From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest)
To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #302
Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org
Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


fegmaniax-digest       Tuesday, October 24 2000       Volume 09 : Number 302



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  Re: rad, radio, radiohead la (0% pissy political diatribes <snicker>)  [Eb]
  Vocab Rehab: You Shall tell me where to buy CDs  ["Asa Land" <asa_land@hot]
  Re: sequel sampler                        [Ben <bpnicast@bulldog.unca.edu>]
  changing the world  ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" <jbranscombe@compuserve.]
  One more political rehash...              [Capuchin <capuchin@bitmine.net>]
  Re: sequel sampler                       ["brian nupp" <bnupp@hotmail.com>]
  Re: Vocab Rehab: You Shall tell me where to buy CDs  [steve <schiavo@home.]
  Re: sequel sampler                        [drop the holupki <woj@smoe.org>]
  Re: One more political rehash...  [Christopher Gross <chrisg@gwis2.circ.gw]
  Re: One more political rehash...          [Capuchin <capuchin@bitmine.net>]
  Re: One more political rehash...                 [steve <schiavo@home.com>]
  Re: One more political rehash...          [Capuchin <capuchin@bitmine.net>]
  Re: Hugh Heifer-ner (2% Hitchcock (Alfred))  [grutness@surf4nix.com (James]
  Re: One more political rehash...  [Christopher Gross <chrisg@gwis2.circ.gw]
  Re: Hugh Heifer-ner (2% Hitchcock (Alfred))  [Christopher Gross <chrisg@gw]
  Re: apples and oil         [Asshole Motherfucker <asshole@feedthefish.org>]
  Re: digest V9 #300                                         [Robcow@aol.com]
  Re: One more political rehash...   ["J. Brown" <ringostr@u.washington.edu>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:51:48 -0700
From: Eb <gondola@deltanet.com>
Subject: Re: rad, radio, radiohead la (0% pissy political diatribes <snicker>)

Jason:
>As far as star-fucking goes, I did spy Kirsten Dunst and producer Rick
>Rubin (not together).  Other people claimed to have seen Beck, Keri
>Russell, "one of the guys from the Chemical Brothers," and the lead singer
>of Travis.

I saw a list somewhere else on the 'Net...I forget all the names, but I do
recall Jude Law. And yeah, that list also mentioned Beck. Courtney Love
might've been cited too, but then, that's predictable, isn't it? (After
all, Yorke will probably be the one to ghostwrite the next Hole album, if
past patterns hold up....)

>And the parking system was wildly
>inefficient (ever heard of "stacked" parking?)

The one time *I* went to the Greek (King Crimson circa 1984, at the very
beginning of my concert-going years), I recall squeezing onto the dirt
shoulder of a winding road, quite a-ways from the venue. Yeesh. Yeah,
parking sucks there.

>The opening act, a couple of "old school" DJ's called the Handsome Boy
>Modeling School, were unimpressive at best

I haven't heard that album beyond a quick skim in a Tower listening booth,
but I'm going to buy it when I find a secondhand copy.

>I can't remember the last time I was this floored by a band.  Perhaps the
>first time I saw King Crimson...

Speaking of which, King Crimson *and* Beck are playing tonight in
Hollywood, and it looks like I'm staying home. :( I used up too much good
luck, last month....

Eb

- ---
Q: Why is Radiohead like Ralph Nader?
A: Both went into decline, following their Airbag period.
<rimshot>

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:53:50 EDT
From: "Asa Land" <asa_land@hotmail.com>
Subject: Vocab Rehab: You Shall tell me where to buy CDs

Ill see you a pocket-Oxford with blackout as a new word.
And raise you a "Kings English" circa 1935, looted from my grandparents 
attic and suited to life's every need.
From which I became very snotty at about 15 on using "will" and "shall" will 
full nuance.
As in, I will vote for Gore, because I must.
And if you vote for Nader, and Bush wins, I will beat you over the head with 
a very-dead smelly fish and you shall deserve it.
You shall then thank me for instilling good sense in you.
And I shall be pleased if you then get into a Tardis, go back in time, and 
vote for Gore.
Which shall not stop us from destroying the ground of our existance(e.i. the 
earth) but will at least make our remaining time upon it just a freaking 
bloody tad less onerous.

