From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #322 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 322 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: magic number [Eb ] Re: Another key to understanding LJ [Jeff Dwarf ] FW: what a country 4 ["Thomas, Ferris" ] FW: what a country 4 ["Thomas, Ferris" ] FW: magic number: 781 ["Thomas, Ferris" ] Re:for my part... ["Asa Land" ] Re: Polly-tics on the shore [Jeff Dwarf ] agitate for... ? [Viv Lyon ] Re: FW: what a country 4 [Stephen Buckalew ] Re: FW: what a country 4 [dmw ] Re: what a country [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:38:12 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: magic number >it is now 403 It is now 341. Astounding. I just keep thinking that this number is less than the number of students in my high-school graduating class. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:51:52 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Another key to understanding LJ The Great Quail wrote: > I would just like to point out that LJ's home state just elected a > dead guy to the Senate. that's far easier to understand than why they elected ashcroft in the first place.... ===== "The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything, except what is worth knowing. Journalists, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands." -- Oscar Wilde __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:30:31 -0500 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: FW: what a country 4 It's enough to swing it only if the voter didn't go and ask for another ballot realizing their mistake. They would've been given another if they asked. Come on, anyway--if you can't read a ballot you shouldn't be voting, anyway. - -----Original Message----- From: steve [mailto:schiavo@home.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 11:39 PM To: Fegmaniax Subject: Re: what a country 4 dmw: >in palm beach county [Floridia] alone, buchanan shows 3407 votes, more >than enough tip the balance. This is the polling area with the poorly designed ballots, where people voted Buchanan when they meant to vote Gore. CNN now reports that 19,000 double-punched ballots were thrown out in this area. That's more than enough to swing the state to Florida. - - 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: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:32:58 -0500 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: FW: what a country 4 Just one a net and a trident and the other a sword and a shield and just chuck them both into some coliseum in central Florida to sort it out. - -----Original Message----- From: steve [mailto:schiavo@home.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 11:39 PM To: Fegmaniax Subject: Re: what a country 4 dmw: >in palm beach county [Floridia] alone, buchanan shows 3407 votes, more >than enough tip the balance. This is the polling area with the poorly designed ballots, where people voted Buchanan when they meant to vote Gore. CNN now reports that 19,000 double-punched ballots were thrown out in this area. That's more than enough to swing the state to Florida. - - 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: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:44:41 -0500 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: FW: magic number: 781 CNN shows 341 to Bush. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:16:54 EST From: "Asa Land" Subject: Re:for my part... Simchik wrote >However, I did not and do not feel that his role in this contest >was that of evil saboteur. I dont think anyone would impugn Nader's integrity. Not only is he not an evil man, he is probably the most virtuious man in the election. Steve got in right in speaking of naiveté. Frankly, this whole thing reads abit like Shakespeare, where being "good" does not necessarily mean bringing about good (which was Shakes way of saying--"You've got to be kidding",e.i., irony.) The good which --may-- come out of all this is a damn fine shaking up of the electorial system. They are going to --have-- to(arent they?) do a revote in Palm Beach County. This whole thing might just topple the Electorial College. This is weird. Im feeling something akin to hope. I havent felt political hope since I was 15. Part of me is telling myself to not be insane--Bush will rule even without the popular vote. But part of myself is saying "No fucking way. No fucking way." Im angry and hopeful and....naive. Didnt think that could still happen. Hmmm, maybe Ill wake up tomorrow and be a virgin;-) 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, 9 Nov 2000 14:20:13 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Polly-tics on the shore GSS wrote: > James Dignan asked: > > I know a president can't run for a third term in that office, but > > is there anything to stop a two-term pres standing as a > > running-mate for VP? > > I do not believe there is a law against it. in order to run for vice president, you must be eligible to be president, so no Bill couldn't run with Hillary. because he only