From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #54 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, February 23 2004 Volume 13 : Number 054 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: fegmaniax-digest V13 #53 ["rubrshrk@harborside.com" ] Re: reap [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: reap [tanter@tarleton.edu] Re: reap ["Fortissimo" ] Re: reap [Christopher Gross ] Re: reap [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: reap [Eb ] Radio Storm (in streaming audio!) [bayard ] Re: reap [Capuchin ] Re: reap [Capuchin ] Re: reap [Capuchin ] Re: reap [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:33:54 -0500 From: "rubrshrk@harborside.com" Subject: RE: fegmaniax-digest V13 #53 Hi kids. A few things: I thought about sending a reap message about "Il Elefantino"- that would be one of the monikers for Marco Pantani- convicted doper and former multiple major cycling tour winner. I was a little weirded out about his passing- I was one of those people who really disliked him. It sounds like in death he is admired and loved deeply. FYI: there may be another view on Nader. I differ with the media pundits who claim his move purely as a vanity/ego project. I think the public will probably avoid taking him as seriously as before, however. My belief, though I am not certain, is that if Howard Dean was the Democrat's leading man he would not have run. At issue for Nader is who owns the candidates, and the way Dean raised funds was a bit more wholesome. I don't think Nader would run if he thought _any_ reform of politics had taken place. There was a difference between Gore and Dubya, but the _money_ smelled fairly similar (lots of oil and big companies' dough was there.) There wasn't a significant difference between Clinton and ElderBush (Don't Ask- Don't Tell was the only thing Clinton did that ElderBush would not have.) A lot of democrat goodwill went out the window for me when Clinton attempted to pardon rich assholes for money. I am personally moving away from relativist politics, since that is how we wind up with such crap to vote for and will try very hard to vote for the best guy, gal, or feline for president this time around, regardless of party, sex or speceis affiliation. Arnie Schlizgrenader is starting to make noises about running for prez. He's had his fucking job for a month and he's starting to whine about letting nazi, foreign-born, former illegal drug abusers run for president. Gosh, maybe Rush Limbaugh can be his running mate. Happies, Y'all, - -Markg - -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:36:53 -0800 (PST) From: John Barrington Jones Subject: Re: reap On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Fortissimo wrote: > Nader would be far more effective making his points loud and long to > whoever will listen - but the more he makes such pointless, tactically > idiotic, and apparently ego-driven lunges at "the presidency" (surely he > knows he has no chance? and he can't even argue that he's trying to get I hope I hope that his real reason for doing this is to get some face time in the media to talk about stuff that's important to him. He knows that given his notoriety from last election, and given that there is no "big" third party candidate in the running this year, that he could get some coverage. I hope he knows that no one is voting for him. We're too focused on the objective, and four more years is too much to lose. As Dan Bern recently put it, "when you go into that booth, and you see a name on the ballot across from Bush's, and if it looks like the guy is a mammal, PULL THAT LEVER!" =jbj= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:43:43 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: reap John Barrington Jones wrote: > As Dan Bern recently put it, "when you go into that > booth, and you see a name on the ballot across from > Bush's, and if it looks like the guy is a mammal, PULL > THAT LEVER!" Why only if the guy looks like it's a mammal? There are probably several birds, amphibians, fish, and even a few types of millipedes and spiders who would be remarkable improvements as well. ===== "Life is just a series of dogs." -- George Carlin __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:05:01 -0600 (CST) From: tanter@tarleton.edu Subject: Re: reap I agreed with most of what Nader said this morning, but the problem is that his party has been dormant since the last election. I think it's really disingenuous of him to run for office when his voice has barely been heard for the last 3 1/2 years. Of course he has the right to run, but he should have been preparing for this and he might have been able to get some real grassroots support, Dean could have transferred his stuff to Nader.... Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:15:03 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: reap On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:05:01 -0600 (CST), tanter@tarleton.edu said: > I agreed with most of what Nader said this morning, but the problem is > that his party has been dormant since the last election. Nader's running as an independent. And the Greens were "his" party in name only. I'd love to see the Greens have more prominence - but that can only happen from the grassroots upward, building power until they're able to reform the lock the two parties have on the process. As to Mark Gloster's comments: On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:33:54 -0500, "rubrshrk@harborside.com" said: > and the way Dean raised funds was a bit more wholesome. I don't think > Nader > would run if he thought _any_ reform of politics had taken place. There > was > a difference between Gore and Dubya, but the _money_ smelled fairly > similar > (lots of oil and big companies' dough was there.) There wasn't a > significant difference between Clinton and ElderBush (Don't Ask- Don't > Tell > was the only thing Clinton did that ElderBush would not have.) A lot of > democrat goodwill went out the window for me when Clinton attempted to > pardon rich assholes for money. I am personally moving away from > relativist > politics, since that is how we wind up with such crap to vote for and > will > try very hard to vote for the best guy, gal, or feline for president this > time around, regardless of party, sex or speceis affiliation. THe problem with this point of view ("vote for the best guy" etc.) is that that's *not what your vote does.