From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #320 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, November 9 2000 Volume 09 : Number 320 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Nader: Response to Jim and Michael [lj lindhurst ] RE: what a country 4 [Stephen Buckalew ] dubya dance [Bayard ] RE: what a country 4 [Viv Lyon ] the world is neither fair nor unfair ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] collected replies [Christopher Gross ] Re: for my part... [dmw ] Re: what a country [Ken Ostrander ] Re: collected replies ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: the world is neither fair nor unfair [The Great Quail ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:59:16 -0500 From: lj lindhurst Subject: Re: Nader: Response to Jim and Michael Hey, I thought you said this was the last political talkin' you'd do for the next FOUR YEARS!! >Never before on this list have I been so personally insulted or had >my intelligence questioned so vigorously. This is fun -- now I know >know what Eb feels like! > >Jim says, > >>For me, Quail comments notwithstanding (hey! evolve! new genes!) it's >>s-s-s-simple. > >Evolve, surely, exactly, as I said -- evolution is s-s-s-slow. Just >because you *want* some political animal to have evolved wings, >doesn't mean you can push it off a cliff to see if those wings might >have evolved in all invisible-like. > >>So only a ignorant, blustering, moron would slag someone off for voting >>Nader. You might disagree, but to assume you have the future on your >>side - in such a circumstance - would be just plain dumb. Right or >>wrong, you'll never be more than plain, plain dumb. > >Then I am dumb, plain dumb, and ignorant blustering moron, and I >will gladly join a hell of a lot of other morons who feel the same >way, and I would surely hope I would have the courtesy not to >personally insult someone of an another country for their actions in >their own political system. But then you Aussies -- all evolved from >aborigine-killing prisoners, right? Isn't that how it goes? So >please, lay off the tone of national superiority. > >Michael Wolfe says: > >>Are you going to just sit back and piss and moan because now you >>don't have any excuse for complacency? > >What I do is my own business, but your whole attitude just points >out with increasingly more personal frustration that you Naderites >just don't get what I am saying. Most of you are total idealists, >and that may be fine in principle, but this time I think Nader went >too far. I agree 100% with Chris Gross. Nader's campaign could do no >real good; except in the warped framework that he preaches, being >there are no significant differences between the Dems and >Republicans. And here's the thing -- you Naderites who believe that >have got to understand that the overwhelming majority of the country >disagrees with you. > >And faced with that, you go to great lengths to explain it away, >investing your frustration in left-wing shibboleths such as the >great sleeping majority, media mind-control, and corporate >domination of daily life. While there is certainly some truth in >these last two, I feel the greater truth is that the American public >is content, and your favorite issues are not as important to them as >you feel they should be. And also in the great liberal tradition, >when reality does not measure up to your expectations, you then >retreat into a feeling of moral superiority, like a nanny >school-teacher who is convinced she knows how people really should >behave. And in this smug feeling of being One of the Annointed >Elect, you can come off sounding as bad as the religious right. >Though I find this attitude of moral superiority personally >insulting, and I am weary of all these accusations that I am some >morally compromised complacent slug sucking on the corporate teat, I >am only going to get *angry* at this view when it ruins things for >"the rest of us." > >Again, I think Naderites who would have voted for a Democrat had >Nader not been running are spoiled children, the cranky 1-3% who >fucked it up for the more realistic and still left-leaning 47-50%. >And now, faced with a Republican Regime, Naderites are becoming even >more infuriating with their denial, their accusations, their smug >self-centeredness. To me, it seems obvious that most Naderites DO >NOT CARE about the rest of the country, they only seem to care about >THEMSELVES, so much to the point that they are willing to alienate >everyone but Greens. In fact, what I get from most of the Naderite >postings (except maybe for Vivien's) is that most of you guys really >dislike the country, in fact, it seems that you think most people -- >me included -- are morons. So who cares about alienating the left, >which should be your main breeding and recruiting ground? At least >Ralph Nader can feel pretty good, as most of his white, male, >heterosexual, affluent supporters. Screw the rest of the Left! Like >a PETA protester who throws paint on a fur coat being worn by a rich >woman -- you really think that's an effective way to gain allies? >Nader was not a messiah, though he did do a good job of crucifying >the left. (And again, Gore fucked some things up, too. I know that.) > >>If