served 8 years (you're allowed 10, as a balance for presidents who take over half way through someone else's term; that's why LBJ could have run for re-election in 68), he could take over as VP past the half-way point of the term if the VP needed to be replaced for some reason. ===== "The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything, except what is worth knowing. Journalists, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands." -- Oscar Wilde __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:33:26 -0800 (PST) From: Viv Lyon Subject: agitate for... ? On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Asa Land wrote: > The good which --may-- come out of all this is a damn fine shaking up of the > electorial system. They are going to --have-- to(arent they?) do a revote > in Palm Beach County. This whole thing might just topple the Electorial > College. This is weird. Im feeling something akin to hope. I havent felt > political hope since I was 15. Part of me is telling myself to not be > insane--Bush will rule even without the popular vote. But part of myself is > saying "No fucking way. No fucking way." Im angry and hopeful and....naive. > Didnt think that could still happen. > Hmmm, maybe Ill wake up tomorrow and be a virgin;-) Go to http://geocities.com/countercoup/ I don't know how much "there" is there- I think a bunch of places were 'nominated' by people not living there, and all the activists are expected to show up without any organizing. The DirectActionPDX list is currently debating whether or not to get the thing together.. unfortunately we're all pretty burned out from Monday's Death of Democracy Demonstration. But it's an interesting notion, whether or not you decide to 'take the bait,' as it were. I myself do not want to rally for Gore (that should be evident, to say the least), but I would like some agitation for getting rid of the electoral college/ serious election reforms. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:35:20 -0500 From: Stephen Buckalew Subject: Re: FW: what a country 4 Yikes, I guess the blind, folks with lower IQ's, etc. should have there vote taken away. Actually, maybe we need a small elite of those who know best to choose our president, Let me guess....you should be part of that cabal Steve B >Come on, anyway--if you can't read a ballot you shouldn't be voting, anyway. > >-----Original Message----- >From: steve [mailto:schiavo@home.com] >Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 11:39 PM >To: Fegmaniax >Subject: Re: what a country 4 > > >dmw: > >in palm beach county [Floridia] alone, buchanan shows 3407 votes, more > >than enough tip the balance. > >This is the polling area with the poorly designed ballots, where people >voted Buchanan when they meant to vote Gore. CNN now reports that 19,000 >double-punched ballots were thrown out in this area. That's more than >enough to swing the state to Florida. > > >- 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: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:40:01 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: FW: what a country 4 On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Thomas, Ferris wrote: > Come on, anyway--if you can't read a ballot you shouldn't be voting, anyway. you need to LOOK at this ballot. it's utterly infuckingsane. - - 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 14:42:37 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: what a country I've been very busy at work, but this is what I've pieced together over the past two days and tiny snippets of time. ================================================== Mostly to the Quail, but listen in if you'd like. On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, The Great Quail wrote: > You are right -- he ran a poor campaign. There is no doubt about > that. If he were stronger, he would have taken more Bush votes. My > post was a response to Vivien's letter, not a total analysis of why > Gore will probably lose. That has a lot to do with Gore's campaign > mistakes, the media's coverage, and the very disillusionment that dmw > touched upon. But according to most exit polls, Nader is an > undeniably a factor in his loss. And his poor campaign somehow ISN'T? I mean, it's a factor, but it's a late factor and only became a factor BECAUSE of his poor campaign and the Democrats' weak stance across the board. > >He supports war and corporate > >control. Colombia, Kosovo, Iraq, WTO, IMF, & WIPO. Those are the only > >important issues. Roe v. Wade and affirmative action are band-aids for a > >society with no respect for individuals. > 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. First, yeah, fairly affluent... certainly compared with the rest of the world and sadly even when compared to the rest of the country (but I'm not as affluent as you might think. I make just slightly more than a high school teacher). And if the P in WASP just means I ain't Catholic, then that's right, too... but I'm not a member of any religious sect nor really holding to any faiths of any religious