I am approuching my time of CD buying, and unused as I am to actually 
spending money --need some more advice.

Are GEMM, ADDAll and CDNow my best bets for online buying? Where is best 
selection? Price?

And Dolf, isnt there one in pleather? Heathered pleather?

A slightly fragmented K

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:06:59 -0400
From: Ben <bpnicast@bulldog.unca.edu>
Subject: Re: sequel sampler

>
> I've got the Sequel Sampler coming to me in the mail. It apparently has the
> studio version of Statue with a Walkman on it. If any one wants a copy let
> me know.
>

Howzabout an MP3 of Statue With A Walkman? :)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:22:29 -0400
From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" <jbranscombe@compuserve.com>
Subject: changing the world

I apologise profusely to Nebraskans. I was pretty drunk when I wrote that
post, though that's not a very good excuse. Actually two of the best bands
I've heard this year, Shithook and Floating Opera both come from Lincoln in
that state.

There are a lot of arseholes in London but we did manage to break the
stranglehold of two pretty massive party machines when we elected Ken
Livingstone recently. I still think that's worthy of comment.

And I stick by what I said about Pat Buchanan...:-)

jmbc.

Q gave Kimberley's album a belated rave review last month. I'll type it in
if anyone's interested...or is it on his site. I'll go and have a look
shall I?!? 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Capuchin <capuchin@bitmine.net>
Subject: One more political rehash...

If it's generally true (Christopher Gross notwithstanding) that Gore
supporters who have heard Nader fully like Nader BETTER yet are voting for
Gore and holding their nose (or hedging their bets or whatever) because
they don't want Bush, wouldn't that make Gore the spoiler and Nader the
appropriate candidate?

The ONLY problem Gore supporters have with Nader is his "spoiling" of the
election for the Democrats and his non-affiliation with the political
machine.

Nader supporters have a problem with Gore (and Bush both) because he's
corrupt by big money, hypocritical in the extreme, and untrustworthy.

So doesn't the media have it exactly BACKWARD on which way this thing
SHOULD go?

I'm super curious.
J.
- -- 
_______________________________________________

Capuchin   capuchin@bitmine.net   Jeme A Brelin
_______________________________________________
 [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:04:49 EDT
From: "brian nupp" <bnupp@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: sequel sampler

I've seen it on Napster, but I don't have MP3 abilities as of yet. Next 
month I'll try to put it on my new web site... stay tuned.
Brian Nupp


>From: Ben <bpnicast@bulldog.unca.edu>
>Reply-To: Ben <bpnicast@bulldog.unca.edu>
>To: fegmaniax@smoe.org
>Subject: Re: sequel sampler
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:06:59 -0400
>
> >
> > I've got the Sequel Sampler coming to me in the mail. It apparently has 
>the
> > studio version of Statue with a Walkman on it. If any one wants a copy 
>let
> > me know.
> >
>
>Howzabout an MP3 of Statue With A Walkman? :)
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:10:16 -0500
From: steve <schiavo@home.com>
Subject: Re: Vocab Rehab: You Shall tell me where to buy CDs

Asa Land:
>Are GEMM, ADDAll and CDNow my best bets for online buying? Where is best 
>selection? Price?

GEMM is something like a flea market - you buy from individual dealers. 
It's a good place to look for O/P stuff.

Amazon, CDNow, Express.com, artist-shop.com or www.lasercd.com if you're 
in a prog mood, cuneiformrecords.com, www.notlame.com if you want power 
pop, www.secondspin.com for used. It's pretty easy to check around.



