From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #372 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, October 8 2003 Volume 12 : Number 372 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: All right... ["Iosso, Ken" ] True Lies ["Glen Uber" ] reap [Jill Brand ] RE: All right... [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: reap [Jeff Dwarf ] RE: All right... [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: California Recall (RH content) [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: California Recall (RH content) [Jeff Dwarf ] RE: All right... [Eb ] RE: All right... [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: Entirely OT: Belief-O-Matic [Jeff Dwarf ] RE: All right... [Jeff Dwarf ] Luxor reviewed in The Onion (0% Calif Coup d'Etat) [Jeff Dwarf ] RE: All right... [FSThomas ] Re: All right... [Tom Clark ] RE: All right... ["Iosso, Ken" ] RE: All right... [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] RE: All right... [Barbara Soutar ] RE: All right... ["Jason Brown \(Echo Services Inc\)" ] RE: All right... [Christopher Gross ] More Squid news. ["Maximilian Lang" ] Californication [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:19:28 -0500 From: "Iosso, Ken" Subject: RE: All right... If we respected elections we would give officials their terms to serve. Since Ahnold and his cabal don't believe in elections then they open themselves up to the same short term unrealistic expectations. What's "good" for the goose is good for the gander. Bring it on, Ahnold!!! Bring it on. Ken Iosso - -----Original Message----- From: FSThomas [mailto:ferris@ochremedia.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:13 PM To: Iosso, Ken; 'Eleanore Adams'; arboreal autograph collectors Subject: RE: All right... At 11:14 AM 10/8/2003 -0500, Iosso, Ken wrote: >RECALL AHNOLD How many years did Davis serve? He was elected governor in 1998. The whole "we'll give Arnie 100 days to fix everything or it's RECALL time" is just asinine. Give him half as many years as Davis to fix the damage and then consider a recall. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:46:58 -0700 From: "Glen Uber" Subject: True Lies Schwarzenegger is not the solution, but part of the problem. I mean, he's another damned foreigner who has come to California and taken a job away from an American. ;) Cheers! - -g- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:51:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Brand Subject: reap California's last thread of credibility. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:54:11 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: All right... Quoting "Iosso, Ken" : > If we respected elections we would give officials their terms to > serve. The real problem is that while the recall process honors some aspects of "democracy," its implementation is deeply flawed. As an essay in The New Yorker recently pointed out - - an incumbent who receives 49.9% of the vote to remain in office (that is, who loses by the narrowest of margins) could lose that office to a candidate who receives far less of the vote to replace that incumbent, since the winner is determined on a plurality basis. Theoretically, the 135 or so candidates could have split the vote nearly evenly - resulting in a winner, who might have received 1% of the vote, triumphing over an incumbent whom 49.9% of voters wished to see remain in office. This is, of course, insane - and that the people who framed this situation didn't see that says much about the shortcomings of our (or at least CA's) legislative process. At the very least, the recall process should be modified so that the incumbent can run to be retained. That is, keep the question on the recall at a simple majority, but allow people also to vote for the incumbent. This may seem contradictory (why not just let votes for keeping the incumbent be votes *for* the incumbent?) but the answer is that there are two questions: *should* the incumbent be removed, and *if* he is, *who* should govern instead? Those are, properly, separate questions - the electorate as a whole might prefer a new governor, but that same electorate might still not prefer any other candidate more - and such a setup would avoid the absurdity by which (as The New Yorker article mentions) "no one" can beat "someone." Otherwise, the system clearly favors the discontented, those who have no better solutions at hand, and also installs a tyranny of the majority. Of course, the fact that "democracy" does not only mean "majority rule" but should also mean "the interests of all the people should receive a fair voicing" is too often overlooked, particularly in America, wherein, apparently, that one person over the 50% barrier is allowed to tell everyone on the other side of the line s/he's just drawn to shut the fuck up, we're in charge. It might seem to deny the wishes of the majority to allow the incumbent to re-win on plurality, but what it really does is reframe the issue as: if you're going to overthrow the *already clearly expressed interest of the majority of voters* (in the actual election), you'll need to be relatively united in offering a better solution. This is esp. true since the whole basis of democracy can be overthrown by such a recall system: given that the entry basis for a recall is so low, any very