From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #321 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 321 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: RIP:L Sprague de Camp [Aaron Mandel ] Exclusive Gore/Bush Election Night Phone Calls! [Bayard ] Re: the world is neither fair nor unfair [Stephen Buckalew ] magic number: 787 [Eb ] Re: the world is neither fair nor unfair [dmw ] Re: the world is neither fair nor unfair ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: Exclusive Gore/Bush Election Night Phone Calls! [Marcy Tanter ] Re: the world is neither fair nor unfair [Stephen Buckalew ] magic number: 403 [Eb ] Re: magic number: 787 [GSS ] magic number: back to 405 [Eb ] RE: Lovin' Spoonful ["Asa Land" ] Sleeping Minority [Michael Wolfe ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:59:23 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: RIP:L Sprague de Camp On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Asa Land wrote: > 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.) exactly. he doesn't care when he doesn't make sense, he isn't doing anything to fix it, and he isn't acknowledging it. this strikes me as a situation where, even if a disability it is, one is not honor-bound to ignore it in the name of fairness. anyway, we've got a bigger problem now. a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:38:43 -0500 (EST) From: Bayard Subject: Exclusive Gore/Bush Election Night Phone Calls! Want to hear what Al said to George? An anonymous source has given MediaTrip a recording of the concession phone call everyone is talking about. Click below to hear history in the making: http://www.mediatrip.com/shows/phone_flash.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 14:58:30 -0500 From: Stephen Buckalew Subject: re: what a country But it wasn't intentional, it was confusion that caused it. I don't find that amusing at all, and certainly not the same as people consciously voting for Nader. It's like saying that a person who picks up a gun, and doesn't know how to work it and accidentally shoots someone is as much a criminal as someone who deliberately shoots another person. (BTW, the above example is not intended to be a stab at Nader voters...) Steve B ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 15:07:26 -0500 From: Stephen Buckalew Subject: Re: the world is neither fair nor unfair And many more species will probably be lost under Bush than Gore, and for that I'm pissed about the Nader votes....sorry.... But as much as I wish the democrats would do more about the environment, the republicans will protect less. I agree w/ Quail that this is about reality and making whatever incremental changes we can under the current realistic situation. I'd rather have less species go extinct under the dems than I would losing more under the repubs. So I actually decided at the polls that I could do more for the environment voting for Gore, than I could voting for Nader, and changed my vote accordingly...I thought a vote for Nader was ultimately a vote against a better environmental policy. Steve "Dim Bulb" B >>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, 9 Nov 2000 15:13:20 -0500 (EST) From: Terrence Marks Subject: RE: what a country 4 On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Viv Lyon wrote: > 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. I'd be just as amused if it turned out that the Natural Law or Socialist Workers party cost Bush a state. You can say what you like about me, but at least I'm fair. I wouldn't think it a great tragedy if "my" candidate won or lost on a technicality like that. As is, it's looking like write-in votes for Donald Duck might cost 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 12:26:20 -0700 From: Eb Subject: magic number: 787 Jason: >Does anyone remember what percentage of the popular vote Clinton obtained >during the 1992 and 1996 elections? I don't know percentages, but my almanac says Clinton received 44,908,254 votes to Bush's 39,102,343 in 1992, and 47,401,185 to Dole's 39,197,469 in 1996. Obviously, you can't convert these figures into percentages because the third-party numbers aren't included. For starters, Perot received about 19 million and 8 million votes in the two respective elections. Oh, wait a minute. Another page says Clinton beat Dole 49.25% to 40.73%, in 1996. So there's half your answer. Vivien: >> I will be very amused if Buchanan winds up costing Gore the election. >Me too. Me fuckin' too. And to think she actually seemed human yesterday.... Are all Nader supporters this spiteful and vindictive? Is there any disaster these cackling cranks wouldn't wish on the country, because their 5% savior turned out to be a 3% spoiler? I thought I might be getting a slanted picture due to hearing mostly from *Internet* Naderites, but after seeing the official Nader camp on television, I'm not so sure anymore. Meanwhile, I think someone ought to be carefully tallying how many registered Democrats "voted" for Buchanan in Palm Beach. And what *is* the Natural Law party, anyway? Eb, imagining the new Speaker of the House as interim President, while months of election lawsuits unfold ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:27:11 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: the world is neither fair nor unfair On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Stephen Buckalew wrote: > And many more species will probably be lost under Bush than Gore, and for > that I'm pissed about the Nader votes....sorry.... whoops, let me be clear, if i'm going to be alarmist: it's survivavl of the HUMAN species that i have a particular, personal, stake in. the US's lack of participation on international discussions on the the potential threat of global warming, both in terms of research efforts and defining and implementing appropriate counter measures is what i'm specifically alluding to. - - 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, 9 Nov 2000 12:28:41 -0800 (PST) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: the world is neither fair nor unfair > From: Christopher Gross > 