Bush sucks -



Steve


_______________
We're all Jesus, Buddha, and the Wizard of Oz! - Andy Partridge

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:11:06 -0400
From: drop the holupki <woj@smoe.org>
Subject: Re: sequel sampler

>>Howzabout an MP3 of Statue With A Walkman? :)

>I've seen it on Napster, but I don't have MP3 abilities as of yet. Next 
>month I'll try to put it on my new web site... stay tuned.

i save you the trouble:

<URL: http://smoe.org/woj/Robyn_Hitchcock-Statue_With_A_Walkman.mp3 >

(for those who care, ripped with exact audio copy and encoded with lame)

woj

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:44:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Gross <chrisg@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>
Subject: Re: One more political rehash...

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Capuchin wrote:

> If it's generally true (Christopher Gross notwithstanding) that Gore
> supporters who have heard Nader fully like Nader BETTER yet are voting for
> Gore and holding their nose (or hedging their bets or whatever) because
> they don't want Bush, wouldn't that make Gore the spoiler and Nader the
> appropriate candidate?

Assuming I'm parsing this correctly, IMO the answer is no.  "Spoiler" in
this case means a candidate who can't win himself but woos enough voters
away from candidate B to throw the election to candidate C.  The
assumption is that candidate B would win if not for the spoiler.  Gore
would be the spoiler if he lured away enough Nader voters to keep Nader
from the majority he would otherwise have had.  Given current poll numbers
(yeah, I know, but they're the only numbers we have to go on until Nov.
7), that would only be possible if 90% or more of Gore's voters were
really "stolen" Nader voters.  I don't think this is the case.  IMHO the
majority of Democrats would still vote for Gore even if they had heard
Nader fully, which most of them haven't.

Anyway, you Nader-supporters called Gore every other name in the book, you
can manage without "spoiler"....


- --ah, yes, ChrisTOPHER Gross, thank you for remembering!

______________________________________________________________________
Christopher Gross             On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
chrisg@gwu.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Capuchin <capuchin@bitmine.net>
Subject: Re: One more political rehash...

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Christopher Gross wrote:
> Assuming I'm parsing this correctly, IMO the answer is no.  "Spoiler"
> in this case means a candidate who can't win himself but woos enough
> voters away from candidate B to throw the election to candidate C.

You were, in fact, parsing the expression of my thought correctly.

> The assumption is that candidate B would win if not for the spoiler.  
> Gore would be the spoiler if he lured away enough Nader voters to keep
> Nader from the majority he would otherwise have had.  Given current
> poll numbers (yeah, I know, but they're the only numbers we have to go
> on until Nov. 7), that would only be possible if 90% or more of Gore's
> voters were really "stolen" Nader voters. I don't think this is the
> case.

I DO believe that 90% of Gore's supporters are "lesser of two
evil" supporters.  Both my personal, however anecdotal, experience bears
this out and so does my interpretation of every Pro-Gore article I've read
and Gore's speech in Portland on Sunday.  The general idea is "Gore is Not
Bush!"  And that's all these people are counting on.

It comes down to this:

The things that Gore's voters want from Gore would be upheld by Nader.
The things that Nader's voters want from Nader would not be upheld by
Gore.

That's that.  People support Gore because they don't want Bush and think
Nader "can't win".

> IMHO the majority of Democrats would still vote for Gore even if they
> had heard Nader fully, which most of them haven't.

But if this were a Gore/Nader race rather than a Gore/Bush race, who would
win?  And if it were a Bush/Nader race?

> Anyway, you Nader-supporters called Gore every other name in the book,
> you can manage without "spoiler"....

Well, it's the ONLY thing Gore-supporters have called Nader, so I think my
point is well made.
J.
- -- 
_______________________________________________

Capuchin   capuchin@bitmine.net   Jeme A Brelin
_______________________________________________
 [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:12:07 -0500
From: steve <schiavo@home.com>
Subject: Re: One more political rehash...

Christopher Gross:
>Anyway, you Nader-supporters called Gore every other name in the book, 
>you can manage without "spoiler"....