vocal minority can mount a recall challenge to mobilize anti-incumbent fanatics, and repeatedly deny the will of the less-fanatic majority expressed in the official electoral forum, thereby creating a sort of tumbling chaos wherein no one can govern, since the supposed term of governing is reduced to some set of probabilities; and our already dim concept of long- term planning finds its horizons even further foreshortened. But then, such a scenario is exactly what anti-government Republicans want, since it's win-win for them. Create chaos to demonstrate that government doesn't work, win election over the incumbent in office during that chaos, then either (a) maintain the chaos, lose to an opponent, repeat and reblame, get re-elected, or (b) wait till people get used to the chaos, get re-elected, and continue dismantling government. It's a thing of beauty: Republicans know that this strategy, if people buy it, all but guarantees Dems and others single-term incumbencies, since somehow *they* never get blamed for the chaos. How could they, since they're *against* big government, and therefore by definition blameless for any problems supposedly caused by the government? In the battle of Tax and Spend vs. Don't Tax but Spend Anyway, T&S will always lose. Because really, we're just plain stupid. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: I feel that all movies should have things that happen in them :: --TV's Frank ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:01:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: reap Jill Brand wrote: > California's last thread of credibility. hey, it's not like we elected a member of the Bush family!! ===== "Pentagon officials says Americanizing Iraq is difficult because Iraqis have had little to no reliable information for the past 35 years, and have lived on a diet of innuendo, rumor, conspiracy theories, fear, and propaganda. Sounds like the problem is they're too Americanized." -- Bill Maher "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:06:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: RE: All right... FSThomas wrote: > At 11:14 AM 10/8/2003 -0500, Iosso, Ken wrote: > >RECALL AHNOLD > > How many years did Davis serve? He was elected governor > in 1998. The whole "we'll give Arnie 100 days to fix > everything or it's RECALL time" is just asinine. > > Give him half as many years as Davis to fix the damage > and then consider a recall. Except that Arnold is just Pete Wilson's puppet, and Wilson is one who caused all the problems Davis had to clean up (albeit far too timidly), and Arnold was bragging about how he was going to clean things up in 100 days, erm, no. ===== "Pentagon officials says Americanizing Iraq is difficult because Iraqis have had little to no reliable information for the past 35 years, and have lived on a diet of innuendo, rumor, conspiracy theories, fear, and propaganda. Sounds like the problem is they're too Americanized." -- Bill Maher "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:14:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: California Recall (RH content) Jonathan Fetter wrote: > > Anyone fancy moving to another planet? I'm collecting > > funds for a spaceship... > > Why don't we just put all the actor/politicians on a > smaller spaceship (and program it to crash land)? Even that's a little cost prohibitive; say, James, how much extra room do you have? Enough for some Cali fegs to crash for a few years? It's early spring right now, so the weather should be lovely... ===== "Pentagon officials says Americanizing Iraq is difficult because Iraqis have had little to no reliable information for the past 35 years, and have lived on a diet of innuendo, rumor, conspiracy theories, fear, and propaganda. Sounds like the problem is they're too Americanized." -- Bill Maher "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:18:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: California Recall (RH content) steve wrote: > Matt Sewell wrote: > > No offence, of course, to our own Lobsterman, but Jesus > > Tap-dancing Christ - Arnie as governor? > > California Republicans now have a governor that could not > have won their last primary. Interesting that Prop 54 > got spanked pretty bad. Which is, long term, the most telling part of the election yesterday -- it was most certainly not a turn to the right or the Republicans as much as it was a big "FUCK YOU" to Davis. Half the vote or not, Arnold is on a _verrrry_ short leash. He essentially won because of what and who he's not rather than because of who he is. As such, his support is very shallow and if things don't turn around very quickly (which with the state's biggest problem still terrorizing the White House, it won't), he could very easily be recalled by a margin that would make Davis look popular in six months. ===== "Pentagon officials says Americanizing Iraq is difficult because Iraqis have had little to no reliable information for the past 35 years, and have lived on a diet of innuendo, rumor, conspiracy theories, fear, and propaganda. Sounds like the problem is they're too Americanized." -- Bill Maher "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:20:26 -0700 From: Eb Subject: RE: All right... >I agree about Prop 13 and the other initiatives (my Californian >friends curse the guy - Howard Phillips? - who led the push for 13), Jarvis. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:30:58 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: All right... Quoting Eb : > >I agree about Prop 13 and the other initiatives (my Californian > >friends curse the guy - Howard Phillips? - who led the push for > 13), > > Jarvis. Jarvis Cocker? From Pulp? What was he doing in California? Next you're going to tell me that Richard Ashcroft is Attorney General... ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: sex, drugs, revolt, Eskimos, atheism ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:40:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Entirely OT: Belief-O-Matic 1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2. Secular Humanism (86%) 3. Liberal Quakers (82%) 4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (80%) 5. Theravada Buddhism (74%) About what I expected; kinda wished Taoism was higher and would rather be closer Catholic than Mormon, Scientologist, or Fundie-Whackaloon-Protestant. The pacifism question is the one that bugs me most; I'd like to be a pacifist, but there are too many times where sadly violence is necessary but the options (yes, no, and n/a) to answer that question are just inadequate. For that matter, Islam should probably be divided up into Sufi, Shia, Sunni, and Wahabist as answers at the end. 6. Neo-Pagan (71%) 7. Nontheist (65%) 8. Baha'm Faith (57%) 9. Taoism (52%) 10. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (51%) 11. New Age (51%) 12. Reform Judaism (49%) 13. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (48%) 14. Sikhism (47%) 15. Mahayana Buddhism (46%) 16. New Thought (40%) 17. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (38%) 18. Orthodox Quaker (35%) 19. Scientology (34%) 20. Jainism (33%) 21. Jehovah's Witness (28%) 22. Hinduism (23%) 23. Orthodox Judaism (23%) 24. Eastern Orthodox (21%) 25. Islam (21%) 26. Roman Catholic (21%) 27. Seventh Day Adventist (14%) ===== "Pentagon officials says Americanizing Iraq is difficult because Iraqis have had little to no reliable information for the past 35 years, and have lived on a diet of innuendo, rumor, conspiracy theories, fear, and propaganda. Sounds like the problem is they're too Americanized." -- Bill Maher "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:43:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: RE: All right... Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > Quoting Eb : >>>I agree about Prop 13 and the other initiatives (my >>>Californian friends curse the guy - Howard Phillips? - >>>who led the push for 13), >> >> Jarvis. > > Jarvis Cocker? From Pulp? What was he doing in > California? Living with Common People, like me....Ouch, don't hit me. Howard Jarvis's primary partner in either Prop 13 or one of his later tax initiatives was a guy named Phillips though - -- first name escapes me and I don't give enough of a shit to look it up, which would explain the confusion. ===== "Pentagon officials says Americanizing Iraq is difficult because Iraqis have had little to no reliable information for the past 35 years, and have lived on a diet of innuendo, rumor, conspiracy theories, fear, and propaganda. Sounds like the problem is they're too Americanized." -- Bill Maher "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:55:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Luxor reviewed in The Onion (0% Calif Coup d'Etat) http://www.theonionavclub.com/3939/music.html#review6 ===== "Pentagon officials says Americanizing Iraq is difficult because Iraqis have had little to no reliable information for the past 35 years, and have lived on a diet of innuendo, rumor, conspiracy theories, fear, and propaganda. Sounds like the problem is they're too Americanized." -- Bill Maher "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:58:27 -0700 From: Eb Subject: RE: All right... pallid humor offered: > > >I agree about Prop 13 and the other initiatives (my Californian >> >friends curse the guy - Howard Phillips? - who led the push for >> 13), >> >> Jarvis. > >Jarvis Cocker? From Pulp? What was he doing in California? > >Next you're going to tell me that Richard Ashcroft is Attorney >General... [obligatory Scott Miller swipe mercifully deleted] Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:04:55 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: RE: All right... At 12:19 PM 10/8/2003 -0500, Iosso, Ken wrote: >If we respected elections we would give officials their terms to serve. >Since Ahnold and his cabal don't believe in elections then they open >themselves up to the same short term unrealistic expectations. What's >"good" for the goose is good for the gander. If the constituency of California have a problem with the recall caveat in their state's constitution, they should petition to change it. Just as if the constituency of Florida has a problem with the use of the Electoral College, they should petition their state representatives to have the US Constitution changed. People shouldn't whine when they lose to others playing by the rules. All I'm saying is, give the guy at least half as long to right the ship as his predecessor took in sinking it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:08:32 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: All right... Although two wrongs don't make a right, I'm