so, you got exactly the president you deserved, whoever ends >>up taking Florida. > >I for one reject your notion that I deserve Bush. You can foist >senseless statements like this on me all you want, it's just the >intellectual equivalent of sticking your tongue out and going "Nyaah >nyaah nyaah." Of course I deserve someone better than Gore, Bush, >and Nader -- but I wasn't going to get it, was I? Because the rest >of the country is not there to personally conform to my >expectations. So I do the best I can working with a system that I >can change in increments. Some of you call it selling out, that's >fine. I don't like it, but then again, I don't like a lot of things >that I cannot overthrow, including Death and Taxes. > >>If there's something to be learned from Ralph's candidacy, it's >>that the entirety of US politics can be diverted by one person, >>without the backing of a major political party, without the >>backing of any major corporations. > >That's certainly true -- but I never said it wasn't. Though of >course, this one person was a public figure with millions of dollars >and a pre-existing political party. I mean, it's not like Nader was >exactly you or me. I only wish that your "one person" would have >been more responsible to the Left, and worked within the system as >an agitator. I feel, as does Chris, that he only served to fraction >the Left, and weaken it -- at least the Republicans know how to hang >together. But then again, they felt the keen edge of 8 years out of >the Presidency. > >>One person, Quail. What are >>you going to do to make a difference? > >Please, that moral tone makes me ill. I am no Ralph Nader and I >never will be. But I was a teacher for many years, and I was an >enlightened and liberal teacher, and I feel that I reached hundreds >of young people and turned them onto a more tolerant, compassionate >and intellectually curious way of life. I have been in my life a Boy >Scout constructing various public service projects, a Lifeguard, and >I have once saved someone's life using first aid and a car to the >hospital. Even now I try my best to get more people interested in >literature, which I think is a sublime form of art, and one that >personally enriches lives. In my past I have actively campaigned for >candidates I have believed in, I always vote, and I don't shy away >from debate, even with rabid right wingers. I have participated in >numerous left-wing rallies, "take back the night" marches (back when >men were welcome), and gay rights events. I have served as a student >counselor for drugs and alcohol problems, and I recently helped a >little old lady across the street. So I kindly invite you, Mr. >Wolfe, to step down off your moral high horse, because I know you >better and it does not suit you. > >--Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 11:01:09 -0500 From: Stephen Buckalew Subject: RE: what a country 4 How could this be considered amusing? Just curious.... Steve B At 03:35 AM 11/9/2000 -0500, you wrote: >On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Brian Huddell wrote: > > > > > This is the polling area with the poorly designed ballots, where people > > > > voted Buchanan when they meant to vote Gore. > > > > > > How? > > > Terrence, are you disputing the suggestion that the ballots in Palm Beach > > County created confusion? > >No. I had never seen any ballots of that design before. None of the >ballots I've used have been the slightest bit unclear about which options >you were choosing. > >I will be very amused if Buchanan winds up costing Gore the election. > >Terrence Marks >Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://www.unlikeminerva.com >HCF (another comic strip) http://www.mpog.com/hcf >normal@grove.ufl.edu > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:09:59 -0500 (EST) From: Bayard Subject: dubya dance www.dovewinds.com/dubya ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:51:10 -0800 (PST) From: Viv Lyon Subject: RE: what a country 4 On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Terrence Marks wrote: > I will be very amused if Buchanan winds up costing Gore the election. Me too. Me fuckin' too. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:33:10 -0800 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: the world is neither fair nor unfair >From: GSS [Quail, to Capuchin] > > Oh, give me a break. That's just insulting, and a very easy thing to >> say for a fairly affluent, WASP heterosexual male living in Oregon. > >Wait a minute, he could bi. Don't get my hopes up. >From: steve >BC getting blowjobs from that fat girl, and he would have been nicer in Ugh. Come on. Lewinsky wasn't "fat." She wasn't a stick insect with water balloons strapped to her chest, either, but would it have made you feel better about the scandal if she had been? I personally could see her appeal, but what difference does that make? >From: The Great Quail > >Never before on this list have I been so personally insulted or had >my intelligence questioned so vigorously. This is fun -- now I know >know what Eb feels like! I'm glad you're having fun, because you asked for it. You kicked it off with the blanket generalizations you seem to consider "personal insults" and by questioning Nader