From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #299 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, October 21 2004 Volume 13 : Number 299 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding) [Ken Weingold ] Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? ["Jason R. Thornton" <] Re: Blame Canada ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: My new crew ["Gene Hopstetter, Jr." ] Re: Blame Canada (well under six degrees) [Rex Broome ] Re: Hogs and Heffers and Bitches and Bastards [2fs ] Re: pre-bitch [Barbara Soutar ] Re: in this neanderthal world [James Dignan ] Re: the bastardisation of the language [James Dignan ] RE: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? ["Marc Alberts" ] Re: pre-reap? [Eb ] Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? [2fs ] Re: mad pop genius? [Eb ] RE: pre-reap? ["Brian Huddell" ] RE: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? ["Marc Alberts" Subject: Re: It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding) On Wed, Oct 20, 2004, Vendren wrote: > I saw Veloso at the Vancouver Jazz Festival about three years ago. He was > brilliant - I strongly recommend people check his live show out if they can. > Most of the show I saw was sung in Brazilian Portuguese, and covered a lot > of his Brazilian hits from the 70s, which was great since that's the stuff I > know best. His one English song was a slow cover of the Beatle's "Help!" Wow, that must have been cool. Good thing that I speak Portuguese, since Caetano did do quite a few songs in Portuguese as well. He made a comment of how songs from Brazil are like secrets from the other South American countries. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:21:19 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? At 08:29 AM 10/20/2004 -0700, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > > If we were do do away with this portion of our > > governmental process that "doesn't make sense," then > > Presidential elections would simply boil down to New > > York, Michigan, Florida, and California elections, with > > the rest of the country falling by the wayside. Live in > > Oregon? Wanna see the Presidential candidates or, God > > forbid, have *anything* on their ticket have next to > > *anything* to do with you? Pack yer bags and move to > > California. > >Whereas now, if you live in California or Texas or New York >-- the three most populace states -- and you want to see a >Presidential candidate (outside of fundraisers), move to >Nevada. > > Christ, the Constitution stipulated that the President > > was to be chosen by the states to begin with--the office > > was *never* intended to be filled by a vote--much less > > one measured by the majority. > >True. And it's time to fix that flaw within the document, >just as we recognized that blacks are whole people rather >that just 60% and that women are people and.... A compromise could be reached between a nationwide majority-win type system, and the desire to make sure each state has adequate representation in the process, without touching the Constitution nor doing away with the electoral college. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a state must award all of its electoral votes to one candidate. Electoral votes could be split among candidates based on regions within the state (with the "Senatorial" votes going to the winner of the state-wide popular election), or split the electoral votes based on the percentages voting for each candidate within a state. Either way, the red-state/blue-state dichotomy would be become much less important, although it would not be completely disregarded. Maine and Nebraska currently award two electoral votes to the statewide winner and one apiece to the winner in each of their congressional districts. Colorado has something on the ballot this election that would, if it passes, split all the electoral votes of the state based on percentages (in this race as well). If all states adopted the potential Colorado system, it would bring the electoral count much closer to the popular count, while still weighing the counts in favor of less populated states. Because of the extra two "Senatorial" electoral votes, the electoral vote percentages would not necessarily match the nationwide voting split - but it would bring it much closer to the "popular vote" than the current manner in which 48 states do it. Even the Maine/Nebraska method would be preferable, in my opinion, although you'd most likely see even worse attempts at gerrymandering as the formation of red and blue districts becomes even more important for the major parties - not only affecting the House but also the Presidential outcome. Republicans would hate to see the Colorado system adopted in Colorado this election, because it will most likely mean Bush will come out with less electoral votes. But, in the end, if it happened nationwide, they'd be more than thrilled to be able to pull electoral votes out of places like California and New York. That said, I'd still favor a nation wide popular count for the one elected nationwide office (well, two-in-one). I don't think it's fair for the votes of people in less-populated states to count more, and the concept of states rather than citizens choosing the president is rather antiquated. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:32:52 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Blame Canada Eb wrote: > > All of camper van beethoven's guitars and violin and our merch got > stolen last night in Montreal Hmm, the Canadian Wind Energy Association's conference is currently going on in Montreal. They're a right dodgy bunch of geezers, and I bet they're behind this somehow. ;-) Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:50:30 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: My new crew > From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." > Subject: My new crew > > BTW, does anybody recall if there were any *female* Oompah-Loompahs? Sorry, my bad. I meant Oompah-Loompah *bitches.* Just trying to keep it on topic, you know. Anybody ever heard Wiseblood's song, "The Fudge Punch"? Now there's a song about sex. NP: a surprisingly good Harry Potter soundtrack ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:00:25 -0700 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: Blame Canada (well under six degrees) > All of camper van beethoven's guitars and violin and our merch got > stolen last night in Montreal. If anybody has any contacts up here, > Tell them to look for our stuff in stores. or hunt down the robbers and > kill them. > > jonathan's violin with stickers all over it > jonathan's 1971 strat (sunburst) (with a couple stickers, etc.) > victor's 1969 precision bass (natural finish) > david's green charvel surfcaster That's a Charvel? Weird. I really loved the look of that guitar when I saw them live, and it's in the booklet photos for the album. I... liked a Charvel guitar? For its AESTHETICS? I am not me. Needless to say, this sucks. >>[PS How is Eszter "Stranger Than Paradise" Balint involved??] I see Mike DuClos is involved as well. Weird story. Back when Robert Quine died, I posted a notice on the Throwing Muses/Hersh board about it, and in the process did a google search to see of there was a Hersh/Quine connection, and there was: Duclos (of whom I'd never heard) had done a homemade record of music and spoken word poetry which heavily featured Quine and had guest vocalists including Balint, Debbie Harry, David Lowery ( hence the CVB connnection) and Kristin Hersh. So I mentioned this in my posting, only to have Kristin's husband/manager reply to me with a note that he didn't know about the record, just that a guy at some gig in Brooklyn had asked Kristin to read his poem over the phone onto his answering machine. Anyway. Keep meaning to comment on the CVB record. It's way better than REM's, taking us right back to 1988 again. Sorry, John Kerry. - -Rex - -- "Maybe baby election twelve who I really am!" - -Miranda Mellbye Broome ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:18:28 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Blame Canada (well under six degrees) On Wed, Oct 20, 2004, Rex Broome wrote: > That's a Charvel? Weird. I really loved the look of that guitar when > I saw them live, and it's in the booklet photos for the album. I... > liked a Charvel guitar? For its AESTHETICS? I am not me. Well if it makes you feel any better, I'm sure that the ones these guys play are totally different than the standard ones you would find in stores. Probably better even than the higher end Jacksons. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:37:24 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Hogs and Heffers and Bitches and Bastards On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:26:44 -0400, The Great Quail wrote: > Owning a motorcycle makes you part of a community; and within that > community, Harley owners form an especially tight sub-group. Since this has turned into that, let me state: I was not attacking bikers generally. I was complaining about the casual use of loaded language (see Quail's cogent explanation below); and because those terms were presented as being casually tossed about among bikers, I was reminded of the obnoxious acting-out I was forced to witness as Milwaukee hosted Harley's 100th anniversary last year. Of course, *most* bikers were perfectly fine - and having been in restaurants and bars at the same time as them, most of them seemed like decent enough people (no fart-huffing contests in five-star restaurants or anything), regardless of whether they choose the "outlaw" look or not. But my observation (and it was an observation, based on what I saw, not on armchair generalization) was that by and large, the bikers conformed to a pretty distinct and restrictive set of gender roles, one in which the language usage I was bitchin' about (oops) probably wouldn't have drawn much comment. Plus, my initial observation - which contained the "Neanderthal" epithet that Greg seems to be taking personally ;) - was phrased as a *question*. It was pretty much a rhetorical question, and I didn't expect any actual answers. But if I