From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #324 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, November 10 2000 Volume 09 : Number 324 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Nader [Christopher Gross ] Re: Sleeping Minority [drop the holupki ] Re: bayard is back, and there's gonna be some trouble... [Scott Hunter Mc] the world is neither fair nor foul [Bayard ] Re: Sleeping Minority, by a man about to fall asleep [Christopher Gross <] DAT-heads [Bayard ] Smoke 'em if you got 'em [Ehtyl Ketone ] Re:for my part... [Ehtyl Ketone ] Hey kids, want to see some LOTR sets? [steve ] Re: Sleeping Minority [Eb ] Bell & Sebastian 30%, Politics 60% [Eleanore Adams ] new zealand looks cool! [Eleanore Adams ] Re: Perhaps my last, really.... [Capuchin ] Re: magic number: 781 ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: what a country [great offwhite dude ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 20:34:39 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Nader On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Ken Ostrander wrote: > it's hard to know where to start. my support of nader went beyond > mearly giving him my vote. i knew that he wouldn't win the presidency > once he was kept out of the (corporate run) debates. what we are > trying to do is build a movement. he didn't get the five percent for > matching federal funding; but in many states the green party will be > established. the real work really begins now at the local level. > you will start to see people running for local offices on the green > party ticket. obviously, things are not going to change all at once. > we all need to do more than just hope for the best. At the risk of repeating myself, I think this was/is a bad way to build a movement. Starting at the grassroots and running a presidential candidate after the movement is strong would have been a better idea; building at the grassroots while simultaneously trying to move the Democratic presidential candidate in a progressive direction would have been better still. But trying to build a national party in competition to the Democrats can only have one of two results: you can do well and split the left between two parties, or you can do poorly and make Green causes look like fringe issues that only matter to a tiny minority. - --Chris ps: Capuchin, thanks for the tip a couple of weeks ago about pine being able to correctly justify quoted paragraphs. As you can see, I tried it above and it worked. ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 20:41:05 -0500 From: drop the holupki Subject: Re: Sleeping Minority when we last left our heroes, Capuchin exclaimed: >Nader is just trying to get rid of shit we shouldn't >have in the first place: treaties that undermine our soverignty, hmmm. while i haven't been paying super-close attention to this debate (pre- or post-election), i was at least scanning all the posts and, if i'm not mistaken, today is the first time you've mentioned sovereignty, jeme. i think the treaties you're referring to are gatt and wto -- economic treaties -- but whenever the phrase "undermine our sovereignty" pops up, i get uneasy. shades of nationalism and all that. can you concisely elaborate to clear up my understanding? woj ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 20:55:11 -0500 From: Scott Hunter McCleary Subject: Re: bayard is back, and there's gonna be some trouble... I'm just back from 10 days in the enchanting land of pneumonia, respiratory failure, and septicemia (which didn't win with me either, Randi, though it gave a good try). Now I have a week and a half of bed rest (well, house arrest, actually) to catch up on the hundreds of digests that piled up while I lay dying. I am enjoying them immensely in light of the last couple days' wrangling. When I Was Dead: a minute or two on Sunday, October 29. nw: Trainspotting (no, those are MY forearms) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 21:24:23 -0500 (EST) From: Bayard Subject: the world is neither fair nor foul As my bloodshot eyes looked up from my work overflowing my desk, glancing towards the dim light that shone through my window, I realized that life was passing me by, much like a freight train on a cold winters night. I glanced down into the parking lot below, I realized that my car stood lone in its own shadow. Last one in the building is a rotten egg. I must have a bushel basket of rotten eggs. I would turn my collar up to avoid the stiff breeze from another winters night as I emerged from the building. Leaning into the wind, my foot caught the lip of the curb, tumbling me forward. I crashed headlong into the waiting dumpster. As my body crashed into the trash below I could smell the foetid fragrance of day old cafeteria food. (It had been calamari day at the cafeteria) I knew that it might not be my day after all. Glancing up from the bottom of the calamari, I realized that I had to do something, anything to change my lot. As I attempted to boost myself from the dumpster, my hand found something other than more calamari, it found the well worn tail feather of a small gallinacious bird. Staring hard at the feather, I noticed 3 full stripes . And from the nights wind, I heard an echo of a sound, but not the sound itself, ring in my ear. At first I could not make out what the wind was whispering. I listened again. Finally I understood.... It whispered, The only truths are the stars in the heavens and all that lies beneath them is interpretation. =b Big props to Steve B for saying exactly what I was thinking. Welcome back, Scott HMcC. You rule, Quail. Keep talking, everyone. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 21:42:12 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Sleeping Minority, by a man about to fall asleep The posts are coming in faster than I can answer them now, so I'll have to drop this soon. Soon ... but not yet! On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Capuchin wrote: > I hate to say this, Chris, because I see where Quail is coming from when > he says I was insulting his intelligence, but I don't think you get > it. There's either something fundamental here that you're missing or > you're not expressing your view in a way that I understand at all. I think it's option C: You and I just disagree, but you can't believe it's that simple. > > GRRR! That's the whole problem with the Nader campaign! Great, so he > > energized 2.5 million people ... he energized them to vote for him. He > > energized them to split the liberal vote and put Bush in the White House. > > He energized them to evangelize and learn about the issues and understand > what they're up against in creating real change. He energized them to > attempt to create a national force that can, in the future, take down the > one party with two heads. Okay, I understand that you think that. My view is while he energized people, Nader also channelled that energy into a strategy that IMO will fail to do any good. I don't think we really have "one party with two heads," not quite, and I don't think Nader's presidential bid was a good way to create a national force of any sort. I know you don't agree with my point of view, but do you at least understand it? > Understand that as far as Nader is concerned, > Bush and Gore are the same guy. There are trivialities and nits to be > picked, but the essentials are the same: Warmongers and corporate whores. I understand that he thinks that; do you understand that I think he's wrong? > > If the goal was to energize people to work for change, why couldn't he > > have energized them to work for change IN A WAY THAT MIGHT DO SOME GOOD?! > > I do believe that's exactly what he did. And I think he didn't. > > Nader himself has spent half his life showing how much can be achieved > > outside of presidential elections. He could have energized people to > > work on grassroots causes outside of the election (and he didn't have > > to wait for election year to do it, either). > > Did you hear him speak at all? He made all of this VERY clear. > > He told this story several times and I heard it again from Larry King > directly: [story snipped; refer to the list archive if you need to see it again] I understand what Nader's saying; I just don't agree. I know Nader is a brilliant guy and I, to put it mildly, am not, so in theory I should trust his judgement over my own; but I just can't bring myself to accept his analysis of the situation. Sure, the role of money in politics is frustrating; but in the end votes count more than money, and there are limits to the amount of votes that money can buy. If you build a movement that can deliver the votes to elect or defeat a senator, that senator WILL listen to you, or if not you can get rid of him. You just have to build that movement -- hard, but not impossible. Also, remember that movements can lobby/influence/threaten corporations, not just governments. How does Nader answer this question: If it's impossible to fight the money power now, then what does it matter if you're in a third party or not? By your own logic, the invincible money power will defeat you either way. > > Or, if he just had to get involved in this election, he could have > > energized all these people to work within the Democratic party, > > simultaneously making the Dems more progressive and guaranteeing that > > they would win this year. > > This is absolute BULLSHIT. The Democratic Party (and I don't care WHO > they run, even a reasonably upstanding and honest person instead of Al > Gore) has major corporate interests to serve. Drew nailed it when he said > that the machine just wants more power for the machine. Hey, I'm hopoing for people to *take over* the machine. The Dems, or any party, needs more than just money. They need votes, and they need party activists. If you provide the activists and deliver the votes, the party will listen to you. Hell, if you provide enough activists you will *be* the party. > > But no, instead, he had to energize all these people to vote for HIM, > > the most useless thing 2.5 million environmentalists could do! What > > could that accomplish? Nader obviously wasn't going to become > > President. All he could do was split the liberal/progressive vote. > > Yeah, he split the people that pay attention from the slavish followers of > party politics. No loss there. Do you mean to say that everyone who voted for Gore is a hopeless case and you can just forget about them? Sorry, but with an attitude like that you really will never get anywhere. Shouldn't you be trying to win us over instead of writing us off? > There is no such thing as liberal/progressive policies in the Democratic > Party. I disagree. But EVEN IF you think the machine is totally corrupt, you'd still be better off by trying to take over the machine, with its tens of millions of loyal followers, reforming it, and using it, than by building a new machine from scratch. Building from the ground up would be HARDER and LESS LIKELY TO SUCCEED. IMO. > > And if the Green Party really takes off, it will continue to split the > > vote indefinitely and hand a stream of easy victories to the right, > > united in the Republicans. > > Abraham Lincoln was a third party candidate. If the Greens take off, they > will supplant the Democrats as the party for progressive action and the > corporate welfare, warmongering, socially destructive vote will be split > between the Republicans and the Democrats. Bad analogy. In America a minor party has never supplanted one of the two majors; they only succeed when one of the two majors dies first. Abraham Lincoln was elected as the candidate of one of the two major parties. By 1860 the Whig Party had already disintegrated and the Republicans had already replaced them as the major competitor to the Democrats. Now you may hope that the same thing will happen now, that the Democrats