From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #57 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, February 24 2004 Volume 13 : Number 057 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: reap (slower of two fatal tortures) [Capuchin ] Re: reap [Capuchin ] Not that this isn't interesting and all, but... ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: reap [FSThomas ] Re: reap (was: Ouch) [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: reap [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: reap [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #56 [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #56 [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: Not that this isn't interesting and all, but... ["Fortissimo" ] Re: reap [Jon Lewis ] Re: reap ["Fortissimo" ] Re: CD MAP: the rest of the story? ["Fortissimo" ] I know what you're asking yourself, punk. Is ketchup a vegetable? [steve] Re: reap (how to count) [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:38:23 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: reap (slower of two fatal tortures) On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Fortissimo wrote: > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 03:28:30 -0800 (PST), "Capuchin" > > 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. > > Actually, that isn't true. Nader, and his voters, would receive no more > representation of their views if he polled 32% (and, say, Kerry 35% and > Bush 33%) than if he polled 2%. Bush, at least, has shown that he cares > not a whit for minority viewpoints. Actually, even if Nader (or any other non D or R) polled even 48%, unless the candidates wins a MAJORITY (>50%) of the electoral votes, then the matter is decided by Congress and the vote essentially ignored. So even if you win, you don't win. > It's a phenomenon worth studying, that people tend to vote less for what > they believe in and more for whom they think is likely to win...even in > primaries, where it shouldn't matter - but our arguing about the hows > and whys of it is unlikely to change that fact. And working with that assumption isn't going to change the fact, either... neither is playing along and doing it yourself. > > So, instead, you put your conscience aside and vote for the slower of > > the two fatal tortures? For what GOOD? > > This is a tactical moment, not an ongoing strategy. It's ALWAYS a tactical moment. At some point, the present must be sacrificed for the future. Make every decision with respect for its impact on the seventh generation, even if it requires skin as thick as the bark of a pine. There's a whole lot of thin skin out there. Suck it up and do the right thing for the good of the future. > > 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." > > But of course, it does: before you can turn around, you have to slow > down. That is, it's time to apply the brakes. Yes, when you apply > brakes, you're still moving in the same direction. The Democrats aren't even proposing brakes... and they certainly aren't talking about taking The Club off the wheel. > But this vehicle cannot turn on a dime (it needs, oh, a billion or so of > them), and so, rather than hold your arms out the open window and > flapping them in an attempt to propel the vehicle the other direction, > you *now* apply the brakes. You can drive a pole into the ground and HANG ON. If enough people hang on, the vehicle could turn, flip, or get torn to pieces... or maybe those hanging on will just get torn to shreds. All worth the risk in order to avoid going off the cliff... even at a crawl. > To further the metaphor: the car is mechanically defective and seems > capable of making only right turns. Three rights make a left... you can still U-turn to the right... lots of ways to go another direction. > We need to fix the car, true - but we can't do that while it's in motion > (i.e., at this juncture, when our real choice is between Bush and > whoever the Dem. nominee is). And this is where your earlier comment about "tactical moments" comes in. The car is ALWAYS in motion. You NEVER get to stop. There's not a good time to pull over and make repairs. It doesn't happen. And, again, nobody is even talking about touching the STEERING WHEEL. > And as I've said many times, the presidential race isn't the right > venue, now, anyway. Local, even statewide, races are. When you've recognized that either of the major party candidates will give you the same effective results, the Presidential race becomes as good a place as any. > To answer your question, the good is that with the slower fatal torture, > there's a greater likelihood that we can get out of it. I see that argument and I think that's how people are really operating... but we're not James Bond. And nobody's going to swoop in and save us, either. The only way to prevent the death is to put someone in charge of the torture chamber who has no interest in using it and WANTS to set people free. > We disagree on the relative degrees of evil represented by the various > candidates. But in describing Dems as the "slower of two fatal > tortures," you're still acknowledging that there is a difference. Naw, I was just saying that IF you believe you're voting for the lesser evil, what's the point? I really don't see a functional difference (merely