From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #299 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, October 23 2000 Volume 09 : Number 299 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Hef, heifer, heifest [Capuchin ] Re: heifer heifest [Dolph Chaney ] Judicial Watch debate [steve ] Profile of potential Bush and Gore SC nominees [steve ] apples and oil ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] the universe is stranger than we imagine, volume XCLXVII [grutness@surf4n] Re: apples and oil (oh no, another grammar post) [Chris Franz ] Re: heifer heifest [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: apples and oil [steve ] Underworld, Camden [Tony.Blackman@sita.int] Re: another (a bit more personal) reap ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: RIP [Michael R Godwin ] this is actually impressive [Marcy Tanter ] Re: Hef, heifer, heifest [JH3 ] Boston Show [Jeffrey Rose ] Re: apples and oil [Capuchin ] Re: apples and oil [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:33:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Hef, heifer, heifest On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Bayard wrote: > Didn't Tom just post that MS licensed the look and feel? In the begining, this happened. Yes. > Is this why Apple provided MS with a Mac? Apple provided MS with lots of stuff because MS was a very large vendor for Apple with regard to developer tools and cetera. > And did Xerox give Jobs any kind of permission to copy their GUI? I > don't know all the facts, but if not, this seems like spying. Not at all spying. The PARC kids tried to sell Xerox on all the neat stuff they'd devloped and Xerox would have none of it (initially). Some folks at Apple knew what was going on at PARC (which wasn't too far from where Apple was stationed at the time) and they arranged a field trip and demonstration. The PARC engineers were so happy to have folks around that were actually INTERESTED in what they had to say, they fielded questions from the Apple engineers on all kinds of topics. Reverse engineering is a time honored tradition in technology (but look out, there are forces working VERY HARD to make it illegal RIGHT NOW). What you do is hire a bunch of smart people that have never used the technology in question, explain what you want it to do in precise detail, and let them at it. Even if they come up with a solution that's nearly identical to the other folks' work, you have documented proof of "independent invention" of the technology. The really great part of Apple taking from PARC, I think, is the fact that Xerox hadn't quite worked it all out yet. They hadn't really perfected the two-and-a-half-dimension window overlapping thing when Apple came to visit. So they showed Apple a mocked up demo and the Apple engineers were amazed. They then went home and reverse engineered something that didn't really exist! There aren't that many examples of this, but I think there will be in the future. In a way, we've seen science fiction spawning reverse engineering projects for new technology. You run into a kind of neat chicken/egg dilemma. MS on the other hand, license code from Apple and then took little bits of it and built a product around it and had loopholes in their license that allowed the little bits to become undisputable even after the license terms expired. So that was rotten. > > The two cases differ in another respect: Apple improved on the Xerox PARC > > GUI, while Microsoft could only come up with a distinctly inferior copy of > > Apple's GUI. > You mean initially, or to date? I would venture that the latter is, at > least to some extent, a matter of opinion. Please, Mac addicts, hold your > fire. I have some inkling of how you feel - btw, there's a new Amiga > coming out... And if you want to talk about architectural failings and such, I could give my few bits about the X Windowing System, which I use. I know it's bloated and programming for it is a pain, but there are feature that make it FAR superior to either MS Windows or MacOS, in my opinion. And heck, MY system is fast and powerful enough to run it without blinking. I get great refresh and no performance quirks. (Could be because I built my system thinking of X from the start... so I bought a video card with open specifications, etc.) There are all kinds of views on these subjects. I want to thank Tom for correcting me about IBM's first attempt at licensing an OS for the Acorn project. I was really under the impression that it was a third company and OS, not Digital Research and CP/M, that IBM tried to license initially. Now I have to remember who it was that missed the opportunity and is now in real estate. J. By the way, the idea of "licensing" things instead of selling them is going to be the death of us. We have to kill it now. When you buy a book, you BOUGHT A BOOK. When you buy a VHS cassette, you BOUGHT A MOVIE. Why, when you buy software, are you LICENSING software? Can we put shrinkwrap licenses on books, too? That way, when you buy a book, they can forbid you from reading it aloud or opening it in public or quoting it in reviews... and they can say that, since it was never sold to you, your copy is really still theirs and the copyright, since you don't have access rights to infringe copyright, can never expire. And why, when you buy a DVD, are you LICENSING a movie? And how can you enter a contract without ever reading it? It's craziness. This is what the Digital Millenium Copyright Act gives us. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 14:50:45 -0500 From: Dolph Chaney Subject: Re: heifer heifest At 12:11 PM 10/22/00 -0400, Christopher Gross wrote: >(And overdue library books should carry the death penalty.) Speaking for the other Feg librarians, no. It'd be really messy... and LOUD. However, many librarians are advocating SprewtCo's pioneering new "MuzzleTazer"(tm), a device which clamps a muzzle over the victim's mouth and delivers a mild electric shock to his head in one simple motion. Leatherette, black, cream, and now available in mango! dolph ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:02:52 -0500 From: steve Subject: Judicial Watch debate If you turn on C-SPAN right now, you can see their third party debate. - - Steve __________ "He's probably the least qualified person ever to be nominated by a major party ... What is his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk? - Ron Reagan on George W. Bush ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:53:47 -0500 From: steve Subject: Profile of potential Bush and Gore SC nominees www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20001022mag-supremecourt.html You will have to create a free account. - - Steve "I hear this Republican message that we're rich as hell and we're not going to take it any more. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'm paying taxes at a lower rate than my secretary ... and frankly I think that's crazy." - Warren Buffett ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:32:42 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: apples and oil >From: steve > >Eddie, we are living in a county that is very close to electing as >President the walking void that is known as George W. Bush. Do you think >for one instant that any Bush voter wants to hear about ending the wage >system? His Republican voters oppose everything you embrace, and the >independents are evidently too stupid to realize that the great majority >of his campaign is based on the technique of The Big Lie. So I've been reading Eddie's posts with great interest. In the one you're replying to here, I thought he went pretty far in being not only vehement but pretty rude ("WAKE THE FUCK UP!"...Eudora has just put up the three- chili warning that I've used the word "fuck," which I never cease to find amusing). But more importantly, he continued to paint a picture of a U.S. government that naive, uninformed moi (pedants, start your engines) finds unbelievably disturbing and loathsome. If half of what he says is true to the extent that he's saying it, it makes the thought of participating in our government in any way except to overthrow it physically nauseating. Of course, in a few hours I'll calm down and realize that we all live as savages-by-proxy and have our evil government to thank for our existence, or something. But in the meantime I was really hoping to see a good counter from you. Instead we're back to the old Fear of Bush defense of Gore. Eddie (and others) have all but convinced me that Gore is no better, certainly not an order of magnitude better, and so my reply to the above is "what difference will it make?" It looks as though Gore opposes everything Eddie embraces, too. So what then? The proliferation of the Fear of Bush thing makes it seem as though the Republicans and the Democrats were working hand in hand to find the one possible candidate who would make Al Gore look _good_. And what do you know, they did! Granted, the polls are very close, but how close would they be if anyone else were running? Maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about. I guess if California supports Bush by a margin of one vote I'll feel bad next month. I doubt that will happen. >From: Christopher Gross > >This is the Gates theory of moral equivalence -- "I stole from you, but >you stole from Xerox, so you're no better than me." However, I don't >think it stands up. Apple only saw demos of Xerox's GUI and then designed >their own based on the concepts they saw. Microsoft, on the other hand, >designed its Windows GUI after seeing Apple's actual code. The theft to >invention ratio was thus much higher for MS than for Apple's Mac team. The good news here is that the consumer won in any event. If _someone_ hadn't "stolen" PARC's GUI it might never have seen the light of day and we would still be trying to remember