sect of the Protestant line. If you saw the results of our local elections, you'd think again. As I said, I don't totally agree with their accuracy, but it's terrifying to see the results. We lost huge amounts of personal freedom and social justice. And at least one measure, if ever enforced as law, would completely bankrupt the state for all time, jam the courts forever, and eliminate our ability to make law that either cost money or altered land use. Oregon is no haven. But what I'm really saying is that we don't address the real issues. We put up affirmative action to fight racism, but in itself it requires scrutiny of race. It's a band-aid. In some situations, unfortunately, we're so terribly damaged that a band-aid is at least necessary for now. Don't knock the band-aids... but they aren't doing anything to actually seal the wound. > Though I disagree with you on the abortion, affirmative action, and > Colombia issues, you may be right on the others, because -- and this > seems to be the hard thing for you guys to grasp -- there will be no > second American revolution any time soon. Most people don't even know > what WIPO stands for, and they actually *support* sanctions against > Iraq. This is a large, heterogeneous, prosperous society and they vote > like one. If it were heterogenous and propserous, we wouldn't need shit like affirmative action, now would we? It's a self-centered, ignorant, media-enslaved, complacent society. Most people are participants in their own destruction but don't see it or don't relate the causes and the effects. They think they're losing their jobs because there's a Democrat in the White House who's not paying enough for the military... or a Republican in office who's shipping jobs overseas. In fact, both are spending most of our money on the military and both are putting trade before jobs / the environment / absolutelyanythingelse. People don't know what WIPO stands for... they don't know what the WTO does to their sovereignty (forget how it treats the environment or people in other countries... maybe people DON'T care about that stuff, but the undermining of self-rule turns the stomach of everyone with whom I've spoken about this topic) and they don't know whence most of their food and information comes. Is this because they're content? Perhaps. Are they content because they don't know they shouldn't be? Probably. The WIPO and the WTO serve the very corporations that provide all of the media that most people see. Folks don't know what WIPO stands for because there aren't news stories about it... because the news divisions that abuse intellectual monopolies belong to entertainment companies that abuse intellectual monopolies. What benefit is it to explain these things to the people? The average affluent white person is quite negatively impacted by the WIPO and the WTO. The stronger arguments and (short term) greater damage by these organizations rest on the plight of the Earth and Brown People Everywhere so it's easy for the uncaring average white American to ignore the issues and those are the issues that come forward in the popular media. The issue of sovereignty and personal freedom restricted by these organizations is never addressed in the popular media... ever. And that is the information that would change the mind of the average person. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has had some kind of impact on every person in the US from the lower middle-classes up (and probably quite a few poorer people). It was debated in congress for hundreds of hours over the course of fifteen months by congressfolks from both sides (bipartisan support, bipartisan resistance) because the issues transcended any of their ideas about what side they SHOULD be on. It was a fascinating debate on an important topic that will come up again and again as we move into the future. Yet the major news outlets, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and CNN (or should I say Disney, Viacom, GE, NewsCorp, and AOL), spent a TOTAL of 19 minutes discussing the bill COMBINED. This is because provisions in the Act gave away huge amounts of public resources to those same private, for-profit corporations with no recompense to the public ever. It was not in their interest to discuss this, so they didn't. And this is why Americans are said to not care. > In the absence of a revolutionary overthrow, changes must be made one > step at a time, which is why I will vote Democratic -- I understand > compromise. But what is your compromise? What steps are you getting to take forward? Gore has promised the status quo, more or less. He's promised to protect the band-aids and maybe apply a new one here or there. What REAL CHANGE is being proposed, even incrementally? The "compromise" of a Gore presidency was something like this, to my ears, "If you accept a continuation of the evils of corporate control, masacre and destruction of foreign people and lands, and a corrupt political system where money talks and morals walk, then I'll to to stave off further erosion of some of the more popular