a rhetorical one). > > 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. > > No matter what we do, someone's going to get elected. That someone, at > this point, is all but certainly either Bush or Kerry (perhaps Edwards, > but doubtful). If that's true, then it doesn't matter who gets any vote at all. It's going to be one of two guys who are going to do essentially the same thing. > Look, I'd vote for Nader in a second if the political reaction were a > huge outpouring of support, with his polling numbers in the 30s or 40s. > But they're not - they're nowhere near that. He simply is not going to > get enough votes to be a factor on his own. Are you out there polling for him? If you got the call today, what would you say? They don't give you the option of answering with a reservation or caveat or something. And you, like probably millions of other Americans, are just waiting for enough other people to make the move to feel safe to make it yourself. You're holding yourself back. How do you get to "numbers in the 30s or 40s" when most of your potential supporters aren't going to poke their heads out until you hae numbers in the 30s or 40s? > > 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. > > What it just plain proves is that the two parties have rigged the voting > system so that no other kind of vote counts. Add that to the fact that the two parties support the same agenda, and you have something sensible. > > 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. > > I agree. Yeah... too bad noobdy listens to us, huh? > You know, as long as we're going to have celebrities as "viable" > political candidates, maybe Tim Robbins or someone should run too. Why > let the right have all the fun? Sheesh... The reason progressive celebrities don't run for office is because they care about the issues and WANT people to know what's going on and participate. The reason conservative celebrities WIN is because they don't really say anything substantial about the issues because they don't care about the outcome of public debate or critical inquiry and let their names carry them to victory. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:20:05 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: reap On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Fortissimo wrote: > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:12:38 -0800 (PST), "Capuchin" > said: > > > Find enough states to counter Florida that had a margin of difference > > between Bush and Gore votes that was less than half of Nader's votes. > > That at least would be SOME reason to suspect a splitter effect. Didn't > > happen. > > >From that link posted earlier: > > In all, there were 15 states decided by less than 6 percent and seven > states decided by less than 3 percent. Every one of these states teeters > on a seesaw, with only the slightest nudge required to send it into one > column or the other. OK... but how many were decided IN GORE'S FAVOR by a margin less than half the Nader vote (and this assumes, probably erroneously of course, that half the Nader voters would have voted for Gore)? > Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida. Al Gore would have been president had > he gotten even 1 percent of those. Uh, no. The fix was in. Florida was rigged and if Nader had a poorer showing and Gore more actual votes, they would have been lost or miscounted or something else. Florida doesn't count. That's why I wrote that you have to find enough states to COUNTER Florida. > In New Hampshire, too, Nader's 22,198 votes dwarfed the 7,211-vote > margin by which Bush won the state. OK... let's take that previous assumption for the moment and say that maybe a third of Nader's voters MIGHT have voted for Gore... you've got 4 electoral votes. You need at least five more to even begin arguing that Nader's voters changed the outcome of the 2000 election for the major parties. > In other states, Gore barely dodged Nader's bullet. Nader got 21,251 in > New Mexico, which Gore squeaked out by 366 votes. Nader got 94,070 votes > in Wisconsin, which Gore won by only 5,708 votes. Nader got 29,374 votes > in Iowa, which Gore won by 4,144. And Nader won 5 percent of the vote in > Oregon, which Gore won by one-half of 1 percent. The point here is that Gore won... so they can't claim Nader stole the election there. So we have a compounded issue. Did Nader's voters "steal the election" from Gore? Well, in order to even begin to answer that, you have to show whether or not the people who actually voted for Nader would have voted for Gore. And then, when you have an answer, you have to determine whether or not that made a functional difference in the direction the state has taken in the past four years. And that all ignores the basic premise that it doesn't fucking matter which head of the hydra won the election, the impact on our lives is exactly the same. Nobody's taken any more substantial a step than simply saying so. Well, saying it don't make it so. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:38:12 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Not that this isn't interesting and all, but... ...did we ever do the Top 40 albums of '90's? And hey, Brian Wilson's in the news, that's always good for a feg-fight. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:26 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: reap (how to count) At 01:20 PM 2/23/2004 -0800, you wrote: >OK... let's take that previous assumption for the moment and say that >maybe a third of Nader's voters MIGHT have voted for Gore... you've got 4 >electoral votes. You need at least five more to even begin arguing that >Nader's voters changed the outcome of the 2000 election for the major >parties. Bush received 271 electoral votes in 2000, and Gore 266. If Gore had won New Hampshire, he would have had 270, and Bush only 267 (because Bush would have then lost New Hampshire). Thus, Gore would have won the election, had Nader not taken votes away from him in New Hampshire. 3 electoral votes would have been enough to turn the tide. Gore, Anyway, for those interested, the Green Party issued a press release yesterday on Nader: http://www.gp.org/press/pr_02_22_04.html "Greens Welcome Ralph Nader to the Presidential Race, Look Forward to Nominating a Green Candidate. 02.22.04 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Greens welcomed Ralph Nader's entry into the presidential race today as an independent, saying that Mr. Nader will take positions and raise issues of vital urgency in the 2004 race for the White House. The Green Party of the United States and its 43 affiliate state parties are preparing to back a Green nominee, not an independent or another party's candidate." I don't think Nader has much of a chance of really spoiling the 2004 election the way he undeniably did in 2000. Most sound-minded liberals are not going to be swayed by his hot-air and over-emphasis on "corporate America" at the expense of other more important issues this time around, and will vote for an infinitely better (less evil) candidate like Kerry or Edwards. And the leftist extremist fringe that wouldn't vote Democrat anyway will likely be split between Nader and whomever the Greens nominate, so I doubt he'll even get 1% of the popular vote. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:39:49 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: reap Capuchin wrote: > Uh, no. The fix was in. Florida was rigged and if Nader had a poorer > showing and Gore more actual votes, they would have been lost or > miscounted or something else. Florida doesn't count. That's why I wrote > that you have to find enough states to COUNTER Florida. The black helicopters will forever circle Jeme's domicile. "The fix was in" sounds as though it had been a planned battlefront six months prior to the election, for Christ's sake. On a completely different note: During the election cycle it is inevitable that Kerry will try to curry the favor of veterans by flaunting his four-month tour in Vietnam. He's already taken a step in that direction by pulling Max Cleland to his side. I just hope that people--specifically veterans and those currently in the service--will remember that the party he's representing is the same one that sent a division of lawyers to Florida during the recount fiasco with the express orders to discount every single absentee ballot they could get their hands on. The vote of the military was feared by Gore, and rightfully so. As it should be by Kerry. Why would he fear the military vote? Because of his voting record since taking office. While I haven't the numbers in front of me, every major initiative, be it weapons systems or intelligence funding and/or initiatives has been shot down by him. On foreign policy issues, and insofar as the military is concerned, he's probably one of the worst choices to come down the pike since Dukakis. Maybe Carter. - -ferris. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:43:17 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: reap (was: Ouch) Jeff sez: >James Dignan wrote: >> just a short apology if I've been grumpy or argumentative >> in the last 24 hours - I managed to injure my foot last >> night (I currently only have four nails on my right >> foot), so if I'm not my usual cheerful self I hope you >> forgive me! > >That's more like "FUCKING SHIT GODDAMNIT MOTHERFUCKING >JESUS MOTHERSHITTING CHRIST SONOFAMOTHERFUCKING DUBYA >FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK" than "ouch" though. you should have heard me 24 hours earlier. It was more like "Owfuckdamn. Caught the side of my foot on that crate. Hope it's not broken. Owfuckfuck. What's that small white thing sticking out of the crate? A toenail. Ohhhhfuck. SHEEEEYITTTFUCKFUCKFUCK." 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: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:46:04 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: reap >And while his father was, Arnold himself isn't really a >Nazi. Shit, for a 21st century Republican, he's fairly >liberal. It's in dispute whether he realizes that the >statements he made yesterday about SF's gay marriages >promoting riots actually spoke ill of conservatives* >though. > >*Since they [well, a small, select group of conservatives] >would be the ones rioting, after all. It's not like the >people getting married or who don't really give a shit >would riot. probably as much so as people failed to realise when Enoch Powell said that allowing uncontrolled immigration to the UK would result in rioting. Everyone labelled it and him as racist, a tag which is still applied to him years after his death (and years after the riots in Brixton, caused by - guess what - racist whites angry about immigrants). 