* Look, it's like a carnival pinball machine. The barker tells you you've got an equal chance of getting the ball in any of the five holes...but look more closely, and you'll notice the board's grooved to the two center holes, and the other holes are cunningly painted to disguise the fact that they're much smaller than those center holes. And if you could take the thing apart, you'd discover hidden switches that steer balls that do manage to make it into the little holes directly into one of the two big holes - specifically, the one you *weren't* aiming near. In a winner-take-all system like ours, you *cannot cannot cannot* "vote your conscience" if you want your conscience to have an effect. Wishing won't make it so; reform of the voting system will. It's imperative to vote strategically so that your vote actually furthers the efforts of the person you want it to help - or at least does *not* further the effort of the one you most want to hinder. How many people who *might* consider voting for Bush are likely to even consider voting for Nader? I know, I know - we went through this four years ago...but that was before we knew how bad Bush was going to be. Yes, you're correct that both parties are ass-deep in corporate money. But what Bush has done is way worse than what Gore would have done, what Clinton did, what Dole would have done...way on back. He makes fucking *Nixon* look like a raving liberal. > Arnie Schlizgrenader is starting to make noises about running for prez. > He's had his fucking job for a month and he's starting to whine about > letting nazi, foreign-born, former illegal drug abusers run for > president. I don't want Arnie for prez either - but he's absolutely correct that the rule against foreign-born citizens holding Presidential office is outdated and should be repealed. I think it's perfectly reasonable to allow that someone who's been a naturalized citizen for X years (not sure how long) should be eligible to be president. Notice also that being a "nazi" or an illegal drug abuser also doesn't disqualify one from running (although being convicted of a felony does). - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Miracles are like meatballs, because nobody can exactly agree :: what they are made of, where they come from, or how often :: they should appear. :: --Lemony Snicket ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:29:46 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: reap My first reaction isn't surprise -- Nader's been hinting he'd run again for a while now -- but disappointment. Another reap: any lingering respect I might have had for the man. On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Fortissimo wrote: > by two parties). And the lesson of 2000 was *not* that Bush "won" because > it was Nader's "fault": the vote was close enough that *any* other > candidate's vote would have tipped the election the other way. I'd quibble with you there. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from 2000, and one of them is most certainly that Nader's candidacy turned around and bit us all in the ass. Sure, you could say that any other candidate's vote *could* have tipped the election the other way; but Nader's votes are the only ones that were *likely* to have gone to Gore if Nader hadn't run. (Does anyone really think that Gore was the second choice of those who voted for Pat Buchanan or Harry Browne?) Alas, Nader doesn't seem to have noticed. If I was into psychological speculation, I'd wonder if Nader was running again mainly to show that he doesn't think he made a big mistake in 2000. > But: Nader's key argument, that there's no significant difference between > the two parties, simply is not a viable option right now, with Bush > standing for election (no "re-"). I saw a good button the other day: "Re-defeat Bush in '04".... Anyway, I'd not only agree but go further and say that the "no significant difference" argument is not only dangerous right now, it's factually incorrect, and has been clearly and obviously so since 2001. The Bush administration has proven SO unimaginably bad that no Democrat could even come close. (Though to be fair, you could also argue that it's just a matter of opinion what constitutes a "significant" difference.) I haven't actually read or listened to Nader's announcement, but the CNN website quotes him as citing his "desire to retire our supremely selected president" as a reason why he's running. Where's the connection? How does Nader's running do anything to help retire Bush? If anything, it hurts. (BTW, CNN should have capitalized "supremely" -- it was an obvious dig at the Supreme Court decision in 2000.) Does anyone have that Simpsons episode on tape? You know the one I mean. "No, no, Ralph, you've already done more than enough." - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:49:56 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: reap >I *wish* we had a voting system whereby people's votes for particular >candidates actually ended up putting those preferences into play in the >political arena, rather than deflecting into an opposing candidate's >preferences (the inevitable result of a winner-take-all system dominated >by two parties). sounds