cryptic DOS commands. I love my CLI, and so do geeks worldwide, but thank Jobs not everyone has to. >From: Bayard [still Chris] > > The two cases differ in another respect: Apple improved on the Xerox PARC > > GUI, while Microsoft could only come up with a distinctly inferior copy of > > Apple's GUI. > >You mean initially, or to date? I would venture that the latter is, at >least to some extent, a matter of opinion. Please, Mac addicts, hold your >fire. I have some inkling of how you feel - btw, there's a new Amiga >coming out... I'll hold my fire, but I will say that while it's a matter of opinion, it's also the _correct_ opinion. :) I'll grant that Windows has made some laudable improvements to _their_ version of the GUI, while OS X looks like it might be a step in the wrong direction in many cases, but Windows still contains enough boneheaded usability gaffes to last them through the next few years at least. Drew - -- - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen.com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:15:39 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: the universe is stranger than we imagine, volume XCLXVII http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_985000/985192.stm 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: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:35:17 -0700 From: Chris Franz Subject: Re: apples and oil (oh no, another grammar post) Andrew said: >(pedants, start your engines) ... > Eddie (and > others) have all but convinced me that Gore is no better, certainly not > an order of magnitude better, Okay, the "all but" syntax has always bugged me. That reads to me like "Eddie (and others) have done everything humans could conceivably do, EXCEPT convince me that Gore is no better." Obviously that's not what was intended. One could argue that in this case "all" is used like one would use "each," i.e. "Eddie (and others) have each convinced...", however the "but" would still seem to negate the verb, and I've heard so many other cases where "all but" has been used with a singular subject. Can someone explain where the "all but" formation came from, and if it's correct? - - Chris "semantics? I'm always up for some antics" Franz ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:58:40 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: apples and oil (oh no, another grammar post) At 7:32 PM -0700 10/22/00, Chris Franz wrote: >Andrew said: >>(pedants, start your engines) >... >> Eddie (and >> others) have all but convinced me that Gore is no better, certainly not >> an order of magnitude better, > >Okay, the "all but" syntax has always bugged me. Deal with it, pink boy! >That reads to me like "Eddie (and others) have done everything >humans could conceivably do, EXCEPT convince me that Gore is no >better." Obviously that's not what was intended. Well, it sort of is. If you figure that "convince" is the culminating act, like "completing" a task which is done in stages or gradually. I have not yet been fully convinced (which would be redundant, like "exact same," by the definition I'm offering) that Gore would be no better, but Eddie (and others) have almost gotten me there. I'm on the cusp, teetering on the brink, on the edge of an anti-Goregasm. So the construction means just what you think it means, except that I imply that the slightest effort at this point would convince me, while your paraphrase makes it sound like there's just no hope (the opposite of what I meant). When I said "pedants, start your engines," the invitation was ironic (I _think_). Drew P.S. Does "fegmania@smoe.org" also go to the list? I changed it just in case. - -- - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen.com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:52:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: me hey all! i'll be incommunicado for a couple of weeks, due to travelling outside of the country. so don't miss me too much... and as woj always says, try not to wreck the place... :) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:19:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: heifer heifest Christopher Gross wrote: > On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > > it does need to be noted that as hideous as Hussein is, the > Kuwaitis > > actually started that by stealing from Iraq's oil reserve. yes, we > > actually managed to go after hussein on one of those rarest of > > occasions when he was right. > > "He was right?" Are you saying that Saddam Hussein was *justified* > in invading and annexing a whole country because they were sucking up > oil from the Iraqi side of the oilfield? Seems kinda harsh to me. > (Hey, if we ever catch Canadians fishing in US waters, we should > probably nuke Ottawa, right? And overdue library books should carry > the death penalty.) > No, you might, at a stretch, call the invasion *understandable*, but > there's no way it