will fall apart and the Greens will take their place. I guess anything is possible, but currently there's no sign that the Democrats are falling apart. They have internal tensions, but what party doesn't? And even if the Greens eventually replace the Democrats, how long will that take? Eight years? Twenty? Eighty? During this transitional period, the progressive vote will be divided as I've said, even if at the end your dreams come true and it's all united in the Greens. You might be willing to risk it, but I'm not. > > By the way, don't knock liberals. Al Gore is only a moderate liberal, if > > that. And if radicals have ever achieved anything good in this country, > > it has only been by allying themselves with liberals. > > I don't think Nader is at all radical. Well, I've already gotten into enough semantic arguments, so I'll pass on this one. Anyway, remember the context: this was in response to Michael's "liberals are shit" comment. (To exaggerate slightly. Everyone else does it, why not me?) > > > 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? > > Well, when are we going to find out? When are those 2.5 million going to > > try doing something useful? > > We're trying every day... while you stare at a man who you admit is only > moderately liberal at best and cross your fingers, hoping that he'll > change in tiny little increments. Glad to hear you're trying. I notice you didn't specify *how*, though. Do you mean by working for Nader's election? As I'd already argued, I think that Nader's campaign was not only futile but counterproductive. Therefore I don't believe working for Nader's campaign counts as doing something useful. I know you don't agree, but are you at least grasping my argument? Good night, all. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 21:43:30 -0500 (EST) From: Bayard Subject: DAT-heads Is anyone currently on the DAT-Heads listserv? I want to ask them a question, but the web site does not specify a posting address (and i don't want to subscribe.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:40:46 -0500 From: Ehtyl Ketone Subject: Smoke 'em if you got 'em At 12:31 PM -0500 11/9/00, dmw wrote: >did you know that philip morris owns boca burgers? man, that bummed me >out. And R. J. Reynolds owns KFC and Nabisco... - -- "Questions are a burden for others. Answers are a prison for oneself." **************************************************************************** C. J. Galbraith Ketone Press meketone@ix.netcom.com www.bogdescu.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:40:01 -0500 From: Ehtyl Ketone Subject: Re:for my part... At 5:48 PM -0500 11/9/00, Stephen Buckalew wrote: >Steve B (a dim bulb, but much more interested in the political >process than he has been for many years) I mentioned to a colleague today that I feel more politicized than I have since Reagan got elected the first term (where I threw my vote away on Barry Commoner). After the 1980 elections, I gave up on national attention and focused on things like water board and mayor. But this entire process has stirred an interest in things political that I thought long dead in me. Interesting to note it's happening to others. Of course that long buried conspiracy theorist that once lived inside is also waking up.... Be Seeing You. - - c - -- "Questions are a burden for others. Answers are a prison for oneself." **************************************************************************** C. J. Galbraith Ketone Press meketone@ix.netcom.com www.bogdescu.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:55:19 -0600 From: steve Subject: Hey kids, want to see some LOTR sets? I just read today that they are very close to finishing principal photography on the LOTR films. Here's something interesting: http://www.realmofthering.com/NEW%20%20Bar%20DESIGn/video/setguide.html - - Steve _______________ We're all Jesus, Buddha, and the Wizard of Oz! - Andy Partridge ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:23:50 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Sleeping Minority Jeme evangelized: >corporate whores. >such and so corporation >corporation >corp's >major corporate interests >big businesses >corporate welfare >corporate control >profitable corporations Check, please.... ;) Eb, remembering why he quit watching "The Awful Truth" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:41:40 -0800 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Bell & Sebastian 30%, Politics 60% OK, just for variety..... I bought the new Bell & Sebastian album on Amazon last week, and I find it very good! My brain is not working very well, because of the election, sleep depravation, bronchidas, work, and school, so I can't give it a proper review...But if you love retro, Nick Drake type sounds, it is not identical, but there is a cross over of the enjoyment factor. Death penalty in the US - today after constitutional law class, our school sponsored a debate on whether CA should have a moritorium on the use of the death penalty. I am firmly against the death penalty, (as many other american and countries in the world are.) Only 18 (I think) states are civilized enough to have gotten rid of the death penalty. But TX, FLA, and CA, as well as any Federal court, and the majority of our states, still have the death penalty. (as you guys all know) And with Bush as prez, we will not be joining the European nations on support of the ban of the barbaric and inaccurate use of the death penalty. This upsets me greatly. I am too sick and tired to give all of the arguments agaisnt its use. I think you all know the arguments. Politics - I have agreed with Quail. I am a democrate and believe in working within the system. I understand that the Nader supporters have strong opinions and are intellegent and smart, but I don't believe in overthrowing our system. (OK, I know, none are actually saying that - but it seems close when you want to change the system by