like the system we have here (seats in parliament proportional to vote - leaders of main parties tie up deals with smaller parties after the election to get more than half the seats; Prime minister is leader of largest party in that coalition). >But: Nader's key argument, that there's no significant difference between >the two parties, simply is not a viable option right now, with Bush >standing for election (no "re-"). Whatever you think of Gore, I doubt his >presidency would have displayed the imperial contempt for the rest of the >world (i.e., anyone not a wealthy, white Republican) that Bush has. In >every respect, Bush's presidency has been an unmitigated disaster. (Oh, >okay: if you *are* a wealthy white Republican, maybe not.) in elections where there is a clear battle between two opposed views and that battle is likely to be close, third party votes usually go through the floor, so I doubt there will be as many votes for Nader this time as last time (yes, I know, every vote may be vital. I haven't forgotten brother Jeb and the "fair election" in Florida). 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") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:54:11 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: reap Damn...he has been a candidate for only a day, and already it has started. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:01:52 -0800 (PST) From: bayard Subject: Radio Storm (in streaming audio!) Scroll down a bit: http://spaceweather.com/ - -- "Do not condemn the judgement of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong." - Dandemis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 02:52:05 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: reap On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Fortissimo wrote: > Ralph Nader's credibility. I think waiting for Dean to leave the race increases Nader's credibility as an opposition candidate. > I *wish* we had a voting system whereby people's votes for particular > candidates actually ended up putting those preferences into play in the > political arena, rather than deflecting into an opposing candidate's > preferences (the inevitable result of a winner-take-all system dominated > by two parties). I don't really mind the "winner take all" part. The problem is the parties themselves. It seems to me that any party system necessarily favors the conservative and stifles open discourse. Conservatives have, pretty much by definition, a consistent view of what should be and how to get/stay there. The people who hold those ideas usually share a common background in philosophy, religion, and so on that has led them to the views they hold. The party serves as a focus of power for those like-minded people and allows them to choose a single representative to face the world. The differences between the conservatives are relatively small and can be easily put aside "for the good of the cause". Progressive ideas and liberal thought vary almost infinitely. There is almost a requirement for individual creative thought in order to break from the establishment and imagine another way of living and doing. Even among people with similar philosophies, operating under similar myths, you may find various, seemingly conflicting goals in different individuals. The reverse is also true; two people with similar goals may have wildly different ideas about how to attain those goals (or, indeed, whether it's possible or worth trying). A progressive party must debate and rethink its very foundation on a regular basis. In order to maintain a stable platform, a party must become conservative. Progressive ideals are a moving target... and they're going in several directions at once. But if you are going to stand up with conviction and say "This is the right way!", you've given up that which allowed you to be liberal in the first place. A political party, like any organization (or organism), becomes, ultimately, a creature of self-preservation. And self-preservation on the face of a changing world is conservativism. A party's platform is decided essentially by an elite few. Sure, they are supposedly delegates and delegates of delegates and so on, but when it comes down to it, those delegates are mostly people that have the time and ambition and energy to devote to getting ahead within the party than people that are mostly representative of the party members as a whole. These party elite shape the issues before they are brought to public debate. They've been narrowed and honed and the assumptions burried under this or that turn of phrase. And since the parties are essentially self-preserving, mutually assured destruction deters any strike by one party at another party's foundational assumptions. I remember when I found out (on this very list!) that there are states that allow a person to "vote a straight ticket". The idea is that you can just hit a button or pull a lever or check a box or something and you just cast your vote down the party line. There is no evidence that you have given the issues any thought or even that you know the candidates carrying your party's banner agree with those aspects of the party platform that make you choose to be a member. It's appalling. And it's not the two party system that makes this happen... it's having parties at all. Better to let individuals run for office without easy and misleading labels. Better to bring the core values into open public debate. Better to leave the disinterested and lazy totally perplexed in the polling booth than to allow them to simply match the little symbol next to the candidate's name with the symbol on the button they were sent in the mail. Political parties maybe made some sense one or two hundred years ago when communication was poor, but I've yet to hear a decent argument for them today. > And the