civil liberties." You know, that's not a compromise in my book. "Hmm... I think I'd like to shoot you in the head." "I don't want to be shot." "OK, let's compromise. I'll shoot you in the leg." "Oh, OK. I'll stay here while you load and aim your gun, then... that's a good compromise." > Watch what happens in the next four years. I'm sure we both will. > None of your lofty goals will be realized, while even your "band > aids," as you so insultingly call the right to choice, Quail, the "right to choice" is not a right and not protected. THAT is the problem and THAT is why Roe v. Wade is a band-aid. If you read the decision and understand the case, you see the Roe v. Wade doesn't do that much. It describes how a state's law proscribing abortion totally for the sole reason that a human life is being protected is unconstitutional with respect to a person's privacy and inconsistent with the nation's concept of when a human life begins. It says that specifically the law in Texas of the day was illegal, but opens up the possibility of making new law that has a different focus where abortion can be wholly proscribed as long as a legitimate state interest is expressed in the statute. Here's a quote from the majority legal opinion, last paragraph: "The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests." This means that if the state interest can be interpreted as something that abortion rights contradict, then we can outlaw abortion. So what we need is individual state laws that specifically PROTECT the rights of both women and men to their own bodies and voluntary medical procedures and a clear legal definition of what makes a protected, sacrosanct life (Sagan suggested we use something based on number of neurons and therefore the number of distinct brain-states so that we protect lives of creatures that will possibly be in a completely unique brain-state at some point. The idea here was that a unique state could possibly be a new idea or way of thinking or just a describable kind of uniqueness since we all value rarity. I know it's too cold and scientific for most people to buy, but it's fun to think about it. This kind of legal definition would also have the great effect of expanding our idea of sacred life beyond humanity and into the realm of certain animals that clearly have a mental capacity on par with or beyond some of the humans that we consider it a heinous crime to destroy). The first of these is more likely and easy to pass by most people than the second, clearly. Shape the state interest into something that supports the idea of procreative freedom and respect for life in a meaningful way. Important here is the legal distinction between legislation and interpretation of existing law. A judge does not "legislate from the bench". The idea, in fact, is frowned upon in circles of jurisprudence. Roe v. Wade isn't and was not intended to be an abortion rights law. Roe v. Wade was simply a decision that says that privacy in issues of procreation, marriage, family relationships, contraception, child rearing and education (this is from the decision) contradict laws criminalizing those decisions outside of other state interests. Procreative rights are only protected by specific decree that those rights exist and should be protected. Privacy concerns are not enough to keep actions safe and legal. You also need a protection of the rights you know you have. [Minor and off-topic: Boyo, does it piss me off when folks say that legislation GRANTS rights. Rights just plain exist and legislation protects them. This may sound rather libertarian, but I believe that, because of folks differing beliefs, any person can claim that any action they commit is within their rights. It is up to legislation, however, to say which rights will be respected by the state wholly and which shall be infringed for the good of other state interests (like the right to assault, pillage, destroy, or control certain living and non-living things).] > You would have really voted for Buchanan? Well, what can I say? I > think that's just.... wow, I don't know. Your voting priorities are > very different from mine. I'm voting for the long-term good of humanity and the planet. If a few already priviledged Americans lose something while the rest of the world gains something, I can live with that. So if we have to give up some inexpensive consumer goods in order to have social justice for workers in other countries, I can live with that. If we have to give up a little of our lunch while the President waxes about Jesus for a minute or two in order to have home-rule, I can live with that, too. Also, I can't understand voting for someone who 'has a chance' for that reason alone and I don't buy into fear tactics. I heard so many people go on about how Gore is "electable" and they would like someone stronger, more forward, and willing stand up against the ruling global corporate paradigm (forgive me), but they don't think they can meaningfully vote in that direction yet... maybe if there was more support. Well, buddies, you make support. You are