Nader -
www.salon.com/news/col/cona/2000/10/24/nader/index.html

Gore -
www.thenewrepublic.com/103000/editorial103000.html

Bush -
http://Slate.msn.com/Readme/00-10-23/Readme.asp


- - Steve

__________
Well, Jesus ain't no astronaut
And Buddah, he's no fool
Cathedral bells don't ring in hell 
'cos cats down there don't think that's cool. - Bill Nelson

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Capuchin <capuchin@bitmine.net>
Subject: Re: One more political rehash...

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, steve wrote:
> Christopher Gross:
> >Anyway, you Nader-supporters called Gore every other name in the book, 
> >you can manage without "spoiler"....
> 
> Nader -
> www.salon.com/news/col/cona/2000/10/24/nader/index.html
> 
> Gore -
> www.thenewrepublic.com/103000/editorial103000.html
> 
> Bush -
> http://Slate.msn.com/Readme/00-10-23/Readme.asp


I'm not quite sure what you're going for here, Steve.

These articles say, in my estimation after reading them, Nader is a
spoiler, Gore is a noshow, Bush is a nobrain.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along.  The only bad thing
people have to say about Nader is that he's a spoiler.  There are all
kinds of bad things to say about Bush and Gore.

J.
- -- 
_______________________________________________

Capuchin   capuchin@bitmine.net   Jeme A Brelin
_______________________________________________
 [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:21:26 +1300
From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)
Subject: Re: Hugh Heifer-ner (2% Hitchcock (Alfred))

>Capuchin:
>>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.
>
>This IS silly. Gore and Leiberman are religious, but they're not
>right-wing, they're centrists. In fact, Gore is having some trouble
>because he is running slightly to the left of Clinton. Name me one
>right-winger in the Democratic House and Senate leadership, or even who
>might chair a major committee.

FWIW (and I know I should probably butt out on this one), from an
outsider's perspective, the Democrats seem slightly right of centre, and
the Republicans considerably right of centre. The Liberatarians apallingly
far right in their economics at least. And as for Buchanan's load (what's
their name again?). The Greens seem like the only party to the left of
centre, and many of their views are further right than most green parties
worldwide.

On a scale of 1 to 100 where 50 is middle of the road, 100 is Hitler and 0
is Eddie, I'd put them at D 55, R 60, L 75, B 80, G 45 (that compares,
f'rinstance, with NZ's 5 main parties at 50,55,40,40,and 70 respectively).
I would infer from this that politics in the US is more right-wing. This
doesn't necessarily imply that the population is more right-wing, however.

>> example. Actually I won't put money on that, because I know how many
>> arseholes there are in Nebraska......
>
>How many arseholes are in Nebraska? Coming from a foreigner, I am
>fascinated that you would know so much about this particular state.

why does the last verse of "A day in the life" keep coming into my brain?

>discussion--which film had his best cameo? I like the newspaper photo in =
>"Lifeboat". I don't remember in which scene he appeared in "The Trouble =
>With Harry".

In which one is he wheeled on in a wheelchair, then stands up to shake
hands with someone?

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: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 20:52:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Gross <chrisg@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>
Subject: Re: One more political rehash...

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Capuchin wrote:

> I DO believe that 90% of Gore's supporters are "lesser of two
> evil" supporters.  Both my personal, however anecdotal, experience bears
> this out and so does my interpretation of every Pro-Gore article I've read
> and Gore's speech in Portland on Sunday.  The general idea is "Gore is Not
> Bush!"  And that's all these people are counting on.

I don't think this is true at all.  Pro-Gore articles concentrate on the
"Gore is not Bush" theme because Bush is just so appallingly bad that the
ability to beat Bush is highly prized right about now.  But if you re-read
these articles I'm sure you'll see that most mention actual Gore positions
that they support -- paying down the national debt, perhaps, or protecting
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, depending on which article you're
reading.  It's not just a case of anybody-but-Bush-ism.