lesson of 2000 was *not* that Bush "won" because it was Nader's > "fault": the vote was close enough that *any* other candidate's vote > would have tipped the election the other way. In Florida, the number of votes by which Bush claimed to have won was fewer than the number of people who voted for ANY other candidate... so you may as well say that the Socialists blew the election for Gore. How does someone LOSE to George W. Bush? Gore's entire campaign was a joke. He wasn't even trying. Honestly... I really think he wasn't trying. Think about it. That half-assed campaign that culminated with a half-assed lawsuit so full of holes that DOZENS of books were written on how badly the defense handled the case. Why didn't Gore's counsel challenge Bush's standing in an equal protection claim for Florida voters (hint: Bush is not a Florida voter and therefore does not have standing for such a claim.)? Why was Scalia's agreement for injunction against the recount on the grounds that an unfavorable recount would cast gloom over the Bush Presidency (hint: If the recount was unfavorable, there would be no Bush Presidency.)? George W. Bush is a babbling idiot. He looks like an idiot. He talks like an idiot. His every credential is shakey at best (ok, to be fair, I don't think anyone has publicly challenged his parentage -- so he's got that going for him). He has a history of substance abuse. He has absolutely nothing going for him... yet he won the election. Why? The answer is not "Ralph Nader". The answer is deeper and uglier. And while perhaps a very small part of the answer is found in the backrooms of the large corporations at the tables of oak and power, most of the answer is probably found in some understanding of why people chug along in their lives asking only "when?" and "can I?" instead of "why?" and "should I?"... and I don't have the answer. I don't know if anybody does. But it sure as fuck isn't "Ralph Nader". > But: Nader's key argument, that there's no significant difference > between the two parties, simply is not a viable option right now, with > Bush standing for election (no "re-"). I think the key point here is that it's NEVER a "viable option" to stage a revolution. It's always a risk and it always has a dear price. If you want to sit back and take the viable options, you're never going to break out of the structure that keeps you picking the lesser evil. Nader is saying, "Break out now and don't go back." OK, maybe we won't "win" this election. But you will win your freedom of thought and peace of mind. And next time a few more people will break out... and so on and so on until there is nothing left to hold up the ugly system. Consider the labor movement. Was joining a union a "viable option" for those people? Hell no. They got the shit kicked out of them and many of them were killed and it took thirty years or more for them to get real public protection. Many people started down that road and never saw the end. Many of those people KNEW they weren't going to see the end in their lifetime (or at least not while they were still on the job). That's not why they did it. > Whatever you think of Gore, I doubt his presidency would have displayed > the imperial contempt for the rest of the world (i.e., anyone not a > wealthy, white Republican) that Bush has. Whatever YOU think of Gore, I have no reason to agree with you. On what do you base this doubt besides your deep contempt for Bush and wishful thinking? I still hold that the legacy -- the lasting effects on law and policy -- of the Bush presidency are functionally identical to those that would have been left by a Gore presidency (leaving aside the possibility that Gore simply didn't try to get elected). > In every respect, Bush's presidency has been an unmitigated disaster. > (Oh, okay: if you *are* a wealthy white Republican, maybe not.) And what would have been different with another DLC Democrat in office? Do you think Clinton would have been any different? The substance of the Patriot Act was proposed by Clinton and rejected by the Republican Congress. Gore supported those actions. In fact, where was Gore for the past four years? Why wasn't he out there criticizing the President for his crazy actions? > It's truly sad if Nader really thinks his run is going to make a > positive difference. I just hope the mood of the country is such that > Bush loses by a large margin. If it's a Bush-Kerry race, it doesn't matter much. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 02:56:08 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: reap On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, John Barrington Jones wrote: > I hope he knows that no one is voting for him. Speak for yourself. I'm not saying I'm voting for the guy... it's too early to tell. But if we're talking Bush, Kerry, or Nader, that decision is easy. > We're too focused on the objective, and four more years is too much to > lose. And what, exactly, is the objective? "Anybody but Bush in 2004"? Recall Matt's email from a month or two ago. They tried that over there in that England place. They got fucked. > As Dan Bern recently put it, "when you go into that booth, and you see a > name on the ballot across from Bush's, and if it looks like the guy is a > mammal, PULL THAT LEVER!" Does that excite you? Does that get you out of bed in the morning? Is that the world you want to live in? Is that the world you want your lovely daughter to live in? Surely we're better than THAT. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 03:09:25 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: reap On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 tanter@tarleton.edu wrote: > I agreed with most of what Nader said this morning, but the problem is > that his party has been dormant since the last election. Nader doesn't have a party. The greens nominated him and he took the nomination, but he's not a party member and never was. The Green Party, near as I can tell, has decided to focus on local issues and local elections until they have more political power. For the record, I'm not a party member, either. > I think it's really disingenuous of him to run for office when his voice > has barely been heard for the last 3 1/2 years. He's a pretty busy guy. He's been out there and speaking out, but unless you're half-comedian, you're not getting ANY media time criticizing the status quo. > Of course he has the right to run, but he should have been preparing for > this and he might have been able to get some real grassroots support, > Dean could have transferred his stuff to Nader.... I mused early on (late last summer, maybe?) that Dean could position himself to pull in BOTH the Democratic and the Green nominations. I thought the Greens might consider it a kind of hard compromise in order to lend some credibility to their campaigns with those who don't think they're ready to "be practical". I think lots of Greens would have been able to at least grudgingly vote for Howard Dean. Hell, I was prepared to do it. But then THIS... I'm stunned. He actually said that he would back whoever the party nominates. That's such a JOKE. He could BEAT whoever the party nominates. He's got the support and even the MONEY to just run now as an independent... but the party's got him hog-tied. To be fair, he took the most hideous media beat-down I've ever seen in my adult life. The mainstream press was only barely allowing him to stay afloat and took every possible shot at the credibility of the campaign. Find a single article or television piece on Howard Dean that didn't mention what a surprise it was for him to be in the lead and how he was unknown to most of the public a year ago -- they were nurturing that doubt until it something happened that would allow them to go hard against him and make it look as though he'd "shown his true colors" or something. I was just in awe at the seemingly choreographed motions of the various news outlets that milked that one excited exclamation until the guy's name was Mud. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 03:28:30 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: reap On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Fortissimo wrote: > THe problem with this point of view ("vote for the best guy" etc.) is > that that's *not what your vote does.* That's only because there are so many people like you and Steve Schiavo and Dan Bern out there who refuse to get with the program and stop telling people to get with the program! All it takes to stop the cycle is for each person to stop participating. Vote for the person you WANT and convince other people to do the same. > In a winner-take-all system like ours, you *cannot cannot cannot* "vote > your conscience" if you want your conscience to have an effect. So, instead, you put your conscience aside and vote for the slower of the two fatal tortures? For what GOOD? > Wishing won't make it so; reform of the voting system will. Uh huh... and how are you reforming the voting system? Certainly not by electing people who benefit from the broken system you've got now. > It's imperative to vote strategically so that your vote actually > furthers the efforts of the person you want it to help No, you've already said you can't do that. > - or at least does *not* further the effort of the one you most want to > hinder. To quote a lecture I once saw, "If you're headed toward Mexico at 100 miles per hour and you want to be in Canada, it doesn't help to slow to 20." Being less bad does not make you more good. > How many people who *might* consider voting for Bush are likely to even > consider voting for Nader? I know, I know - we went through this four > years ago...but that was before we knew how bad Bush was going to be. So the true lasting legacy of the Bush administration will be the final nail in the coffin of any viable third party. You're arguing that the whole Bush fiasco just plain PROVES that you have to vote for a Republican or a Democrat. Fucking fantastic. > Yes, you're correct that both parties are ass-deep in corporate money. > But what Bush has done is way worse than what Gore would have done, what > Clinton did, what Dole would have done...way on back. He makes fucking > *Nixon* look like a raving liberal. CLINTON makes Nixon look like a raving liberal. Are you kidding me? I KNOW Bush has been at the helm while horrible things have happened. But I have absolutely no reason to believe they wouldn't have happened otherwise and you've put forward no compelling argument. Yeah, Bush is bad. His policies are bad. His people are bad. Who is GOOD? Is John "I support the death penalty, NAFTA[1], and oppose gay marriage" Kerry GOOD? > I don't want Arnie for prez either - but he's absolutely correct that > the rule against foreign-born citizens holding Presidential office is > outdated and should be repealed. I think it's perfectly reasonable to > allow that someone who's been a naturalized citizen for X years (not > sure how long) should be eligible to be president. I think the right way to handle these kinds of reforms is to make it impossible for anyone to benefit from their own activism. For example, if we're going to change who can become President, make the change only apply to people born after 1990. That way, the change can't be made to support a particular candidate. This is similar to making pay increases for Congress members only apply after two terms or for incoming members. J. [1] yeah... he's said he thinks there should be some unenforcable side-agreements to make NAFTA appear less bad... BFD.) - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #54 *******************************