support. (And this isn't directed at you, Quail.) Are you waiting for a sure thing? That's what I consider cowardly. > Thank you for enlightening me again and pointing out my intellectual > deficiencies; though I confess I am not sure how we disagree. The > fact is, the Christian Right *did* support Bush -- for the most part, > Republicans know how to hang together as a party. They are too canny > to really defect to Buchanan. Again, I am looking at the bottom line, > the reality of the situation. That's a minority controlling a majority because the majority caves. What you want is a minority to cave to a majority. It's not at all the same. If the DNC had given back the corporate money and refused the endorsement of PACs and other corporate sponsors, taken a hard line on American sovereignty and social justice and peace, then I'll bet all kinds of "drifting lefties" would have flocked to Gore support. I'll bet a good number of Buchanan's supporters, Browne's supporters, and Hagelin's supporters would have gone, too... because that would have been real change for the better. But what you're suggesting is that the Greens should have sucked up and accepted that their morals are meaningless to the majority and stepped in line with ideals they cannot condone. The Christian Right doesn't do any such thing in order to "hang together as a party", the GOP caves to the whims of the minority to maintain power and control. > >The Democrats DO need to "wake up". But not to the idea that the world is > >more left than they are, > > Two things: What part of the world would that be? China? France? > Sweden? Russia? Iran? You seem to imply the world as a whole is > generally more left than America, which is untenable. Actually, I'm not doing that at all. I'm saying that you very well could be right and the world or America or whatever very well may NOT be to the left of the Democratic Party platform. And that the Democrats need to wake up and think forward rather than run to stand still... their idea of foward could be left or right or centrist or whatever... but they need to focus on action rather than reaction. > >but that they have to have platforms beside > >"protect this" and "maintain that" in order to succeed. Sustainability is > >a red herring. We need fecundity. > > I would agree with you in principle.... Though I would not dismiss > "sustainability" as cavalierly as that. I used to think "sustainability" was a good thing... you hear folks talk about sustainable agriculture and sustainable architecture and sustainable this or that. And it's certainly better than destructive agriculture, architecture or what have you. But (to paraphrase an illustration I heard on a different point), if you want to go to Canada and don't want to end up in Mexico and you're driving south at a hundred miles per hour, it doesn't help to slow down to fifteen... or even to come to a dead stop (so that your position is "sustainable"). You have to turn around and move in the other direction. And to use another analogy/metaphor/simile/allegory/thingie, if I asked you about your relationship with your partner and how things were and you replied "sustainable", I would suggest that you get off your ass and change things... one way or another and fast. "Sustaining" doesn't rule out stagnation. > I think you are mistaken. Again, like a broken record, I say, America > *likes* itself right now, dead Iraqis, corporate control, Coke & > Pepsi and all. The sad fact is the average American is NOT going to > be a Green any time soon, and the Democratic party is always in > danger of moving more rightwards to MATCH the public! Jesus, they > move any more to the side of even a McGovern, they will lose even > more votes. Jeme, HALF of America didn't even vote! But that may be > generally apathy and contentment -- I think this election again > proves that there is no sleeping Green giant waiting the call to > rouse itself. But of course, you'll just blame the media, and the > restricted debates, and general public ignorance, and of course, > people like me who are afraid to vote for a third-party candidate. > Part of this may be true, but certainly not to the idealistic extent > that the Naderites carried out their mission. I stood in line at a Gore rally a while back (I even attended the sham of a rally) and talked to folks. I was told about a hundred times that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" and nobody even pretended like they came up with that gem themselves. I asked HEAPS of people if they could name any policies of the Nader campaign or any components of his personal political platform. And they couldn't. Not one of them could. I asked dozens of people randomly in line and they had no idea. They just knew that I was wasting my vote. The public was uninformed. I've done my speculating about corporate media and general apathy and restricted debates and illegal campaign financing and so on. But the simple fact is that Nader's message DIDN'T get out. People are not aware of the problems and not looking for solutions. So in that, we