> That's that.  People support Gore because they don't want Bush and think
> Nader "can't win".

Well, frankly, he can't.  But there's more to it than that.  I think many
Gore supporters are like me: they think Gore has great positions on some
issues and fair-to-middling positions on many more, and he would have a
better chance of actually getting them into practice than a hypothetical
Nader administration would have with its policies.  And many others just
habitually support whoever the Democrats nominate.

> But if this were a Gore/Nader race rather than a Gore/Bush race, who would
> win?  And if it were a Bush/Nader race?

Probably Gore and Bush, respectively.  Believe it or not, party loyalty
still is still a factor in American politics, and party organizations are
important tools in elections.  Nader doesn't have enough support to
counterbalance them.  (Maybe he will in 2004 or 2008; we'll see.)  Of
course if Nader was heading the Democratic ticket, then he'd have a pretty
good chance.

> > Gore -
> > www.thenewrepublic.com/103000/editorial103000.html
[snip]
>
> These articles say, in my estimation after reading them, Nader is a
> spoiler, Gore is a noshow, Bush is a nobrain.

What do you mean by noshow?  This editorial seemed pretty definitely
pro-Gore, without denying that they disagreed with him on some issues.

- --Chris,
who really had the best intentions of dropping this debate
yesterday; blame my dull job for making me look for distraction

______________________________________________________________________
Christopher Gross             On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
chrisg@gwu.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 21:03:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Gross <chrisg@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Hugh Heifer-ner (2% Hitchcock (Alfred))

On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, James Dignan wrote:

> FWIW (and I know I should probably butt out on this one), from an
> outsider's perspective, the Democrats seem slightly right of centre, and
> the Republicans considerably right of centre. The Liberatarians apallingly
> far right in their economics at least. And as for Buchanan's load (what's
> their name again?). The Greens seem like the only party to the left of
> centre, and many of their views are further right than most green parties
> worldwide.

These terms should be understood in their American context.  These days
pretty much *any* belief in redistributing wealth downward, regulating
business, retaining any vestige of affirmative action, or protecting the
environment counts as being centrist or to the left.

Of course I could go on about how a simplistic left-right division is
meaningless, if not actually misleading, but instead I'm going to log off
and go home.  G'nite!

- --Chris

ps: If I'm not mistaken there are more people in London than in
Nebraska.  Therefore by definition there are more ass/arseholes in London
than in Nebraska.  

______________________________________________________________________
Christopher Gross             On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
chrisg@gwu.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:11:06 -0700
From: Asshole Motherfucker <asshole@feedthefish.org>
Subject: Re: apples and oil

<Unlike eddie, I don't think capitalism REQUIRES government support.
But I do think that without government handouts to big business,
there would be no big business.  I think we'd be just as successful 
with a large network of small businesses.

I'll explain bilateral network peering agreements to you folks some day
and you'll see how the real world is a mix of barter, sharing, and
profiting.>

okay, i'll defer comment until that time.


<This IS silly. Gore and Leiberman are religious, but they're not 
right-wing, they're centrists.>

only inasmuch as the center has moved extremely far to the right.
clinton/gore themselves admit to being "new" democrats.  but even 
there, it was the carter administration that established the trilateral 
commission, to combat the "crisis of democracy" (namely, that the 
'60s had seen *too much* democracy break out).


<Name me one right-winger in the Democratic House and Senate leadership,
or even who might chair a major committee.>

again, it depends how you're going to define "left" and "right". 
it's that "rightward drift" again.  that nixon (for example) was 
to the left of today's DNC is pretty indisputable, i'd say.


<No, Gore is just not leftist enough for you. Social Security, tax 
policy, prescription drug policy - all major areas that quite different.
> 

do you trust his (meagre) rhetorical posturings?  did you trust clinton's? 
see what it got you?