voters' intelligence. Are you at all surprised that you received the same in return? >Again, I think Naderites who would have voted for a Democrat had >Nader not been running are spoiled children, the cranky 1-3% who >fucked it up for the more realistic and still left-leaning 47-50%. Case in point. I'd be more insulted if you weren't plainly paraphrasing scores of essays using that same characterization (down to the silly "spoiled children" stuff) written before the election. >To me, it seems obvious that most Naderites DO NOT >CARE about the rest of the country, they only seem to care about >THEMSELVES, Not obvious to me, and not even logical. You've also said that most Naderites are white, heterosexual, affluent males. The best way for such a person to look out only for himself is to vote Republican. What you're saying is that they didn't care about your fervent wish that they vote the way you wanted them to. > In fact, what I get from most of the Naderite >postings (except maybe for Vivien's) is that most of you guys really >dislike the country, in fact, it seems that you think most people -- >me included -- are morons. There's a lot I dislike about this country, and I do think there are an awful lot of morons out there. I didn't count you among them, and I still don't. I sometimes count myself among them. For what it's worth. On the other hand, I'm not quite a "Naderite," either. See my earlier post. >I only wish that your "one person" would have been >more responsible to the Left, and worked within the system as an >agitator. I wish Gore would have been "more responsible to the Left." But that wouldn't have been "realistic." Drew - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen.com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 12:46:10 EST From: "brian nupp" Subject: Glass Flesh 2 Isn't the 2nd Glass Flesh coming out soon? Release date? B.N. _________________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 13:16:11 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: collected replies On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Eleanore Adams wrote: > GOP is Grand Old Party, which is the nick name for the republican party. I > know this was historical, so one of the history majors can give you the date > the name grew fashionable and why. The nickname dates back to the 1880s, and of course the Republicans came up with it themselves. That's all I know for sure, but I suspect the name was intended to sound reminiscent of "Grand Army of the Republic," the organization of Union veterans of the Civil War. > Hoosier is slang for an Indiana native, > Why? Don't know. I believe it comes from the traditional phrase "WHO'S YOUR DADDY!" ... On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > However, I did not and do not feel that his role in this contest > was that of evil saboteur. We're talking about 3% of the popular vote, > right? Don't you think we have bigger problems than Nader if Gore can't > carry more than 48%? Sure, we have bigger problems. If Gore had been a more appealing person or run a better campaign, he should have won more than 48%. But the fact remains that, even given Gore's unappealing personality and lame campaign, he STILL would have won had Nader not been in the race to lure away a few thousand probable Gore voters. There were several factors that kept Gore from winning (assuming Florida goes to Bush). Nader wasn't the only one, but you can't deny that he WAS one. On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Terrence Marks wrote: > I will be very amused if Buchanan winds up costing Gore the election. It wouldn't be Buchanan who cost him the election, but rather a poorly designed ballot that led people to mark one candidate when they meant to mark another. You could only say Buchanan cost Gore the election if people *deliberately* switched from Gore to Buchanan. On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > I'm glad you're having fun, because you asked for it. You kicked it > off with the blanket generalizations you seem to consider "personal > insults" and by questioning Nader voters' intelligence. Are you at > all surprised that you received the same in return? Well, first of all, you have to make allowances for the Quail -- that's just the way he naturally expresses himself. [1] Secondly, this didn't just start with the Quail's post. I think it would be an interesting exercise to go back over the last six months of Feg List digests and see just who first introduced heated language into the debate. [2] Or, for that matter, who started the debate in the first place. - --Chris [1] And if you criticize TGQ for this, then, let's face it, Eddie "anyone who disagrees has their head up their ass" Tews deserves the same criticisms three times over. [2] Er, hopefully it wasn't me! ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 12:31:49 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: for my part... On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > victory; at least he _pretends_ to be on the side of the Light and that > can have a morale-boosting effect. I also had not considered or attempted > to predict the results in Congress, and I think that even if you feel > Gore vs. Bush alone is too close to call, Bush + a Republican Congress > vs. Gore + a Republican Congress is not. Even if the two parties are > now identical, they still appear to be _opposed_, and one may work to > cancel out the worst tendencies of the other. Two branches of government > controlled by the same party spells trouble. For this reason alone I hear, hear. i don't often thank someone for saying something better than i could've said it myself. ('cause i'm an egotistical asshole!) i want to clarify why i posted numbers about florida votes for the other third party candidates and why i don't think it's more sophistry to claim that nader's presence in this election was not a significant factor in determining the outcome. we're looking a voting population so razor-wire SPLIT that ANY perturbation would affect the outcome: it's a chaos theory thing. with or without nader, there would have been perturbations anyway. and i think it's a real fallacy to assume that nader's 3 percent would hypothetically have gone to gore; personally, i'm inclined to think that the "don't throw your vote away" campaigns were effective enough to steal votes from nader from anyone in a swing state who thought gore was an acceptable compromise. it's certainly one possible explanation for his showing being roughly fifty percent of what had been predicted. and i don't know if Monsieur Quail is intending to tar me with this brush about not caring about the country or not caring about the left, but i don't much care for it. we are facing what may well be SPECIES survival issues that the centrists are never going to address in time. oh, and speaking as a guy who designs interfaces, if i had seen that ballot in advance, you're darn tooting i would have complained. who do you know who reads, in english (or since we're talking about florida, in spanish or any other romance language) left to right to left to right to left to right?? - -- d. np joe pernice _big tobacco_ did you know that philip morris owns boca burgers? man, that bummed me out. - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 12:54:29 -0500 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: Re: what a country >>Is it true that the Bush people were actually paying for and running >>Nader ads in some states? > >True indeed. it wasn't a nader ad, as far as i know. what they did was use part of a nader speech where he describes gore as being is some kind of political myopia. they used exactly what he said in his speech without splicing; so nader said that there was little he could do about it. it's a wonder that the gore campaign didn't use what he said about bush in their own ads. >>I will be very amused if Buchanan winds up costing Gore the election. > >How could this be considered amusing? considering all the crap i've had to endure about nader taking votes from gore (as if the votes actually belonged to him and not the voters), the idea of buchanan votes actually costing him the election because of this "confusing" ballot is amusing indeed. >are you disputing the suggestion that the ballots in Palm Beach County created >confusion? well, i don't think that they're all that confusing. if you treat voting like ordering at mcdonald's, then you can make all kinds of mistakes. now, the fact that jeb bush is governor of florida raises my conspiratorial eyebrow; but what doesn't? i like this up-in-the-air feeling going around today. there are less than one thousand votes separating bush from gore in florida at this point. i think i prefer the republican win for several reasons. first off, the outcry that will come against the damn electoral college system. obviously, there's a problem with it and i think every american will agree on this point. secondly, the fact that if the democrats win lieberman will have to give up the senate seat that he won in connecticut. the republican governor will undoubtedly put in a republican replacement, thus increasing the republican majority in the senate. right now, there is still one seat being determined in washington. if the democrats get that, then it'll be fifty-fifty. that'd be nice. it's also nice to send the message to the democratic party that they have to at least tell us what we want to hear. then there's the notion that a republican administration will light a fire under the ass of america and get people out there to actively participate in government. imagine there's no apathy... ken "it's too close to call" the kenster np mediaeval baebes undrentide ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 10:28:00 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: collected replies At 01:16 PM 11/9/00 -0500, Christopher Gross wrote: >Sure, we have bigger problems. If Gore had been a more appealing person >or run a better campaign, he should have won more than 48%. But the fact >remains that, even given Gore's unappealing personality and lame campaign, >he STILL would have won had Nader not been in the race to lure away a few >thousand probable Gore voters. There were several factors that kept Gore >from winning (assuming Florida goes to Bush). Nader wasn't the only one, >but you can't deny that he WAS one. Looking at the numbers, it could be argued that the Nader vote may well have cost Gore three states - assuming