. No mess, no fuss, as one of NZ's most perfidious advotain-infomercials would have it. wow! interesting stuff - If you went by NZ TV news, you'd be sure there were only two parties running. And even for the more enlightened of us (surfing to various news sources as often as possible), well... I'd only heard of Buchanan and Nader's campaigns other than the big two this time, although a lot of the other names mentioned I knew as historical entities (Reform, for instance). It's also useful because occasionally I've been asked by Americans what NZ's government is like and I've had to say "approximately like the Democrats". Now I can confuse them by saying it's like a coalition between the New Party and the Socalist Party USA. Interesting to see so many communist/socialist/Trotskyite minor parties. As to the LNSGP... the political world is apparently just as weird as the real world. So... anyone here support the Pansexual Peace Party? James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- You talk to me as if from a distance -.-=-.- And I reply with impressions chosen from another time =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:40:43 -0700 From: "hamlet007" Subject: Populist Manifesto part one WARNING! Incensed political material ahead. You may want to delete this now! Fellow Citizens, I can feel some sympathy for those in the voting public who feel it is a waste of time and energy to be involved in the political process. The overwhelming apathy of the non-voting populace stems from the idea that their vote doesn't matter, that they cannot hope to change the system for better or worse so why bother. I wish these neigh-sayers well. May they find a pleasant cloud of insouciance to float along on through this dark time in our country's history. Sadly, there is some accuracy to their gripes. We don't really have a functioning democracy. The upcoming presidential election will do nothing to change that. At best you can say we exist in a republic of states where the elite business class holds the leash of the federal government. The nation is run by a corporate ogliarchy. Is it any surprise the the powerful moneyed interests most support the GOP, a political party bent on crippling the federal government not so the people will be trusted to better themselves as they would have you believe, but so that the corporations will have free reign to act with immunity, without being held accountable for the rape of the natural world and the undermining of the free spirit that defines this multi-cultural nation. They come on like they are for Joe Worker and the little people everywhere. Their real agenda is an attempt to gain control for the special moneyed interests without that bothersome federal government. The corporations could then send less money into buying our government. They will take this new freedom of responsibility the GOP claims they will bestow upon the people and run. With a powerless federal government and fractured state rule, the corporations would rise to the peak of power, left alone to ruin, exploit and spoil our land and our conscience. They may then sponsor their own legislation and pass it with no problem. They must be stopped. There is an alarming constituency of people voting or not in the country that are IGNORANT of the issues at stake in this election. We could be facing the retrogressive paralysis of an all Republican Washington. A dark time will descend should the GOP control all three bodies of the federal government for what could be decades to come. Hard line party pundits wax philosophical about how great it would be if one party (theirs) would control all of Washington for a change. Then we could get something done, right? Yes, but what will get done will be all the wrong things. You can kiss good-bye to all the important social reforms that dates back as far as the New Deal and that really hit the high watermark with the civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's. Any socially conscience individual can see who will get the short end of an all Rep. govt. They will dismantle important social reforms and advance the the interests of the wealthy elite. Furthermore, The GOP stands to win this coup without the majority voice in our so-called democracy. The majority voice of the "minorities" is divided just as it was in '68. If the liberal vote is split, Bush wins and we are headed back to the stone age, where you will exist to feed the giant multi-national corporations. The Democratic party opposition warns that a vote for green party candidate Ralph Nader is a vote for Bush Jr. Gore supporters cry shame that one should "waste" their vote on this protest candidate. I believe it is the other way around- A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush. Liberals, Democrats and other lovers of fair-minded freedom don't "waste" your vote on a man who is barely a sidestep to the left of Bush. With Gore we have another slippery snake. He is a Republican in sheep's clothing. He is such a bad liar too! He supports virtually the same right wing platform as Bush. He is only the lesser of those two evils because he may support a few progressive programs. But to hell with evil. Whether you are Dem., rep or independent do not vote for the lesser of two evils but for the greater good. I propose we liberals, democrats and populists that do hold a majority in this Democracy-in-theory not waste our votes on other well oiled money candidates and I say we elect someone with miles of personal integrity to the office of president. Vote Democratic for congress sure! (Or Republican even! This suggestion should benefit all. I think this idea is something even the hard core supporters of the Rep. party line could support unless they belong to the little power group of short-sighted, narrow-minded bigots who care more about profits than the well being of the people and the Earth.) Wouldn't it be a good thing if we had a Non bipartisan check in our balance of power federal system? A mediator for the powers that be? We cannot hope to dismantle the strangle hold money has on our political system. We cannot hope to stem the tide of corporate rule. We have given them too much power over us already. We cannot allow big business to go on not being held accountable for their actions, at least not as much as they should be. WE need a mediator n the role of president. The job is perfect for such a role. And the job should belong to a third party INDIVIDUAL, one with tons of personal integrity, honesty, and concern for ALL people. We need this person to advance and protect a progressive populist agenda that supports all people in this nation. Bush and Gore are not this person. Ralph Nader is! A vote for Nader is a step closer to beginning to reclaim our government from the special moneyed interests. Visit the votenader.com web site and examine his stances on the issues. It is very important to know who you are voting for. Unlike the 2-party debates where the most important qualification, aside from who can lie and deceive the best, is who appears to be the nicer guy. A candy coated popularity contest to decide the fate of the most powerful country in the world! We need a progressive populist president that will be the honest champion for ALL men and women regardless of their stakes in private industry. Big Business does not run this government! We the People DO! It is time to take that power back! And what would be sweeter than an Amerindian Woman serving as Vice President! NO this isn't Star Trek, it is the Brave New World we should seek this November! Give democracy a fighting chance. your concerned fellow citizen, Kenneth Johnson Peace Love Out ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #296 *******************************