loosing, knowing you are going to loose and accepting this as the way) Democracy may not work perfectly, but it is the best system we've got (or something like that, Churchill said), and i really don't see how a 3rd party can work well until it has a strong enough base on the local level. All politics is local. (I think that was Tip O'Neal) I think there is room for a 3rd party, but you need to first get Govonors. (Yeah, they may not work on the federal level, but they give a party an air of respectability and understanding) And Representatives in the house. A very realistic way to go. Change by example - quit taking pork - us democrates have to quit with the pork, and the new 3P candidates should never take it in the first place. I think that is the way to go within the system. For federal changes that is. And Nadar is looking to the federal level of government. I, myself, and not that idealistic or youthful, and will remain a democrate, voting on the liberal end of the party. I am not a radical (obviously) and actually believe in corporations. I believe in responcibility, too, but I cannot vote for the Greens. Too unrealistic for me. They don't seem to believe in compromise, and this country was built on compromise (Yeah, sometimes forced compromises, but all the same....) so my 2 cents eleanore ps - I have loved reading all of your posts - some of the most articulate writing. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:59:59 -0800 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: new zealand looks cool! Well, I downloaded the LOTR site preview, and have decided that I need to visit that beautiful country some day soon. It just looks so diverse and beautiful, as well as an island. (and growing up near the great lakes and hawaii, and now on the SF bay, I have this longing for water when looking at place. eleanore ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:15:11 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Perhaps my last, really.... First, I want to thank you for the flattering little comments about my posts and I hope you have a better understanding of whence I'm coming. Couple of tiny things. On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, The Great Quail wrote: > But for my part, I think it's past the point of arguing any more, > despite a few frustrating cracks Capuchin made that stemmed from a > deliberate misreading of my semantics. If they were just cracks and were meant to be taken as a jab in the ribs with a little smile, then that's one thing and I do that and it's meant to be funny... But if you thought I was undermining your point with an argument that hinges on a misreading of your semantics, then please let me know because it wasn't deliberate... off-list is fine. I promise not to explain in detail or try to argue. > In fact, Cappy's articulate post makes me realize just how radically > different his political views are from mine, Well, in that sense, then, you have changed your mind about the "Naderites" (I guess I understand that you're trying to avoid the complications caused by the "Ralph's not a Green" thing, but I still feel that word's a bit insulting... like you're refering to a cult of some kind). I mean, you see our differences and how at least I couldn't possibly be considered a "spoiling" voter. And if you accept that I'm not alone, then your view is changed a bit. > I also think its obvious that the corporations control the media, but > I can't find that as evil as Cappy does -- its just the nature of > commerce, Well, not quite. Media corporations are enormously profitable because the rules surrounding copyright and patent have been shored up on the side of "copyright holders" (rather than authors and inventors, as the Constitution restricts it) for the past thirty years, so they're a great investment for non-media corporations to both guarantee some big profits AND have a propaganda distribution system. The very largest broadcast corporations aren't paying for the spectrum they use to get their signal out, while smaller corporations DO have to pay. The airwaves are a public resource and giving them to for-profit corporations without compensation to the public is theft. We're handing the means of production to companies that use it to make money and not give any back nor do they have much obligation to use those public resources for public good. The government is in a position of forcing profits on these companies which they use to envelop more media to make more profits and reduce our choices as viewers of media. It's evil because we're starting to see more and more news divisions succumb to the interest of their parent company. SNL ran a very biting little cartoon about the five companies that control all the media and what else they do and how they won't talk about those things in their "news" outlets. NBC execs pulled it from successive reruns of the episode because "it didn't work... comedicly". Yeah. John McCain said that when he opposed the spectrum giveaway in the Telecommunications Act, the managers of the local affiliates of the large broadcasters in his district came to him to discuss "his re-election strategy" and how they could help him communicate his message to his constituents. The clear subtext, said McCain, was "do this for us or you'll never be on TV in your home state again". Several senators reported similar visits. This is not how government should work. You couldn't go to your senator and say "Hey, do this for me or I won't help you get re-elected." You don't have that kind of power. And you'd have to show that you had a majority support in a particular district in order to wield that power. > That is why we are born with the powers of critical intelligence. I > only wish more people would exercise those powers. (Meaning the > general US population, not the Naderites.) Sure sure. But really, there are people who don't have the time to check out every magazine in circulation