of course that at least 50% of Nader voters would've gone Gore without Nader on the ballot. These three states are New Hampshire, and probably Oregon and Florida. If Gore *had* won the two states of Oregon and New Hampshire, he could have still lost Florida, having taken 11 more electoral votes for a total of 271. Even winning Florida, Bush then would have only totaled 267 without the other two. Of course, if Gore had won his own damn state of Tennessee, where Nader was not really much of a factor (1%), he would have also have gotten the 11 more electoral points needed to win the presidency, and could have lost OR, NH *and* FL. Interestingly enough, only ONE of these three states, Oregon, was on the list I posted of states in which Nader got 5% or more of the vote. And, the numbers today put Nader at 4% in Oregon. Does anyone remember what percentage of the popular vote Clinton obtained during the 1992 and 1996 elections? - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:43:12 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: the world is neither fair nor unfair Drew starts off with a cool Cure quote, then, >I'm glad you're having fun, because you asked for it. You kicked it >off with the blanket generalizations you seem to consider "personal >insults" I do find Capuchin's tone at times to be imperious and insulting; but I understand it is his way. And my comment on "having fun" was to show that despite my severe tone, I am still restraining this to a political debate, albeit very heated. Plus, it's always fun to take a shot at Eb. >and by questioning Nader voters' intelligence. I am not questioning their intelligence, but their sense of realism. I have not once called a Naderite stupid -- although a few people have certainly dished that out at non-Naderites. I have called them smug, selfish, and blindly idealistic, but I have not questioned their intelligence. > Are you at >all surprised that you received the same in return? No, and I believe I said so. Lord knows, I have been called worse, and after all, it's just a political argument among friends. Natalie can call me a drooling fascist idiot for all I care, I'll still love her in the morning! >>Again, I think Naderites who would have voted for a Democrat had >>Nader not been running are spoiled children, the cranky 1-3% who >>fucked it up for the more realistic and still left-leaning 47-50%. > >Case in point. I'd be more insulted if you weren't plainly paraphrasing >scores of essays using that same characterization (down to the silly >"spoiled children" stuff) written before the election. You know, perhaps -- and I know this is hard to believe -- perhaps these things sound like paraphrasing because -- and take a deep breath -- a whole lot of people believe the same thing!!!!! Maybe the analogy is facile, but that could be because it has a lot of truth to it! And please not I specified Nader voters who would have voted for Gore had they not had another choice. Really -- if all the Naderites around the world could have seen this result, the closeness of this election, do you still think they would have voted for Nader? Don't you think just enough of them would have changed their vote for Gore? Even a few List members have implied as such. Vivien has already stated that she wouldn't have voted; and Cappy would have voted for Buchanan. personally I would have political issues with both stances, but I think I can discount them from my above statement about spoiled children. >Not obvious to me, and not even logical. Hey, I have been reading a lot of the Naderites's rhetoric these last few months, and I haven't seen a whole lot of altruism, compassion, or understanding for the rest of the Left. As Chris stated, they seem to rail against both Dems and Republicans equally, which is, let's face it, the overwhelming majority of the country. Capuchin and Eddie in particular have directed plenty of cynical invective about the average American. Which is fine; I have too, to be honest. (Hell, I cannot BELIEVE almost half the voters selected BUSH!!!!) But I still stand by my statement. I think most Naderites are more concerned with their own sense of conscience than any real progress this country can realistically make right now. And I think this is a characteristic common to liberal extremists. >You've also said that most >Naderites are white, heterosexual, affluent males. The best way for >such a person to look out only for himself is to vote Republican. I didn't say they were all *rapacious* white, heterosexual, affluent males. Smugness and selfishness can be of many different flavors. >What >you're saying is that they didn't care about your fervent wish that they >vote the way you wanted them to. Yes, you are entirely correct, and I am not embarrassed to say so. Of *course* I wished they would see the political situation the way I do! Doesn't everyone essentially feel the same, Naderite, Democrat, Republican, whatever? I think some Naderites used their vote in a way that was damaging to the country's welfare. I think Nader shot himself in the foot. And I think the next few years will bear out my opinion. >There's a lot I dislike about this country, and I do think there are an >awful lot of morons out there. I didn't count you among