really tempted to back another recall in a few months. I never gave a shit about Davis, but he was elected in a general election. So, unless he went on a killing spree or something, let him serve his term and then decide during the next election. And btw, Davis was elected 1998 and then again in 2002, so apparently he was good enough to run the state 11 months ago. The main issue behind the recall was how the state got fucked by Enron and other energy companies. But guess what? That never would have happened if Davis' predecessor, Republican Pete Wilson, hadn't pushed through the public utilities deregulation legislation. - -tc on 10/8/03 10:19 AM, Iosso, Ken at Ken.Iosso@CO.RAMSEY.MN.US wrote: > If we respected elections we would give officials their terms to serve. > Since Ahnold and his cabal don't believe in elections then they open > themselves up to the same short term unrealistic expectations. What's > "good" for the goose is good for the gander. > > Bring it on, Ahnold!!! Bring it on. > > Ken Iosso > > > -----Original Message----- > From: FSThomas [mailto:ferris@ochremedia.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:13 PM > To: Iosso, Ken; 'Eleanore Adams'; arboreal autograph collectors > Subject: RE: All right... > > At 11:14 AM 10/8/2003 -0500, Iosso, Ken wrote: >> RECALL AHNOLD > > How many years did Davis serve? He was elected governor in 1998. The > whole "we'll give Arnie 100 days to fix everything or it's RECALL time" is > just asinine. > > Give him half as many years as Davis to fix the damage and then consider a > recall. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:31:00 -0500 From: "Iosso, Ken" Subject: RE: All right... The whiners who lost were the republicans in 1998 and 2002. In 2003 they used 10s of millions (at least) dollars to run a recall and steal it back. If it's fair to use it now, it's fair to use it in a year or two...or next week. Don't you agree? Ken Iosso - -----Original Message----- From: FSThomas [mailto:ferris@ochremedia.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 2:05 PM To: arboreal autograph collectors Subject: RE: All right... At 12:19 PM 10/8/2003 -0500, Iosso, Ken wrote: >If we respected elections we would give officials their terms to serve. >Since Ahnold and his cabal don't believe in elections then they open >themselves up to the same short term unrealistic expectations. What's >"good" for the goose is good for the gander. If the constituency of California have a problem with the recall caveat in their state's constitution, they should petition to change it. Just as if the constituency of Florida has a problem with the use of the Electoral College, they should petition their state representatives to have the US Constitution changed. People shouldn't whine when they lose to others playing by the rules. All I'm saying is, give the guy at least half as long to right the ship as his predecessor took in sinking it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:40:22 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: All right... Quoting FSThomas : > If the constituency of California have a problem with the recall > caveat in > their state's constitution, they should petition to change it. It's hardly that simple. There *was* a legal challenge; it was overturned for now. But it's not as if Californians (I'm not one, btw) could go to the ballot and vote "bullshit on this whole recall thing" as one of their options. The recall provision was enacted in, what, 1911 or so? and has never before been put into practice. While it *might* be reasonable to expect a person to understand the implications of the presence of such a provision, it isn't reasonable to expect an entire electorate to do so. I'm not sure what the answer is, though: it isn't just removing the recall procedure by legislative fiat. > People shouldn't whine when they lose to others playing by the > rules. I find it frustrating when people say "just follow the rules and change things if that's what you want": in the real world, rules aren't given by God Above, they're sculpted and placed and carefully nudged by people in power - generally to ensure that power remains so ensconced. I will delete in advance a rant about the undemocratic aspects of our electoral system, and the fact that the people who would have to change them are, surprise! those most in a position to gain from not changing them. > All > I'm saying is, give the guy at least half as long to right the > ship as his > predecessor took in sinking it. As was pointed out, Gray Davis can hardly field the whole blame for California's problems. I agree that *another* recall effort is a bad idea - but not necessarily out of a sense of 'fair play for Arnold," since (as I said) the system by which he was put into office, however valid legally, is still foolish and undemocratic in principle. It's a bad idea because another recall so soon would further undermine the whole electoral process (see the third last or so paragraph of my lengthy post earlier today), and turn leadership into an ongoing series of pissing matches. You know the result of those? Everyone stinks. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: capitalism is the socialism of the rich :: ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:43:56 -0700 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: RE: All right... A guy called Jeff Jacoby sez that prisons are good and that the horrible crime wave in Toronto should be fixed with an increase in imprisoned Canadians: "Maybe Europe and Canada should follow suit." Whoops, only problem is, there is no crime wave. Try again to justify the crazy imprisoning of a huge segment of American people. On a somewhat related note, I hear that prisons in the States are being run as businesses now and that companies are getting free work done there. So you could be a laid-back marijuana smoker and end up a slave. Good Work America! You figured out that pesky problem of having to PAY people for working. My latest pet peeve by the way... Barbara Soutar Victoria, British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:45:15 -0700 From: "Jason Brown \(Echo Services Inc\)" Subject: RE: All right... Ken Iosso sez: > The whiners who lost were the republicans in 1998 and 2002. In 2003 they > used 10s of millions (at least) dollars to run a recall and steal it back. > If it's fair to use it now, it's fair to use it in a year or two...or next > week. Don't you agree? I think that would be a very bad idea. There probably is enough angst about Arnold out there to get it on the ballot but I think it would fail dismally. Especially since more people voted for Arnold yesterday than voted for Davis last November. It would a really bad move if the democrats supported the idea, they would look like bigger sore losers than Issa and company. The whole thing was a mistake but its best to move on and fix the system so stupid shit like this doesn't happen again. The recall was partisan cheap shot move but it would not have passed if Davis wasn't horrifically unpopular. The democrats blew it by not putting up a better alternative to Arnold than Bustamante, who was easily dismissed as part of the same problem that Davis represented. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:56:14 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: RE: All right... At 02:40 PM 10/8/2003 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >It's hardly that simple. There *was* a legal challenge; it was >overturned for now. It was only challenged when it became obvious Davis was going to face one. >The recall provision was enacted in, what, 1911 or so? and has never >before been put into practice. I thought there had been a successful recall back in the 40s, but in looking it up, there's been 31 attempts at recall (http://tinyurl.com/q7wc) in the past. It was brought in back in 1911. The whacked thing is that they can not only recall the governor, but also elected officials, enact and repeal state laws and make constitutional amendments. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:50:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: RE: All right... On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, FSThomas wrote: > People shouldn't whine when they lose to others playing by the rules. All > I'm saying is, give the guy at least half as long to right the ship as his > predecessor took in sinking it. Why should they give him a certain length of time? That might seem "fair" to you, but such a requirement would violate the letter and spirit of the law. By all accounts the constitution of California does not require any particular reason for a recall, just that a certain number of people support it. Therefore the designers of the recall must have intended it to be used *whenever* the governor lost popular support. Davis could have been recalled the day after he took office, or in February 2001, or a week before his second term ended. Similarly, if enough people are willing to sign a recall petition the day after Schwarzenegger takes office, or next Jan. 23, or *anytime*, then it's recall time again! Whee! - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:05:37 -0400 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: More Squid news. http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-10-08-squid-brain_x.htm _________________________________________________________________ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 12:15:37 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Californication >My big question is: Who the heck is George Schwartzman, and what did >he do to land in (currently) ninth place, ahead of faces like Mary >Carey, Bill Simon, Gallagher, Angelyne, etc.? What's the hook?? >Looking at his site (http://www.governorgeorge.com), I still can't >see it. Maybe his finish is the most impressive achievement of all? are the names arranged alphabetically on the paper? If so, some people might simply have seen 'schwarz-' and voted. >>RECALL AHNOLD > >How many years did Davis serve? He was elected governor in 1998. The >whole "we'll give Arnie 100 days to fix everything or it's RECALL time" is >just asinine. > >Give him half as many years as Davis to fix the damage and then consider a >recall. I'd agree there (although i can do that with the benefit of a very large ocean between us). Arnie may be a jerk, but he's assembled a clued up team, by all accounts. Maybe, just maybe, they can dig California out of the hole it's in. He may have been elected on name alone, but that doesn't mean the administration's automatically gonna suck. James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #372 ********************************