agree. And we agree that the Greens' presidential bid was unsuccessful in several of its goals. And even in local races, the greens didn't do nearly as well as expected. But it got me off my ass. And Michael Wolfe, too. And it informed a few people and it galvanized some people into evangelism and discourse that may not have occured at all otherwise. So I'm thankful for it. And as for the "sleeping giant", well, this sound like rationalization or whatever, but half the people didn't vote and we just can't say why. But you can't say that there isn't such a thing as a great untapped political force in this country because ALL of the generally accessible media called this a same old two party race from day one to the end. Everyone said that Nader didn't have a chance and Gore got all of those fence sitting votes through his and NARAL's and whoever else's fear campaigning those last few weeks. But nothing happened in this election to wake that other half. Nothing happened to really threaten the satus quo. > I think he just acted irresponsibly, serving only to harm the one > group that he needed most to cooperate with -- the Democratic left. I can't stress this enough. You cannot cooperate with the enemy. The Democrats are an enemy of the Greens as a whole. As much as Democrats ideally (though never quite really) seem to support the social justice and environmental concerns of the Green, the Republicans support the personal freedom and soverignty (again, ideally, but not in practice) that the Greens covet. But both betray those ideals and both sit on the opposite side of the other issues (Democrats aren't very good with personal freedom and sovereignty and Republicans aren't very good with the environment and social justice). Balancing social justice and personal freedom is about compromise. (OK, there's no compromise when it comes to the environment... that's about fucking with things that aren't ours for the fucking.) Greens know that there are compromises to be made. But nobody has offered an acceptable compromise. > As I recently told one impassioned Nader supporter, your heart may be > in the right place -- but stubbornly sabotaging the Democrats' chance > to maintain the Presidency is a self-destructive act. It is a spoiler, > nothing more, and in the long run -- hell, the short run -- has served > to alienate the very people you need most for bigger support -- people > who are already Democrats. Honestly, I think you're coming from a mistaken angle. The Democrats have clearly shown that they think the smaller Green issues are important enough to change their votes and the larger Green issues are nonesense. If the Democrats wanted the Green vote, they went the wrong way about getting it. Abortion rights are tiny compared to American sovereignty. The Christian Right is nothing compared to bio-engineering. And Affirmative Action pales when placed beside the first amendment. End the wars fought on behalf of commerce. Get out of the WTO and WIPO. Stop soft money. In general, draw a line between profit and government. That's the one tiny thing that the Democrats or even the Republicans can do to get Ralph Nader's personal support and the support of everyone I know that voted for him. Everything else can be worked out in various kinds of compromise. > I know I sound cynical and jaded, but I see absolutely no evidence the > world is going to conform to what I want it to be in my heart -- > therefore I try to nudge it along one step at a time. And I think I'm doing the same. > >And I still say Gore and Bush would have enacted the exact same policies > >and just lied about which parts were intended and which parts are > >compromise. They are men of compromise, just like you. And that makes > >their morals impossible to pin down and their values impossible to > >measure. > > Please, the personal insult isn't even thinly veiled. You do realize > that compromise does not mean moral relativity, don't you? Well, I meant no personal insult, honestly. Here's how I see it: The government has been making compromise to balance the interests of business with the interest of the public. This is a false peering. The government is there to protect the public, not business. Any compromise means a loss on the part of the public. Gore thinks he's supporting the wishes of conservationists when he makes a site a "national monument". He says "And this will continue to be a roadless area!" and people cheer. Next month the helicopter logging begins. Thanks for the compromise. What happened to consensus? It happens, you know. And consensus is the reason we have representational government. A purely popular vote would prevent consensus becauase you can't make 200M people agree on ANY solution. But if you get a couple hundred representatives in a room, they're supposed to be able to hash things out. > I mean, I would LOVE to end the drug war, but I am not voting for > Nader for that reason. Instead, understanding that change comes in > small increments, I voted for Gore, who I think will be better than > Bush. Are there particular