them, and I still >don't. I sometimes count myself among them. For what it's worth. Well, sure, we can all be morons at times. But Jim called me a moron and worse, and Cappy insists that I don't really understand the situation, which is an insult to my intelligence. Hell, I think he understands the situation -- I just think he's too politically short-sighted to have voted for Gore. Does this make him stupid? No. Do I still like Cappy? Of course. And Eddie? I will always love Eddie, even though I will never understand him. Um, GSS is a Rush fan, and therefore can slag me all he wants. And so on.... >I wish Gore would have been "more responsible to the Left." But that >wouldn't have been "realistic." You are right -- I wish Gore were more Left. But he'd have lost even more, because the Nader votes he would have picked up would have been offset by the moderate votes he might have lost. I *really* wish Gore would have run a more effective campaign. I wish he would have used Clinton more, and I wish he would have been more direct and, in all honesty, I wish he would have attacked Bush a bit more. But that's all it amounts to -- wishes. doug: >and i don't know if Monsieur Quail is intending to tar me with this brush >about not caring about the country or not caring about the left, but i >don't much care for it. we are facing what may well be SPECIES survival >issues that the centrists are never going to address in time. Well.... Yeah, I mean.... Tarring you would be like putting feathers on a chicken, no? I mean, when I think of "grouchy cynic with a heart of gold," well, there's dmw, you know? - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 13:50:17 EST From: "Asa Land" Subject: Re: RIP:L Sprague de Camp > >On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Asa Land wrote: > > > By the way guys, Bush is dyslexic. I will make fun of Bush for 1,000 > > reasons, but not that one. If he had some other sort of handicap, say, >he > > was born deaf--most people would be embarrassed to be caught making fun >of > > his mispronunciations or any syntactical(or spelling for that matter;-)) > > mistakes he might make. > >are dyslexics liable to speak poorly? none of my dyslexic friends have a >habit of garbling their sentences the way Bush does. Dyslexia has become abit of a grab-bag term for all sorts of similar learning disorders. My problem is I can't remember how to spell most of them;-) so I use the generic term. My speech can indeed become garbled, the cart often tossed upon the horse. This is one reason I like the Internet, since I write more fluently than I speak. Over the years my friends have coined a term for how I talk: K speak. It includes malapropisms(e.g., extravagate,(to exaggerate extravagantly) which actually I think merits inclusion in the OED;-), odd syntax, and a rolling style where I seem to go off-topic only to connect back,off-topic and back again, etc. Also, you know that thing where you have a word at the tip of your tongue, but it falls off down into the lumber room of your subconscious--well, there is a form of learning disorder which makes that more common for some people. I know its often a source of some of my odder circumlacutions. Yes, I think Bush is dyslexic in the wider sense which I have described. And yes, IMHO, this is what garbles his speech. Not the stupidity behind his speech. Just the speech itself. >moreover, if it's a handicap (and i'd never heard it said authoritatively >that Bush is dyslexic, only that people thought he might be), i'd like to >see some evidence that he is working with it or around it, rather than >just being told that i should ignore it because he it's something he can't >help. communicating is an important part of being president. Agreed. Unfortunately, theres not much thats been developed that works(vr reading, where remedial work can very much help.) I think he should admit to it. Take responsibility for it. Maybe even have fun with it (I try to--it actually can be seen as a talent, an odd one surely, but one that increases your creativity and the induviduality of your self-expression. That works for me-- but Im not sure how many Americans want a politician with a unique personal style.)(LOL--Im cracking myself up here.) >i think people in wheelchairs should have easy and equal access to >buildings. this doesn't mean that i won't think less of someone who, >despite being wheelchair-bound, insists on rolling down the stairs of the >library at top speed and landing in a bruised heap at the bottom, as Bush >has a habit of doing in the verbal arena. Hmmm- but what if the poor boy cant help himself? Much as I sincerely advocate safe maneuvering in libraries, Ive been known to slide down a bannister or two in my time. And Bush seems quite unimpressed by his own gaffes(if he's hurt it sure dosnt show.) I dont have a problem with that. I mean, Clinton is quite verbally astute, but who wants to sit thru one of his speeches? Reagan spoke well, only problem was his ideas sucked. I care more about whats going on in the politician's brain(is this an oxymoron?) than his off-the cuff remarks. 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. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #320 *******************************