was *justified*. bad choice of words. not right as in morally acceptable. right as in acceptable based on how dictatorships relate to one another. after all, kuwait was/is just as unfree a society as iraq; they just kiss our ass adequately so we don't care. > > Hussein specifically asked the US State Department what our > response > > would be if he invaded Kuwait to retaliate for their stealing his > oil; > > he was told he would do nothing. which actually means, he was > foolish > > enough to take the US government at its word. > > The truth is a bit murkier than that. He had a private meeting with > the > US ambassador (April Glaspie? something like that), then invaded > Kuwait, > then claimed the Ambassador had said it was okay. The State > Depratment, ^^^^ great mispelling. > of course, denies it. So it's Saddam Hussein's word against April > Glaspie's; and call me naive, but I don't consider Saddam Hussein > very trustworthy. i wouldn't either, but i wouldn't trust a bush administration official either, so it comes down to who has the greatest motivation to lie in this case. i'm inclined to say the Bush admin, since I think he wanted a Wag the Dog scenario so he could claim he led up to a "great" military victory, and ride it into a second term. i wouldn't by a used car from either of them. > --Chris "my God, is Bayard's modem slow" the Christer > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a > dog. > chrisg@gwu.edu > > > ===== "Freedom is participation in power." -- Cicero __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 01:35:09 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: apples and oil Andrew D. Simchik: >But in the meantime I was really hoping to see a good counter from you. >Instead we're back to the old Fear of Bush defense of Gore. Eddie (and >others) have all but convinced me that Gore is no better, certainly not >an order of magnitude better, and so my reply to the above is "what >difference will it make?" It looks as though Gore opposes everything >Eddie embraces, too. So what then? Thing is, the vast majority of people in this country oppose everything that Eddie embraces. That's why the Green Party will never get more than 20 percent of the vote in a national election. You can point out problems, but it does you no good at all if you propose solutions that will *never* be accepted by the voting populace. I will say it one more time - From my perspective, Gore is superior to Bush in every broad policy area. And there's a reason that he's an order of magnitude better choice than Nader - he has the chance to be elected. As for the arguments that Gore is no better than Bush, I reject most of them as irrelevant, utopian, or just plain silly. I point out the possible outcomes of a Bush victory because I think the stakes are high. Not only does he advocate what I think is bad policy, but the appointment of "federalist" Supreme Court Justices could prevent any future administration from correcting his mistakes. - - Steve _______________ We're all Jesus, Buddha, and the Wizard of Oz! - Andy Partridge ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:47:41 +0000 From: Tony.Blackman@sita.int Subject: Underworld, Camden If anyone has, like me, been wondering where to buy tickets for The Underworld gig online then, I've found that they're available through TicketWeb as follows Tony ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:51:24 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: another (a bit more personal) reap steve wrote: > > You know - the Masonic Lodge, part of the One World Conspiracy. The > Scottish Rite is, I believe, one variant. Oh, you mean Orangemen -- that lot. Stewart (fearless Walk breaker) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 03:15:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: reap Walter Shenson, film producer ("Help!", "A Hard Days Night") died Wednesday in Los Angeles of stroke complications. He was eighty-one. ===== "Freedom is participation in power." -- Cicero __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:27:02 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: RIP On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Tom Clark wrote: > Julie London > Cry me a river, Terrific sequence in "The girl can't help it" where Tom Ewell, drunk, imagines that his ex-girlfriend, Julie London, is singing this lachrymose estuarine ditty. Recommended. - - Mike Godwin PS What had Tom Ewell got that enabled him to get lead roles opposite both Jayne Mansfield and Marilyn Monroe? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 09:03:22 -0400 From: Marcy Tanter Subject: this is actually impressive Garth Brooks saves two boys from approaching fire By the Associated Press TULSA, Okla. (October 21, 2000 8:32 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - A couple of Oklahoma boys might have liked Garth Brooks before, but they like him even better now. Ryan Cooper, 14, and his brother Randall, 10, were alone in their home about 10 miles north of Tulsa when someone began beating on the door Friday, yelling about a fast-moving grass fire heading toward the house. Randall said he yelled for his brother to leave, but Ryan didn't hear him until Brooks yelled up the stairs. "He was yelling, 'Ryan, Ryan!' I was like, 'Who are you,' and he said, 'Get in the truck,"' the boy told the Tulsa World. Ryan said the country singer drove him through dense smoke to safety; after he had rescued his brother. They said they didn't realize who their rescuer was until a neighbor told them: "You just got saved by Garth Brooks." Brooks' in-laws live within miles of the fire, and he reportedly is building a new home nearby. A Capitol Records spokeswoman said she had spoken to Brooks on Friday but he didn't mention the fire. Firefighters were able to stop the blaze about two feet from the Cooper house. Dr. Marcy Tanter Assistant Professor of English Tarleton State University Stephenville, TX ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 09:12:24 -0500 From: JH3 Subject: Re: Hef, heifer, heifest Capuchin writes: >Now I have to remember who it was that >missed the opportunity and is now in real estate. The guy who built QDOS for Seattle Computer Products was named Tom Patterson, but I don't think that was the same guy who signed away the rights, because Patterson ended up working for Microsoft. (Not that I know the guy personally or anything.) In 1986 SCP sued MS for $60 million over alleged violations of their so-called agreement, but they settled for less than $1 million and a lifetime supply of IAMS pet food products. Actually, I've been thinking a lot about Patterson recently, but at this point I've pretty much decided it would just be throwing my vote away. JH3 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 11:05:27 -0400 From: Jeffrey Rose Subject: Boston Show Managed to squeeze in both Robbie Fulks and Grant Lee Hitchcock Sunday night. A few thoughts on the GLH show. The boys seem to really enjoy themselves up there. Some of the stage banter seemed forced and borderline funny but the audience still ate it up. Grant's "A" material beat Robyn's "B" stuff. I was impressed with Grant but somewhat miffed Robyn pulled out so many uninspired numbers on this tour (the set list was nearly identical to many posted here so I guess I was expecting it). "Queen Elvis" , "Antwoman", and "Neitzche's Way" were standouts. The joke medley's were fun as was the "I Am The Walrus" finale. I wonder if Robyn didn't want to "upstage" Grant by playing his best songs. All in all, a pretty good show but I've seen better. Jeffro ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:07:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: apples and oil On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > But in the meantime I was really hoping to see a good counter from you. > Instead we're back to the old Fear of Bush defense of Gore. Eddie (and > others) have all but convinced me that Gore is no better, certainly not > an order of magnitude better, and so my reply to the above is "what > difference will it make?" It looks as though Gore opposes everything > Eddie embraces, too. So what then? Last night Gore was here in town. We went to the event and did what we could to spread the good word. We pissed off a WHOLE lot of people. But NOT A SINGLE ONE LIKED GORE. There was nobody there that really thought Al Gore was a great man and worthy of the presidency. Nobody rushed to his defense personally or even disagreed that he has done lots of evil things. They ALL said they didn't want Bush in the white house and were afraid of Supreme Court appointments. That's their whole defense of Gore. He's not Bush. He MIGHT not be Pro-Life (even though 84% of Gore's senate votes on the issue were Pro-Life). And my bicycle was stolen. > The proliferation of the Fear of Bush thing makes it seem as though the > Republicans and the Democrats were working hand in hand to find the one > possible candidate who would make Al Gore look _good_. And what do you > know, they did! Granted, the polls are very close, but how close would > they be if anyone else were running? Maybe I have no idea what I'm talking > about. You know exactly what you're talking about, Andrew. You're just shy that way. It is exactly the case that they're just putting someone up that APPEARS to be more right wing than Gore. They're both fairly traditional Republicans. The difference is Al Gore's talk. If only the record could speak for itself. The candidates themselves last night totally ignored everyone that isn't Republican or Democrat. It IS a conspiracy. That is to say, they KNOW that there are better alternatives, but they ignore them because the race is easier with one opponent. > The good news here is that the consumer won in any event. If _someone_ > hadn't "stolen" PARC's GUI it might never have seen the