were to write it over, I'd say something like "not confirming any stereotypes with that language, are you?" > Terms like "bitch," "pussy," and "bastard" are *innately* gendered, and like > all "loaded" words, have different value states within a broad range of > contexts. Generally they're used negatively; but occasionally they may > connote a kind of admiration, such as, "You amazing bitch!" or "What a > magnificent bastard!" (And of course, "Man, that's a bitchin' Camaro!) Of > course, with "pussy," context is everything, and the difference between "Oh > baby, let me have some of your sweet pussy," "Gotta get me some pussy > tonight," and "Come on, Cletus, don't be such a pussy!" are self-evident. > These days, "bitch" is commonly used to refer to men, whether it's an > effeminate man having a hissy fit, a jailhouse synonym for punk or prag, or > a word charged with hierarchical "ownership," such as "I just *owned* you, > bitch!", which I commonly tell my friend when fragging him in Unreal > Tournament. In all these cases, there is a distinct feminization; in the > first case, the man has characteristics generally associated with women; in > the next, it refers to a certain hard-edged and dehumanizing view of all > women as being "bitches," and serves an obviously psychological purpose of > shoring up one's own sense of maleness; and in the third, it's a term of > affection and friendship, albeit one with sexist roots and simulating a sort > of contempt. > > "Pussy" is similar. When applied to a male, as it usually is, it's > emasculating: "Don't be like a (stereotypical) girl." Obviously it speaks > directly to sexual differences, and is the mirror image of "Have some > balls." > > Personally, I think all these words are useful, and certainly descriptive -- > they speak to an essence of cultural truthfulness. If you've never met a > woman who was a total bitch, or a man who was a complete bastard, or a guy > who was just a big pussy, I'd be very surprised, and guess that for you, > "political correctness" probably trumps your emotional sense of human > appraisal. (And let's face it -- how many times have you called a guy an > "asshole" or a "dick?") This is not to say that all woman are bitches, or > that a gut acting like a pussy isn't really doing the "right" thing, and so > on -- obviously! But I really don't think that its a tenable claim that > these words have no gender values; nor would I hate to see they unfairly > reviled out of a sense of sexual politics. As I said before, context is > everything.... Of course I've met women who were total bitches, guys who were complete bastards (although I don't hear that as being as intrinsically gendered as you describe), although I'm less clear on what people intend when they call a guy a pussy (it seems to be an all-purpose penultimate-step-to-fistfight insult, with no real meaning). And of course the words are useful, in certain contexts. I think I was merely arguing that casually referring to "riding bitch" or a "pussy pad" is unlikely to be those contexts. Linguistically, they're like using a flamethrower to light a cigarette: there might be a certain "truth" in terms of attitudes or roles that are, in fact, typically held...but they flame out so much random offensiveness as to obscure, with damage to bystanders, the simple act of communicating. The other thing is, the whole conversation was about what words are used, and why: James asked what Americans called the pillion doohickey. So when folks suggested terms like those above, I was merely commenting that, yeah, they're used...but they're not exactly neutral terms - and it serves no one to pretend they are. (I seem to recall I signed off one of those early posts by describing myself as "dickbrained": I don't think I was bein' all doctrinaire and politically correct in doing so...) So what shall I do for my next act? (PS: "Shut the fuck up" has already been thought of.) - -- ++Jeff++ The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:31:45 +1300 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: pre-reap? Greg wrote: > >Why do you automatically assume that someone is talking about a > >man when they could equally be talking about a woman? > >I don't. But he wasn't talking about women, he was talking about men, using >a stereotype based on his misconception regarding the bikers at the rally. >That is how I read it. *you assume* he wasn't talking about women as well. > >bastard isn't a sexist term. Women can be bastards too. Men can be > >bitches as well, although that tends to have a more specific sexual > >connotation. > >Regarding these men that you refer to as bitches, what exactly do you mean? I don't tend to use that term about men - it's used more within the gay community than the straight community. >Before I left work today I asked seven different people >individually, 4 women and >3 men, to tell me the first thing that popped into their mind after >I said "that >sorry assed bastard". The first and only thing that entered each of >their minds >was the image of a man, that then usually went hairy, short, fat, >and