increments that you think Gore will win you or are you just trying to prevent the incremental losses that you fear Bush will lose you? I don't see anything in the Democratic party platform that comes even a milimeter closer to ending the drug war. So where's the compromise? > But in your book, I am a bad guy, merely because I understand not > everyone agrees with me, and you need to work together for solutions. I don't see where your win is, that's all. I've said it before. You're not getting anything for your side out of the compromise. Now, my vote for Buchanan would have been a compromise of the highest order. I would compromise my strong belief in civil rights and separation of church and state for global fair trade and American home rule. > That's part of what Democracy is all about. Well, move to a democracy then. > But in the end, I only care about how people treat me and my friends, > not who they vote for or what god they bow to. Well, we're on the same page there. I'd shake your hand or hug you or something if I could. > >Last I saw, about 30-40% of Nader supporters would have voted for Gore. > > Yes, I say that stat too -- coming from Nader's office, or so I was > told. CNN tells a different story, and it varies across the states, > especially in Florida, where Nader really threw a spanner into the > works. I find it funny that Naderites seem so willing to mistrust and > bash everything not-Nader, and always so willing to forgive, excuse > and swallow anything Nadery. It's not the source that makes it more believable to me, per se. The numbers CNN was dishing out were based on their "likely voter" polls. And you know what those guys call a likely voter? You have to be registered to a major party and you have to have voted in EVERY election in the past ten years. Well, those numbers are OF COURSE going to make it appear as though more Nader supporters would have otherwise voted for Gore because independent people and otherwise unlikely voters aren't even being asked who they would have supported otherwise. The numbers Nader's campaign offered were based on polls of his support base directly. Yeah, I'm going to trust that a bit more. > >>From the looks of the actual returns, they probably did exactly > >that. I think that (if the returns are accurate, which I have serious > >cause to doubt) the few points that Nader did get were people who wouldn't > >vote for Gore no matter what else was at stake... like me. > > If that helps you sleep at night through the next couple of > Republican years, so be it. Al Gore and Joe Lieberman are fair adherents to the Republican party platform. They both support censorship, strong military, and use religion as a guiding principle. I think Republicans as a rule just want their platform enacted (or feel duty bound to enact it whether or not their personal convictions sway a little). I think Democrats like to take credit. [Viv and I have a political cartoon on our refrigerator from the time of Women's Suffrage that has a donkey and an elephant returning from a fishing trip with all of the states ratifying that amendment on a line between them and showing them off to the aproned woman at home. The donkey is saying "Look what _I_ brought you... (oh, and GOP caught 36 of them himself)"] Because of that, I think it's easier to get a Republican to support a Democratic piece of legislation than it is to get a Democrat to support a Republican one. This is how Clinton enacted so many Republican wet dream bills. The Dems voted for it because their president sponsored it and the Republicans voted for it because they LOVED it. It doesn't work the other way around. The Democrats don't like to give Republicans credit, so they put up a fight. With a DLC Democrat in office, there may as well be no opposition at all. In other words, as disturbing as it is that we can't elect a president who supports the public more than profit, I'd probably take a Republican of any ilk (or brain capacity... even the moron and puppet the GWB is) because at least then there will be friction and SOMETHING might slow down (as opposed to the greaseless skid that brought hell in the Clinton years). But that's a whole different can of bees. > And from what I understand, a lot of you NaderFegs really are one > issue voters -- the all-mighty Evil of Corporations. In my job, we call that "root cause analysis". And understand that I, for one, don't believe that corporations are evil. I believe that corporate control of public life is evil and has to be stopped. And, because you think it's some kind of justification to point shit like this out, 76% of Americans agree with me [business week]. > I can tell you, I think this whole election is fucked, and like doug > says, please let this be the end of the Electoral College. It > certainly has made my mind up on that! And what would your mind say if it'd turned as I (wrongly) predicted where Bush got the popular vote and Gore got the electorate? OK... I'm finally done with this. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #322 *******************************