light of day and > we would still be trying to remember cryptic DOS commands. I love my CLI, > and so do geeks worldwide, but thank Jobs not everyone has to. With the exception of Netscape, I'd say I only have a windowing system to make multitasking my terminal windows easier (there's only so much screen can do). But I know I'm the exception. > I'll hold my fire, but I will say that while it's a matter of opinion, > it's also the _correct_ opinion. :) I'll grant that Windows has made > some laudable improvements to _their_ version of the GUI, while OS X > looks like it might be a step in the wrong direction in many cases, but > Windows still contains enough boneheaded usability gaffes to last them > through the next few years at least. Just like the presidential race, it's a false dichotomy. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:28:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: apples and oil On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, steve wrote: > Thing is, the vast majority of people in this country oppose > everything that Eddie embraces. While eddie personally advocates the end of capitalism as a whole, I don't think that's reflected in the majority of Greens (while I'm not a Green myself, I know PLENTY of them). But the things the Greens DO support are overwhelmingly supported by the public: Keeping abortion safe and legal (71%), Better environmental regulation (70%), Ending corporate control of public life (76%). > That's why the Green Party will never get more than 20 percent of the > vote in a national election. Neither Gore nor Bush have more than about 20% support from Americans. And at least in Gore's case, it's all fear. The electorate is a different matter. A huge percentage of registered voters DON'T vote because they don't have real choices. > You can point out problems, but it does you no good at all if you > propose solutions that will *never* be accepted by the voting > populace. All we have to do is increase the numbers of that voting populace. > I will say it one more time - From my perspective, Gore is superior to > Bush in every broad policy area. Name two things Gore has done that Bush wouldn't have done (not said, but done). > And there's a reason that he's an order of magnitude better choice > than Nader - he has the chance to be elected. And if everyone who says that straightened out their head, Nader would win by a landslide. > As for the arguments that Gore is no better than Bush, I reject most > of them as irrelevant, utopian, or just plain silly. It's utopian to say that the leadership in the Democratic party are largely right-wing religious people? I don't see what's utopian about that at all... or irrelevant or silly. > I point out the possible outcomes of a Bush victory because I think > the stakes are high. And I point out the irrelevance of a Bush victory because there are no stakes. Bush and Gore enact the same policies. Americans are greatly opposed to principles of the Republican Party platform (like overturning Roe v. Wade, etc.) and it would be political suicide to enact any of them. You want to see the electorate mobilized? Put any of those policies into practice. The policies coming out of the two administrations will be identical, they'll just lie about which parts were their plan and which parts were compromise. > Not only does he advocate what I think is bad policy, but the > appointment of "federalist" Supreme Court Justices could prevent any > future administration from correcting his mistakes. The only interesting (or even mildly compelling) argument here is the "federalist" vs. "nationalist" argument (which you don't even approach). Are we worse or better off with power of regulation left in the hands of the various states? I think here is where you'll find both sides in all political camps (with the probable exception of the Libertarians). To say that a "federalist" court would be absolutely bad for Americans is quite a stretch. To say it without supporting argument is folly. But the simple fact is that Gore/Lieberman claims their ideals come from God and Bush/Cheney claim their ideals come from Jesus. There are some that argue these are the same entity. Me, I think it's a bunch of hooey. Gore is Pro-Life. Gore has stated that he believe homosexuality is "abnormal". Gore supports the "war on drugs". Gore wants to increase the U.S. military's size, strength and influence. Gore supports WTO/NAFTA. Gore supports the Timber Salvage Rider, overseas oil interests, and EPA downsizing. Gore is a third generation Congressman who takes millions of dollars in soft-money. All of these are a matter of public record and indisputable. So what's left to make Gore different from Bush? This is the question you haven't answered, Steve. If you'd like to dispute any of the above, I'd be glad to point to my evidence. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #299 *******************************