then mean. so if someone is a sorry-assed bastard it means they're short, fat, and hairy? That's stretching it even for you, Greg. Meanwhile yesterday my SO referred to "that bastard sister of mine". Come to think of it, she is short and hairy, but she's not fat. >Two of the women each had a child and neither had ever been married. >I asked both >if anyone, including themselves had ever referred to their kids as >bastards? Both >understood the association and the social meaning, but both said >that in this day >and age the term bastard is no longer used, at least not in the US to describe >children born out of wedlock, except possibly by extremely >conservative religious >yahoos. The term bastard, at least in these parts is not considered socially >acceptable in describing any child and is no longer used, even in a >legal context. I'd agree with that. I don't see the point you're making. > >later again: > >>When was the last you heard a woman call another woman a bastard, > >>for instance? > > > >Thursday or Friday last week, at a guess. Certainly less than a week ago. > >Could you please quote the phrase as near as possible and explain >the circumstance >in which it was used? My SO's sister, in that case was referring to a comedian she had seen on TV as being "a real funny bastard". > >>And bastard isn't? That is wrong. When was the last time you heard > >>it used in a non-denigrating manner in reference to anything [...]? > > > >you're joking, right? On a regular basis, maybe every couple of days. > >Would you mind giving an example here as well? ??? As I wrote in my sign of last time, you Fegmaniax are a bunch of crazy bastards, and I love you all. One or two of you seem a bit crazier than the rest, mind you... 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: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:43:04 -0400 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Re: pre-bitch Jeff said: "Still don't get all the rhetorical leaping about trying to deny the elementary and obvious point that "bitch" and "pussy" as used to describe or refer to women generally are sexist and obnoxious..." I think most of us were being facetious, at least I was. But truly, the female dog is only unusually aggressive when protecting her puppies. And this is the only thing that makes her any different from a male dog. And how about the word "hymen" having the word men in it. Oh, I get it. Barbara Soutar Victoria, BC ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:39:53 +1300 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: in this neanderthal world >From: Michael R Godwin >Subject: Gender issues in Homo neanderthalensis > >Neanderthal Man (Godley/Creme/Stewart) > >I'm a neanderthal man, you're a neanderthal girl[...] > > >GB #2 7/70 D #4 8/70 >see also Mindbenders .... (Graham Gouldman & Eric Stewart) >10cc .... >Godley & Creme .... >Wax .... (Graham Gouldman) when will the entirety of the Hotlegs collection be released on CD??? Thankfully almost all of G&C's work has just been given a wonderful reissuing with plenty of bonus tracks (not that its washed up on these southern shores yet...) Which came first, this song or the (vaguely similar) Kinks' song "Apeman"? 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: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:52:01 +1300 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: the bastardisation of the language >'Neanderthal Sexist Pigs'. So you were including in this description, women as >well? That would make you the first person I have ever heard >describe any woman as a neanderthal sexist pig. ahh... of course. Greg, I'm sorry. I forgot you lived in Texas. (insert smileys if required) >Your deduction is flawed. Again, when you used the phrase 'neaderthal sexists >pigs', you were not talking about women. it is good to see that you understood what Jeff meant more than he did himself. >2fs wrote: > > > > "Bastard" is not a particularly gendered term. > >but it is a grade of file. I used one yesterday that was stamped with >the brand "Sunflower Bastard". Which might be a good name for a band, or >Robyn's next album. it;'s also a general adjectival term for anything that is out-of-the-ordinary, for instance saying that "she's a bastard of a day" if the weather is very hot, cold, wet, or windy.* >These are all people that belong to a Karnevalsverein in Bergisch Gladbach >(where Heidi Klum hails from!) ... uh-oh... Sebastian said the HK words... James *yes, "she". The colloquial use of bastard in this way almost always makes animate but non-living objects feminine, probably by sextension from "Mother Nature". Sexist? Possibly, but friendlier than referring to them as "it". - -- 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: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:55:43 +1300 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: Tropical Flesh Mandala > > Lying there on the beach... > > > > http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3070756a10,00.html > > >I knew there would be a reason to keep up with this thread, too... > >- -Rex