<And environmental policy - Gore hasn't been as strident as you'd like>

steve, steve, steve, steve, steve.  i'd have to say that this is 
the single most damning issue, gorewise (though clinton/gore military 
and trade policies have *perhaps* been more *damaging*, they haven't 
been nearly so hypocritical on these subjects).  "hasn't been as 
strident"?  clinton/gore "environmental" policy has been a COMPLETE 
debacle.


<but Bush appointed a chemical industry flack to be the head of the 
Texas 
environmental commission.>

and gore has huge oil industry *personal holdings*.


<I'm sure there are hundreds of other policy decisions that they 
differ on.>

i'm trying to think of *one*.


<All they tested was the slogans. When you get down to policy specifics 
(and economic tradeoffs), these numbers will come down.>

actually, a great majority support (for example) stronger environmental 
protections *even at the expense of higher taxes*.  but you're right:
america could use a very good waking up.  it needs to understand 
the consequences of its standard of living.  support independent 
media!  (and vote for the ticket with laduke!)


<All you have to do is increase the number of Nader voters, not that 
this 
will be easy. Do not make the mistake of thinking that larger numbers 
will necessarily be to your benefit.>

the "electorate" is largely composed of rich people.  it's always 
been a puzzlement to me why poor people don't vote.  that said, i 
don't know why anyone not planning to vote would all of a sudden 
get inspired to vote for gorebush.


<Gore wants to spend more money to make sure that the military is 
properly equipped for whatever missions are deemed necessary.>

deemed necessary by the corporations.


<This does not mean it would be larger in size or more influential.>

it'll almost surely follow the clinton model: cutbacks in personnel,
shitty treatment of veterans, and HUGE high-tech weapons systems 
contracts ("granted" by the taxpayers) to boeing & co..


<A nation state must have a military - its size and uses are open 
to debate.>

because why?  and debate amongst whom?  we already know how gore 
feels about open debates (har har).


<>Gore supports the Timber Salvage Rider, 
He said it was the administration's worst mistake.>

uh huh.  so horrible a mistake, in fact, that it was followed-up 
by the selling out of headwaters, canyonlands, yellowstone, and the 
arctic.  so horrible that we're a no-show regarding kyoto.  so horrible 
that there's no more delaney clause.  so horrible that environmental 
racism proceeds unabated.


<He should recategorize SUVs as autos and make sure that CAFE standards 
are met.>

may as well have said "he should sprout wings and fly to the moon".


<>who takes millions of dollars in soft-money. 
As is necessary to compete with the Republicans.>

you've reached a new low, steve.


<Once again, I point out that he said he his first legislative act 
would be to submit McCain/Feingold.>

i won't hold my breath if you do.


<Congressman Bernie Sanders was on Talk Of The Nation today.  I suppose 
that he is not a capitalist dupe.>

actually, he is.  i regret to announce that i sent the son of a bitch 
some money a few years back -- just on the principle that he actually 
got himself elected as an "independent".  his office now continually 
sends fundraising pleas (along with his "sanders scoop" newsletter,
which is pure imperialist apologia) continually, even after i've 
asked them not to.  he's a democratic hack who time and again uses 
his influence to quash upstart third-party candidacies in vermont.
fuck him.


<He had positive things to say about the Clinton/Gore administration 
and the very same warning I've been making about Bush.>

i don't doubt it for half a second.


<They are urging voters to cast their presidential ballots for the 
Green Party candidate, while offering reassurances that Al Gore will 
defeat George W. Bush.>

i have to admit, this tactic *really* pisses me off.  not enough 
to make me break down and vote for bush (the clear lesser of the 
two evils), of course.  but it does almost seem like the campaign 
has now gotten so full of itself that it's running on politics rather 
than principle.


<The post-cold-war Republican Party, at its core, sees the struggle 
against the American welfare state as the moral extension of the 
struggle against international communism. How else to explain the 
GOP's decade-long insistence--at a time of weak government and unheard-
of prosperity at the top--that this country is blighted by a lack 
of economic freedom, by those remaining government programs that 
still redistribute wealth downward?>

next, please.  still waiting for the explanation of why clinton/gore 
are taking credit for these "GOP dirty tricks".