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. [] > [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. First of all, I don't see Eddie commenting on the tone of the reactions he receives. Second of all, Quail alternates in his lovable avuncular manner between calling for an end to hostilities and indeed to political discussion, period, and writing posts like the one I was replying to. I just wanted to point out to him that the latter are cancelling out the former. > From: The Great Quail > Subject: Re: the world is neither fair nor unfair > > Drew starts off with a cool Cure quote, then, _Bloodflowers_. The lyrics really are pretty good, if you accept as a given that a Cure album will be morose. They're a little more specific and adult than usual, I think...very autumnal in theme (too bad it came out in February). It's just that the music is so dull and tuneless. Sigh. > >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! I think it's obvious that a whole lot of people believe the same thing. I'm less sure about the analogy having a lot of truth to it. I do know it's an easy way to dismiss smart people with whom you disagree. > And please not I specified Nader voters who would have voted for Gore > had they not had another choice. I noted that. I fit that description. > 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? I think a lot of them did. I was expecting a large number of people who were thinking about voting for Nader to chicken out and vote for Gore, and ultimately I'm glad they did. > >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. You may not be confusing "the Left" and "Democrats," but I think a lot of people are. The Democratic party is a machine that wants to stay in power and will alter its stated ideology in order to accomplish that goal, if necessary. The "Left" is an ideology that wants to gain influence and will alter its chosen machine in order to accomplish that goal, if necessary. I don't like lumping myself into one side of a Manichean ideology, but all signs indicate that I am a Lefty. I saw a lot of compelling arguments that the Democratic machine is not going to increase the Left's influence on American politics; at best it will avoid decreasing it. The contention I saw was that the Left is foolish to continue putting its faith in the Democratic machine. What sort of "altruism, compassion, and understanding" did you expect? "Awww...you guys haven't figured out yet that you've been duped into identifying with a party that isn't going to help you, so we'll be nice and vote as a block with you"? I think you mean that the meaniehead Naderites were just too harsh on Gore supporters, which may be true but is kind of irrelevant. If you honestly believe that Nader is going to serve everyone -- most particularly "the Left" -- better than either Bush or Gore, it's not selfish to vote for him. It's only selfish if you believe the Green party is useless and you just get a kick out of voting for a third party, and I don't think anyone on this list (at least!) fits that description. > >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. I know what you're getting at, but I think you're using the wrong words. I stand by my claim that a white, heterosexual, affluent male who is motivated solely by self-interest votes Republican. > >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. That's right. Which calls into question the wisdom that a "loyal Leftie" should have voted for Gore. And likewise the wisdom that the best way to look out for Left interests in this country is to accept whatever the Democratic machine decides is in its best interest. But this discussion is probably better left to those who are smarter and better-informed than I am. I'm just explaining why I voted for Nader and why I resent and repudiate the language you're using to describe me and my actions. Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik: drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:42:27 -0500 (EST) From: Terrence Marks Subject: Re: magic number: 781 On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Eb wrote: > Meanwhile, I think someone ought to be carefully tallying how many > registered Democrats "voted" for Buchanan in Palm Beach. There's no real way of knowing. It's estimated that 3,000 people or so voted for Buchanan by mistake. (But, of course, any vote for Buchanan is a mistake...) > And what *is* the Natural Law party, anyway? http://www.natural-law.org/ They're affiliated with Transcendental Meditation and had planned to resolve the Kosovo crisis by sending over a thousand meditators. (Yes. Meditators.) 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, 09 Nov 2000 14:45:37 -0500 From: Marcy Tanter Subject: Re: Exclusive Gore/Bush Election Night Phone Calls! Funny, very funny. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 12:53:42 -0800 (PST) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: magic number: 787 On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Eb wrote: > Vivien: > >> I will be very amused if Buchanan winds up costing Gore the election. > >Me too. Me fuckin' too. > And to think she actually seemed human yesterday.... > Are all Nader supporters this spiteful and vindictive? You take every opportunity to attempt to smear me. Who's spiteful and vindictive here? My comment was bit of gallows humor. I don't suppose you've ever cared about something so much that, when it failed, you needed to find humor wherever you could? Also, there's a little called irony that you might be missing. Vivien not really all that amused after all. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 15:51:51 -0500 From: Stephen Buckalew Subject: Re: the world is neither fair nor unfair Actually, if you're a true environmentalist, and for species diversity, then you'd realize that the extinction of our species would probably be the best thing that could possibly happen for the environment. ;-) Steve B At 03:27 PM 11/9/2000 -0500, you wrote: On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Stephen Buckalew wrote: > And many more species will probably be lost under Bush than Gore, and for > that I'm pissed about the Nader votes....sorry.... whoops, let me be clear, if i'm going to be alarmist: it's survivavl of the HUMAN species that i have a particular, personal, stake in. the US's lack of participation on international discussions on the the potential threat of global warming, both in terms of research efforts and defining and implementing appropriate counter measures is what i'm specifically alluding to. - - 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, 9 Nov 2000 13:07:31 -0800 (PST) From: Viv Lyon Subject: succumbing to revisionism On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Viv Lyon didn't write: thing. I omitted the word 'thing.' I hate reading my posts and finding an omitted word. Typos I don't mind, hey, everyone's human (or at least seems to be on certain occasions)....but to omit a word just throws the whole sentence, and often sentiment, into confusion. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:05:48 -0700 From: Eb Subject: magic number: 403 I think there's 10 of 67 counties left to recount, now? Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:16:49 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: magic number: 787 it is now 403 though i think both dippy and dipshit should be hog tied and pissed on, i got 5 bucks ridin on gore. gss ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:18:03 -0700 From: Eb Subject: magic number: back to 405 Viv: >> >> I will be very amused if Buchanan winds up costing Gore the election. >> >Me too. Me fuckin' too. > >> Are all Nader supporters this spiteful and vindictive? > >My comment was [a] bit of gallows humor. Uh-huh. >I hate reading my posts and finding an omitted word. See above. ;) Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 16:18:09 EST From: "Asa Land" Subject: RE: Lovin' Spoonful On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Asa Land wrote: >>"Just give me jug band music..." Godwin answered >"The doctor said give them jug band music, it seems to make them feel >just >fine" Thanks Doc. >Great band, great songs, especially Nashville Cats, Summer in the >City, >Boredom, Six O'Clock, Four Eyes, Rain on the Roof, Coconut Grove, >Butchie's Tune (which isn't even by Sebastian!) >etc etc. Ahh, Butchies Tune-- which is really lovely and melancholy. Sorta pre-Stipe mixed down, muttered vocals too And dont forget--Youre A Big Boy Now(had to mention it if just for all the movie buffs), the sublime and underplayed Shes Still A Mystery and my little fave rave(having taken that train all too many times) Last Train to Speonk. Sigh 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: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:55:03 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: Sleeping Minority said Quail: >What I do is my own business, That's true. But when you publicly broadcast what you're doing (i.e., complaining about what a 3% minority did a couple days ago), I don't think there's anything wrong with me or someone else making a comment on that. There is a daunting task at hand, but you are dwelling on stuff that is unchangeable at this point. This is consistent with someone that believes that the only time you have a public voice is once every four years, in November. >but your whole attitude just points out with increasingly more >personal frustration that you Naderites just don't get what I am >saying. Oh, I get what you're saying. I even agree with you in some cases, but disagree vehemently where you make assertions about what *I*, as a Nader supporter, think. >I agree 100% with Chris Gross. Nader's campaign could do no real >good; I could not disagree with this more. Ralph Nader's campaign energized people. It got people interested in their fates, and in what happened to them. It made them realize that they had a voice, and that not only could they vote for what they wanted, they could write, yell, picket, ride, and work for what they wanted. 2.5 million people made a commitment to environmental and social activism on Tuesday night. The WTO in Seattle was 50,000. What can 2.5 million do? >And here's the thing -- you Naderites who believe that have got >to understand that the overwhelming majority of the country >disagrees with you. I could not agree with you more, Quail. There is no such thing as a progressive majority! When there is anything like one, the country "progresses" to an equilibrium point, and then switches over to slight conservatism, due to folk's natural inertia and fear of the undiscovered. Therefore, Quail, your strategy, of using your public voice only once every four years, is futile. You've got behind Al Gore an infinite, never-ending progression of Al Gore clones, trailing off ever so slightly to the right. You'll never get better, incrementally, through *JUST* voting. And, if Al Gore did/does get in, just how bad do his clones have to get before you decide enough is enough? Gore's a Clinton clone, and all indications are that the next guy in line would have been Liebermann in eight years! >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. First of all, "shibboleth" is a cool word. Second of all, media mind control and corporate domination of daily life are NOT going to get better, even "incrementally," by voting into office your endless stream of Al Gore clones. The American public IS content. They've found their equilibrium point. There's no way that you'll get a majority of them to do something about media mind control and corporate domination of daily life if all you do is vote. Now, do you think they're issues that need to be delt with? How about increased military spending, the drug war, NAFTA, and the neo-colonialism that all of that implies? Staving off environmental catastrophe? (Beyond token "monuments." Oh, Clinton-Gore have been *very* good about giving us "monuments," I'll definitely hand them that.) Gradual erosion of a woman's right to access to abortions? These are all issues that the American public is either ambivalent or ignorant about because investigating them further would interfere too much with their contentment. Well, if any of those issues are important to you, I have news: none of those are going to get better, even "incrementally," by voting into office