Broome (guitar and vocal, Farewell Spit) There used to be a 2m sunfish hanging on the wall of the local museum, that had been dredged up in Dunedin's harbour. Weird, weird fish. Bright, glistening, and round. I wonder how they got their name... Oh, and if you want a NZ placename for your band, may I suggest: "- -Rex Broome (guitar and vocal, The Doubtful Sound)" 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: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:57:07 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? Chris wrote: > Each state has its own rules, but I get the > impression that most are similar. (This probably dates back to the time > just after the revolution, when most people lived in small towns where > everyone knew everyone else, and documentary proof of ID was rare or > nonexistent anyway. I personally don't think it makes sense anymore; but > then, neither does the Electoral College, and THAT is still law too....) I like the Electoral College--when combined with winner-take-all elections it provides incentive to campaign hard in states that are in the toss-up category. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:38:17 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: pre-reap? On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:31:45 +1300, James Dignan wrote: > Greg wrote: > > > >Why do you automatically assume Hey - has anyone ever noticed that the phrase "you automatically assume..." is pretty much equivalent to "you naturally assume.." - which means that in certain contexts, "natural" and "automatic" are much closer to synonymous than you'd guess, given their otherwise tending toward opposition? It's all cuz English is a bastard language, I tell ya. - -- ++Jeff++ The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:47:35 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: pre-reap? > It's all cuz English is a bastard language, I tell ya. > Are you sure it isn't a pussy language? Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:51:03 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:57:07 -0700, Marc Alberts wrote: > I like the Electoral College--when combined with winner-take-all elections > it provides incentive to campaign hard in states that are in the toss-up > category. I think having the person the populace prefers actually occupying the presidency is rather more important than whether candidates can campaign. The fact is, the Electoral College gives the vote of some guy in Montana far more value than mine. Why? The argument that w/o the EC, those states would go underrepresented doesn't really work: such states still have two senators, regardless of population. But the president is president of all of us - not just of Montana, or Wisconsin. It's not as if, if the interests of Wisconsin differ from those of the nation as a whole, we have a second president who's our president. No, our interests, then, become subordinated to the interests of voters in Montana, Nevada, etc. Cumulatively, that is, fewer people have effective power over the majority. While democracy (or representation) isn't only a matter of majority rules, it surely needs to take that into account. Of course, none of this would be an issue if we had a truly representative, multi-party system, with something like instant run-off voting in elections. That would ensure that people's interests are represented, in something approaching their proportions in the actual population - and I suspect would also diminish corporate sway, if only because to reach and appeal to 51% of the population, you both need more money for access and to blandify your message (rush to the center), or in certain circumstances to appeal to extremes (to get out the hardcore voters). - -- ++Jeff++ The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:25:54 -0500 From: steve Subject: mad pop genius? Lock this man in a studio with Lindsey Buckingham! - - Steve __________ burke banach riot colossus octant ottawa myers humboldt corrosive audrey manatee byway vagina crystal tangy ecology ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:50:18 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: mad pop genius? > Lock this man in a studio with Lindsey Buckingham! > > > > How weird...the proprietor of that website has been a friend of mine for years. Pure coincidence. In fact, I talked to him just yesterday, because he went to the Elvis Costello CD signing up in Hollywood and got a CD signed for me. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:24:14 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: pre-reap? > pussy is a word I like to use in place of the word vagina in > a complimentary manner and almost always in or leading up to > an intimate situation, not as insult So where others might say "darling, yours is a magnificent and highly accomplished vagina", you say something else. Got it! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:41:56 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? Jeff wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:57:07 -0700, Marc Alberts > wrote: > > > I like the Electoral College--when combined with > winner-take-all elections > > it provides incentive to campaign hard in states that are in the toss-up > > category. > > I think having the person the populace prefers actually occupying the > presidency is rather more important than whether candidates can > campaign. Without the campaign, how is the populace supposed to determine who they really prefer? > The fact is, the Electoral College gives the vote of some guy in > Montana far more value than mine. Why? The argument that w/o the EC, > those states would go underrepresented doesn't really work: such > states still have two senators, regardless of population. That is fine to argue from a legislative standpoint, but with the separation of powers in the government, it doesn't address the need for the executive branch to understand what goes on not just in the most populous states but the least populous as well. If you lived in, say, Wyoming, I doubt you would accept an executive branch decision on whether or not to build a nuclear dump site in your town based on second-hand representations through your senators alone in lieu of having the opportunity to lobby (for or) against it first-hand, letting the candidate know that it is a voting issue for you. > But the > president is president of all of us - not just of Montana, or > Wisconsin. On the flip-side, the President is president of all of us, not just California or Ohio as well. > It's not as if, if the interests of Wisconsin differ from > those of the nation as a whole, we have a second president who's our > president. No, our interests, then, become subordinated to the > interests of voters in Montana, Nevada, etc. I would disagree that there is a subordination, since the big states still get more than full representation regardless of whether anyone campaigns there as the sheer population of those states attracts non-electoral visits by candidates both presidential or not. What I will agree with is that there probably isn't a way that an election could be held for President that would perfectly represent each and every voter in the country without abandoning our federal system. > Cumulatively, that is, > fewer people have effective power over the majority. While democracy > (or representation) isn't only a matter of majority rules, it surely > needs to take that into account. If it doesn't, then it cannot be said to be democratic. However, it is important to remember as well that democracy itself is not a value, but rather is arguably the most effective means of ensuring another value (that of personal liberties). This is recognized quite clearly in the Bill of Rights, which does nothing if not place limits on where majority rule can be legitimately used. When you think about it, those nine non-elected members of the Supreme Court have more say on what laws are enforced than any democratic process in the US. That's about as small an oligarchy as I can think of in our system. > Of course, none of this would be an issue if we had a truly > representative, multi-party system, with something like instant > run-off voting in elections. That would ensure that people's interests > are represented, in something approaching their proportions in the > actual population - and I suspect would also diminish corporate sway, > if only because to reach and appeal to 51% of the population, you both > need more money for access and to blandify your message (rush to the > center), or in certain circumstances to appeal to extremes (to get out > the hardcore voters). The two parties we have are both very effective of snarfing up the extremes when they need to and rushing to the center at every opportunity. However, with the advent of government responsibility for the economic welfare of the people, corporate influence cannot be avoided unless the government is going to take 100% control of the economy. Otherwise, the government, in order to accomplish it's economic goals, must enlist private corporations to provide for the needs of the people. After all, if the government wishes a private corporation to do anything even an iota altered from the pure profit motive, they have to provide the alternate motivation and make it a freely chosen alternative. Otherwise, there is no point for an entrepreneur to have a company in the first place, even at the largest levels of corporate structures, because the motivations of those that start successful enterprises (at least on the scale we're dealing with) are based on a desire to succeed on their own terms. So that leaves you with only one alternative to truly reduce corporate sway--leave them alone so they have no reason to interfere with the functioning of government and take your chances that they will do the things that you want (pay taxes, create jobs, treat minorities fairly, etc). Somehow, I don't think the majority of people consider this a viable option, though, so we get left with nothing much more than rhetorical complaints about corporate sway in government. Whew! Marc ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #299 ********************************