<This magazine admired the blunt anti-communism espoused by the Republican 
Party in the 1980s, a party unafraid to say American ideals were 
universal and worth fighting for.>

gag.  you actually *read* this crap, steve?


<Judging from his statements in this campaign, Bush seems happy to 
see the people of Kosovo or Haiti or East Timor saved from slaughter-
- -as long as they are saved by someone else.>

and clinton/gore are happy to *actively participate* in their slaughter.
(actually, moynihan proudly recounts in his memoirs how he was 
able to successfully block the UN from taking any kind of action 
following the indonesian invasion of east timor.)


<Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, by contrast, are unapologetic about spending 
money on the military and unapologetic about using it to pursue American 
ideals. From Iraq to Bosnia to Haiti, both men have shown an unusual 
willingness to discern the ethical imperatives in foreign policy 
crises>

no, really, steve.  you *didn't* read this before posting the link,
right?



in other news, they had a gubernatorial (cool word!) debate last 
night.  try to guess which candidate is the democrat, and which is 
the republican (these are paraphrases):

upstart: your administration hasn't been supportive of microsoft.
incumbent: it's been *very* supportive.  in fact, bill gates is a 
close friend.


heard a rumour that The Rocket went belly-up.




KEN "Do you see what happens when you FUCK a STRANGER in the ASS?" 
THE KENSTER

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 21:08:54 EDT
From: Robcow@aol.com
Subject: Re: digest V9 #300

On Tues, 24 Oct 2000, mholden666@earthlink.net posed the question:

>So, to make sure that doesn't happen again, here's a topic for 
>discussion--which film had his best cameo?

Well I'm going to put in a vote for the scene in "Spellbound" where he comes 
out of an elevator carrying a violin case and smoking a cigarette. The first 
thing that popped into my head when you mentioned "The Trouble With Harry" 
was that he played the corpse but I think I'm probably wrong about that, it's 
just too obvious.  Roberta 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: "J. Brown" <ringostr@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: One more political rehash...

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Capuchin wrote:
> The ONLY problem Gore supporters have with Nader is his "spoiling" of the
> election for the Democrats and his non-affiliation with the political
> machine.

A large majority of Gore supporters i know in my family (teachers, union
workers, bureaucrats) at work (librarians), and in school (wanna
be-librarians) find Gore definately preferable to Nader.  They think that
Nader is harsh and abrasive personality-wise and dislike his Buchananesque
immigration views (especially my father!).  They feel that Nader is
devisive and that he doesnt pay enough attention to social issues. They
feel that moderate campaign finance reform is important but are not
willing to go as far as Nader's plan. They like free-trade (not supprising
for the puget sound).  They think Clinton was great and see Gore as a
continuation of that.

Personally, I fall into the category you outline.  Nader is more in line
with most of my views, although i strongly disagree with him on NAFTA/WTO
and immigration. I'm voting for Gore because i dont find him tremendously
objectionable unlike Jeme or Eddie and i think that a Bush presidency
would be disasterous both in the policies put forth by a Bush White House
and in the Supreme Court nominees.  The Supreme Court is a concern not
because of Roe v. Wade, but because Bush has expressed a preference for
strict constructionists who would be very likely to drastically limmit the
power of the Federal government to regulate and would undo much of the
progress that Nader has acheived in his work.  The fact that we will most
definately have a Republican senate, makes it a certainty that Bush
wouldnt have much trouble geting his nominees through.

I'll be voting Democrat for Prez, Governor, and Senate; Green for
Congress, Libertarian for Lt. Gov., and Republican for Sec of State.

Jason Wilson Brown - University of Washington - Seattle, WA USA
"Monkey in a Turban, Oh What Does it Mean?" -Frank Black

------------------------------

End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #302
*******************************