an endless stream of Al Gore clones. Because contentment is an end in and of itself for our electorate. This is not new. There was not a majority of people calling for black civil rights at the beginning of the the civil rights movement. There was not a majority of people calling for the enfranchisement of women at the beginning of the women's suffrage movement. A small, active, vocal minority was all these groups had. They worked and worked and worked, and they got the nation's attention, and they got what they wanted. We would not have gotten those things if those people thought that all they could do was vote. Margaret Meade, brother. Now, if *all* I could do was vote, I happen to disagree with Eddie and Jeme. I would want Al Gore in. *IF* all I could do was vote. But I can do so much more than that. I can contribute and agitate. I can write letters to people in elected office and I can protest. I can live as an activist and I can work to advance the goals of the Green Party that I so deeply believe in. And when I realize that, I realize that the only difference between having Gore in office and Bush in office is the tactics that we, as Greens, should use. I did a thought experiment. The whole election comes down to me, my vote. If I vote for Bush, he gets in. If I vote for Gore, Gore gets in. If I vote for Nader, Bush gets in. I'd still vote for Ralph. Like I said, if I'm merely a *voter*, I have to vote for Gore. But when I speak as an *activist*, I can't honestly say that I know which president gives us more of a challenge. The only difference between having Gore in office and Bush in office is the tactics we should use. Bush is a hell of a lot more likely to do or say something incredibly stupid and to make a whole hell of a lot of people into activists for the opposition. And, if you think about it, that's the only effect that he'll have. His corporate masters can't have the country drifting too far to the right -- that'll alienate their markets. Don't underestimate their influence as a result of the most expensive election in history. We've made a commitment. I know the vast majority of people who voted Green feel the way I do. For instance, from Salon: >For many of the 200 Greens gathered at >Portland's Mount Tabor Pub for an >Election Night party, dissecting this >election was less interesting than plotting >future activism. > >Many of those present had protested last >December at the World Trade >Organization meeting in Seattle; some >were activists of much longer standing. > >"This was not about an election," said >Storie Mooser, 63, a white-bearded >veteran of political protests dating back >to the 1950s. "It's about a movement. >It's about expanding the public >consciousness. The Nader campaign is >this generation's equivalent of the >civil-rights movement. I know. I've been >there. I can sense it. What we don't win >at the polls, we'll win in the streets." From Quail, again: >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. You can call me smug, and you can call me a megalomaniac, but don't you dare call me a fucking liberal. Liberals are fucking anesthesiologists. Al Gore is a liberal. Quail: >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." Bravo! I can't say how pleased I am to hear that you're angry! It's about time. I ask you again: what are you going to do about it? Are you going to go out and use that anger to motivate you to bring about the changes that you were hoping Gore would make for you? Or are you going to use it to spike the efforts of Greens who are trying to make those changes, and make changes that Gore wouldn't even dream of proposing? Just out of curiosity, which way do you think a "spoiled child" would act? Quail: >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. On the contrary, I think that the Greens are the most courageous and altruistic bunch out there. They're actually willing to swim out of this amniotic fluid that seems to envelope so many of us (including myself, though I'm trying to work my way free. Yeah, don't everyone clap at once.) They're actually willing to disconnect the morphine I.V. of liberalism and get surgery to correct the REAL problem, rather than to continue just treating the symptoms. I don't think anyone thinks you're a moron (though if I have come across that way, I apologize), but I can see how it might sound that way when you're trying to wake someone up. Quail: >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? No, you don't deserve anyone better than Bush. What did you do, what are you willing to do to EARN those things that you expected your ideal president to do for you? What risks have you taken, what comforts have you foregone? All I see so far is complaining. I haven't earned president Nader, that's for sure, but I'm willing to work to get him. A great many of the folks who voted Green spent time in jail, and tear-gassed, and living chained to the tops of trees, and they've certainly earned the right to president Nader, no matter who their second shoice might have been. I think that your resume looks great, Quail. It looks like you have a long history of acts that were motivated by other than self-interest, and I applaud you. You definitely seem to know how to go about it. Looks largely apolitical so far, but not bad. But you profess to have all these great political goals that you would like to see achieved, and that you're really excited that you can work towards them "incrementally", and now you're disappointed and pissed because now your latest increment isn't going to get to be president. You're a smart guy Quail; where's your plan B? Was voting for Gore and living happily ever after your plan A? I'm sorry to sound so moralistic, but does my tone diminish the validity of the ideas that I'm trying to get across? I mean, is there any bite behind your bark? You were a voter; what are you *going* to be, a voter or an activist? I'm just going to dismiss all of this bellyaching about Nader and the people he's turned into activists as so much wind until you can answer my question. - -Michael Wolfe ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #321 *******************************