and evaluate the veracity of the goods therein. I think most people in this country trust CNN and ABC News over just about anything else. And the only reason why is their respective size and presence. All media outlets are not created equal. > Perhaps I am a grouchy cynic, but I hope, like doug, I have a heart of > gold. I like to think of myself as a realist, as a concerned Democrat > who constructively supports the left wing of my party. No, you're a pie-in-the-sky dreamer. You believe there's hope left in your corrupt old party. We're the cynics. You can hang that one on us. > I have never felt more "right wing" than these last few days. (Hell, > I think we should maintain a strong military, and I cry when I visit > the Liberty Bell.) I think Cappy's post was very polite and > well-worded; I appreciate the compliment. I consider some of my views "right wing", I suppose. I worry about pure democracy. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the most brilliant men in the history of humanity. And I spent most of my trip to Boston checking out the Old North Church and the Green Dragon and all those mythical places and it filled me with wonder and pride. I don't like to think about right and left anymore when it comes to politics. I think we're at a point where the things that matter are clear and they're on neither side. We have a planet we're maintaining very poorly. We have people who have no power being stepped on by people with power. I don't think we need to get bogged down in the details of how to fix those problems. We should give lots of things a try. We just need to address those problems and let people live to their best ability. > I am glad the Naderites are enthused, and I hope one day they will > prevail to the extent that this is a more tolerant and environmentally > aware world, and I hope they will do that while still preserving our > national integrity, and providing a sense of global and historical > Vision that represents America at her very best. I like to think the > Naderites have these same goals; and I will work for that same goal, > in my own way, as compromised and tainted as they might think it. This is great and I can appreciate it... but I'm just having a really hard time understanding that people don't believe the corruption is real/deep/whatever. I guess that's my major hang-up. > We are a great country, an exciting experiment, a work-in-progress in > the process of perpetually evolving into something hopefully even > greater. And the road is hard, but it is a noble struggle. Well, you know... I think we WERE a great experiment. We've let it slide. We lost our "eternal vigilance" and with it went our liberties. I think we need to take it back. There's a whole lot to be done. > So I will wind down my rampant political ranting now, and fall back > into futile but gentle reveries of a Bradley/McCain race.... Man, oh man. I've said it a billion times. THAT would have been a great race. I think the issues would have been in the forefront. I think we'd've had candidates that actually talk about their first 100 days and what they'd like to ACCOMPLISH (something I got from neither Gore nor Bush). And the debates would have been thought provoking and the questions would have been left unanswered. There would have been no clear winner in those debates, on a better understanding of the men and their ideals. Phew. I know McCain wants corporate money out of politics. I don't know where either of them stands on fair, equitable trade. McCain's a bit too gung-ho about the military. Bradley has a fair understanding of social justice. It just would have been enlightening and inspiring. I think we'd've had at leaset a little real discourse. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:44:28 +0000 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: magic number: 781 Terrence Marks wrote: > > > 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.) And they're one of the great comedy political parties. They claim that, since their sacred text has seven parts, and that Niels Bohr's atomic theory has seven chapters, they have the weight of science behind them. Coo. They also have amusing stats showing before and after crime rates in areas where their "yogic flyers" started meditating. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:37:35 +1030 From: great offwhite dude Subject: Re: what a country chris quoth , re the naderites. By fighting against both major parties, they guaranteed that they wouldn't have had to compromise, but they also guaranteed that they wouldn't attain *any* of their ideals, and they virtually guaranteed that Bush, the candidate much further from their ideals, would be elected. agreed -I've been voting for parties I don't really agree with for decades now just to prevent an even worse alternative from getting into power, , although the problem with this strategy is that it perpetuates the two party system ( although realistically , that's not going away anyway ) however, as I pointed out in my near unintelligible post of a couple of weeks ago, the Australian model of preferential voting at least gives minor parties some chance of getting seats in the senate as they are proportionately represented , so we do have green and democrat senators who hold the balance of power and sometimes manage to prevent the worst excesses of the loathsome noxious conservative forces of evil and depravity who usually rule the roost here in little olde oztralia. anyway, I think you are all up shit creek without a paddle if meester bush gets in , gore might be a pain in many ways, but he's less of a pain than the george w, who in my opinion is a total , unmitigated fuckwit. commander lang however, if gore doesn't get in , the anti dead faction on the list can at least console themselves with the fact that the first lady is not a deadhead ! ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #324 *******************************