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: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:52:37 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: reap >> You know, as long as we're going to have celebrities as >> "viable" political candidates, maybe Tim Robbins or >> someone should run too. Why let the right have all the >> fun? Sheesh... > >The difference is that the left leaning candidates all >still have careers going. Other than Clint Eastwood -- who >probably is more of a libertarian than Republican >philosophically anyways -- or maybe Fred Thompson, the >rightwing celebrity candidate all run for office once they >aren't able to sustain their "real" career (and yes, I am >including Arnold here; T3 may have done okay, but when was >his last hit before then?). Tim Robbins and Sean Penn and >Michael Stipe et cetera are all still busy satiating their >muses. Which is why the "left" has to settle for Pat >O'Brien or Jerry Springer threatening to run instead. whatever happened to Ed Asner...? 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: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:55:13 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #56 >Most of Cap's arguments are addressed therein. BTW: I still don't >understand why, if we're championing Nader, we weren't championing folks >like Kucinich*, Sharpton, and Moseley Braun, whose positions are *more* >progressive than Nader's, particular on gender-related issues. well done. I splutted coffee over my keyboard. Moseley-Braun must've changed a helluva lot since she was ambassador out here, that's all I can say. She was somewhere to the right of Attilla the Hun back then. 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: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:58:31 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #56 >Senator Edwards ran Kerry a strong second and came bouncing out on >stage, his fabulous bangs (that's "fringe" in British) dancing in the >air like a Charlie's Angels title sequence. Fabulous fringe. Anyone still looking for a band name? 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: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:16:27 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: Not that this isn't interesting and all, but... On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:38:12 -0800, "Rex.Broome" said: > And hey, Brian Wilson's in the news, that's always good for a feg-fight. Dammit - now Brian Wilson's running for President too? "A Sandbox in Every Living Room"? - ------------------------------- ...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: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:03:13 -0500 From: Jon Lewis Subject: Re: burpy burpy reap reap On Monday, February 23, 2004, at 09:34 AM, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > > doesn't mean you ever do jackshit. > >> James (who notes that no-one 'reap'-ed Dubya's dog. 'Twas >> a slow news day in NZ) > > Well, the dog never did his patriotic duty and > "accidentally" cause Dubya to trip and land on his head > while taking the little bastard for a walk, so fuck 'im. > > Let's all raise a pint in honor of that All-American pretzel, though, which did its best for us and came damn close. Jon Lewis (afraid the NSA will read this post) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:37:49 -0500 From: Jon Lewis Subject: Re: reap > Why would he fear the military vote? Because of his voting record > since taking office. While I haven't the numbers in front of me, > every major initiative, be it weapons systems or intelligence funding > and/or initiatives has been shot down by him. On foreign policy > issues, and insofar as the military is concerned, he's probably one of > the worst choices to come down the pike since Dukakis. Maybe Carter. > > -ferris. > Then again, during Bush I, it was CHENEY who fiercely and singlemindedly tried to close half the military bases and weapons systems facilities in the nation... or if not half, at least all those located in congressionally Democratic districts. I wonder if the body military bears any bitterness about that episode? Jon Lewis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:52:26 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: reap On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:20:05 -0800 (PST), "Capuchin" said: > And that all ignores the basic premise that it doesn't fucking matter > which head of the hydra won the election, the impact on our lives is > exactly the same. Nobody's taken any more substantial a step than simply > saying so. Well, saying it don't make it so. Actually, I'd argue the burden of proof's on your end: what evidence do you have to support your position that any of the main Dems would be nearly as bad as Bush? Bush, after all, has a record as president...which none of the Democratic contenders do. It would be impossible to "prove" that Gore wouldn't have done what Bush did, or that Kerry, Edwards, or for that matter Nader wouldn't have done what Bush has done. All we have to go on is their records. And in that area, I'd suggest some clear differences exist between the main Dem. contenders and Bush; specifically: abortion rights and court appointments. Or are you going to argue those don't "fucking matter"? and that they're "exactly the same" regardless? In those areas, at least, there are clear differences, however so corporate the Dems are. - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: "In two thousand years, they'll still be looking for Elvis - :: this is nothing new," said the priest. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:55:48 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: CD MAP: the rest of the story? On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:32:34 -0500, "Roberta Cowan" said: > Hey, does anyone remember the Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price > Antitrust > Litigation settlement issue that was posted on the web a year or so ago? > You > could go online and assert that you were cheated by the music industry > and > deserved a part of the settlement. I received a check in the mail today > for > $13.86! Here's the site w/info on this: - ------------------------------- ...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: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:11:03 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: a quick Nader URL http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/003814.html - - Steve __________ Shortly after becoming Attorney General, John Ashcroft was headed abroad. An advance team showed up at the American embassy in the Hague to check out the digs, saw cats in residence, and got nervous. They were worried there might be a calico cat. No, they were told, no calicos. Visible relief. Their boss, they explained, believes calico cats are signs of the devil. - Andrew Tobias, 11/20/01 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:11:14 -0600 From: steve Subject: I know what you're asking yourself, punk. Is ketchup a vegetable? It seems that Mr. Dingell doesn't agree that fast food preparation should be reclassified as manufacturing - > February 20, 2004 > Dr. Gregory Mankiw > Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers > Executive Office of the President > Washington, DC 20502 > > Dear Dr. Mankiw: > > I noticed in the recently released Economic Report of the President > that there was some consternation in the defining of manufacturing. It > could be inferred from your report that the administration is willing > to recognize drink mixing, hamburger garnishing, French/freedom fry > cooking, and milk shake mixing to be vital components of our > manufacturing sector. > > I am sure the 163,000 factory workers who have lost their jobs in > Michigan will find it heartening to know that a world of opportunity > awaits them in high growth manufacturing careers like spatula > operator, napkin restocking, and lunch tray removal. I do have some > questions of this new policy and I hope you will help me provide > answers for my constituents: > > Will federal student loans and Trade Adjustment Assistance grants be > applied to tuition costs at Burger College? > > Will the administration commit to allowing the Manufacturing Extension > Partnership (MEP) to fund cutting edge burger research such as new > nugget ingredients or keeping the hot and cold sides of burgers > separate until consumption? > > Will special sauce now be counted as a durable good? > > Do you want fries with that? > > Finally, at a speech he gave in Michigan this past September, > Secretary Evans announced the creation of a new Assistant Secretary > for Manufacturing. While I understand that it takes a while to find > the right candidate to fill these positions, I am concerned that five > months after the announcement no Assistant Secretary has yet been > named. I do, however, know of a public official who would be perfect > for the job. He has over thirty years of administrative and media > experience, has a remarkable record of working with diverse > constituencies, and is extraordinarily well qualified to understand > this emerging manufacturing sector: the Hon. Mayor McCheese. > > With every good wish, > > > John D. Dingell > Member of Congress > > > > THIS MAILING WAS PREPARED. PUBLISHED. AND MAILED AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE > > THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS - - Steve __________ "The logic of missile defense is to make the stakes of power projection compatible with the risks of power projection," says Keith B. Payne, a deterrence theory expert and an ardent supporter of missile defense. - Bill Keler, NYT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:52:55 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: reap (how to count) On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > Bush received 271 electoral votes in 2000, and Gore 266. If Gore had > won New Hampshire, he would have had 270, and Bush only 267 (because > Bush would have then lost New Hampshire). Thus, Gore would have won the > election, had Nader not taken votes away from him in New Hampshire. My info said Bush received 278 and Gore 260. I was counting this year's numbers on 2000's states. So IF you can show that a third of New Hampshire Nader voters would have otherwise voted for Gore, you might be able to argue some kind of upset. But I don't think there's anything to it. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #57 *******************************